Wednesday, 3 October 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 of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority the decision of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of inquiry. 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 Cadman,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Moore,Mr Ruddock and Mr White. 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 Burr,Mr Cadman,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 large 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 Cunningham,Mr Griffiths,Mr Mildren and Mr Peacock. 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 Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Moore,Mr Allan Morris and Mr Ruddock. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Rocher. To the honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery at the rate of 20 per cent is an unfair and unjust burden on this important manufacturing industry and your petitioners therefore pray that confectionery be treated in a similar fashion to all other foods, including snack foods, which are exempt from sales tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Mildren and Mr Rocher. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They remind the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of his statement in the House on March 7, 1984 that 'There is no discrimination evident in any part or aspect of Australia's immigration program.' Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That he reviews the discrimination applying to an application by Mrs Marion Morley of Legana in Tasmania whereby she has sponsored her sister, Mrs Cynthia Westbrook from the U.K., under the provisions of the Family Reunion Program. 2. That he recognises the application upholds eight of the nine Principles underlying the Government's Migration Policy. 3. That he is aware of the sponsored person's financial situation which guarantees no liability on the Australian community. 4. That his Department is aware of thirteen members of the family unit already well established during the previous 20 years in Australia. 5. That he recognises the humanitarian reasons behind these applications, which are now three in number since March 1983, and honours the Government's alleged commitments to Family Reunion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. 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 Dr Charlesworth. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia and in particular the citizens of the Manning Valley, firmly express our strong opposition to the classification of the Taree Open Cadet Unit as a unit to receive limited support only under the restructured Army Cadet Scheme. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Minister for Defence direct the Australian Army to re-classify the Taree Open Cadet Unit as an open, community-based, regional cadet unit (R.C.U.). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That we sincerely believe that the New Commonwealth 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-commercial 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 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 listed 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs ( Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs (Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the 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 imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request 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 Hunt and Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and to launch a ''first strike'' attack. Omega is also used by AWACS, the flying radar stations, and for other military purposes. 2. Omega is an important U.S. military base and a potential nuclear target. A nuclear attack on Omega would have a disastrous effect on Victoria and Melbourne . 3. Omega and other U.S. bases in Australia endanger, rather than protect us. They add a new unnecessary menace to a nuclear arms race that must be stopped. Your petitioners pray that members and the House assembled will close Omega. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the excise applying to beer increases the price of beer; eliminates the opportunity for public or parliamentary debate on a tax increase; perpetuates inflation; reduces job opportunities in the hotel and brewing industries. Your petitioners therefore urge the Government to immediately repeal those laws which automatically increase the excise on beer when the C.P.I. increases. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the ABRD fuel levy when the C.P.I. increases, increases the price of petrol; perpetuates inflation; increases the cost of goods to country people; reduces the living standards of all Australians; short changes motorists, as the extra funds raised are not spent on roads. Your petitioners urge the Government to give Australian motorists a better deal and immediately repeal those laws that automatically increase the price of petrol when the C.P.I. increases. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lusher. 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: 1. The concern for the increasing global crisis 2. The concern for the arms-race and the desire for disarmament 3. The concern for the lack of specialists at a governmental level for non- violent conflict resolution. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establishes a Ministry of Peace. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. 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 totally disapprove of the legislation before the House concerning 'X' classification of video cassettes, etc., and that it will do huge harm not only to the citizens of Australia but to the young and future generations. We the undersigned, therefore, 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 McVeigh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programs, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Mildren. 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 the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully shows: That we, electors of the Commonwealth of Australia, view with extreme concern and express forthwith our complete abhorrence of the relaxation of the former Federal laws concerning censorship classifications to allow publication and importation of hardcore pornography. Therefore we, the undersigned, do fervently request the Federal Government to repeal the ''A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinances'' as they affect publications and videos. 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 the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that . . . 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been 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 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 Rocher. 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 we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society, as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners, and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan, Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective substitute to the Costigan inquiry and this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and extend its terms to at least 31 March 1985 and also provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia and further that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the guidelines for classification of video tapes and discs for sale and hire issued by the Film Censorship Board places no realistic restriction on the sale to adults of explicit hard-core pornography and, coupled with the widespread existence of video playing machines, little or no realistic family control can now be exercised over the likely viewing of explicit hard-core pornography by children and juveniles. Noting that the Parliament refused to disallow regulation permitting these circumstances to occur your petitioners therefore pray that a Joint Parliamentary Select Committee be established with the following terms of reference: (a) Examine the extent to which video tapes and discs containing pornographic and violent material are available; (b) Examine the extent to which children under the age of 18 years obtain access and are exposed to such material; (c) Investigate the effectiveness of legislative controls upon the dissemination of such material; and (d) Examine the likely effects of exposure to such material upon children and emotionally disturbed persons. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully shows: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: (a) We are shocked and disappointed at the Federal Government's decision not to upgrade the Wynyard Airport. (b) This decision will inevitably lead to downgrading and closure of the Wynyard Airport. (c) Closure of Wynyard Airport will cause grave hardship and inconvenience to the people of the North West and West Coast regions of Tasmania. (d) We urge the Federal Government to immediately reverse this disastrous decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the North-West Coast of Tasmania shows: That the local community wish to commend the value of a Christian broadcasting service in this area and therefore request the Minister for Communications or the appropriate Governing agency to grant to Christian FM broadcasters a permanent FM licence to broadcast in the North-West region of Tasmania. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Groom. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. Petitions received. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls upon the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to publicly apologise for deliberately and repeatedly claiming that there had been no change in immigration policy when the Government 's own statistics, tabled in the Parliament, show conclusively that there had been a massive and radical change in Australia's immigration intake since the Government came to power. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that in 1984, Shellharbour Municipal Council, in the Electoral Division of Macarthur, and soon to be in the Electoral Division of Throsby, celebrates 125 years of service to the community; (2) congratulates all associated with local government in the area for providing 125 years of effective local government; (3) congratulates the authors Jim Derbyshire and Dianne Allen and Shellharbour Municipal Council for producing the book ''Land between two rivers''; and (4) wishes the Council and people of Shellharbour a future of continued exemplary local government. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Transport and the honourable member for Grayndler for conspiring to drive a political wedge between the National Party and the Liberal Party over the future of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme; and (2) calls on the Minister to categorically deny rumours that if re-elected his Government will abolish the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme to punish the people of Tasmania for again voting Liberal. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House supports- (1) the Government in any action it may undertake to deregister, or in any way discipline, the Builders Labourers Federation; and (2) any action of the Federal and Victorian governments that will remove the disruptive influence of the Builders Labourers Federation from the industrial scene in Australia. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, for establishing a stable economic climate that has encouraged investment in the building industry. [COGNATE BILLS: INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT (INCOME EQUALIZATION DEPOSITS) BILL 1984 [No. 2] INCOME EQUALIZATION DEPOSITS (INTEREST ADJUSTMENT) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Income Equalization Deposits) Bill 1984 and the Income Equalization Deposits (Interest Adjustment) Bill 1984, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.09) —I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1984: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for- (1) deposits to be deductible in full; (2) interest to be payable on the investment component only of deposits where the investment component is equal to the balance of the deposit as if tax had been payable in the year of deposit at the rate applicable to a producer's average income; and (3) interest to be payable at the rate of 9.5 per cent per annum'. The reason for moving this amendment in regard to the income equalisation deposits scheme is to allow it to be nothing more than a fair and equitable system. It would put primary producers in the position of paying roughly the same amount of tax as taxpayers who are on a stable income. The question is: Why should primary producers be penalised for having fluctuating incomes due to the weather, the vagaries of world markets and so on? If it were not for the combination of tax averaging and the sliding scale of income tax, primary producers would be very much penalised under the present tax system. I think anyone in this House could see this if I give a very simple comparison. If one calculates the amount of tax paid by a person on a fixed income of $10,000 per year and compares that with the tax paid by someone with no income in one year and $20,000 in the next, one sees that without tax averaging the person on a fluctuating income pays a lot more tax. Furthermore, with the income equalisation deposits scheme we get other advantages over and above just having tax averaging. One advantage is that it encourages saving in the better years to cope with the droughts and cyclical downturns that inevitably seem to happen in primary industry. Another reason why the income equalisation deposits scheme should be used and put in the form that the Opposition has proposed is that it does not interfere with market forces. It is extremely important with any commodity, but particularly agricultural commodities, that we do not have any system that enables the market forces to be interfered with. Through the income equalisation deposits scheme we are helping primary producers to smooth out their incomes without interfering with market forces. The other point about the income equalisation deposits scheme as proposed in our amendment is that it would avoid any of the effects that a market stabilisation scheme can have by interfering with market signals. These signals are very important in export commodities, particularly primary industry commodities, and the laws of supply and demand are very much to the fore. Any system that allows those signals to be transmitted back to primary producers is to be welcomed. Of course, as well, the income equalisation deposits scheme is a self-help scheme. Furthermore, there is no compulsion whatsoever. A primary producer can elect to use it any time it suits him. Because it is a voluntary scheme, it is also a much more efficient scheme. It is much more efficient than, say, tariffs or quotas which are often used in secondary industry. What does our amendment in regard to the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1984 [No. 2] really mean? The first part of the amendment states that the deposits are to be deductible in full. This means that any deposit taken from a primary producer's taxable income will be fully tax deductible at the time. That means that in a good year, when a primary producer has a bit to put aside, he or she would be able to put it into an income equalisation deposit for use in a not so good year such as when there is a drought. Obviously this would reduce the taxable income of a primary producer in a higher income year as well as allowing him to put money away for a lean year. Of course, there is another side to the coin. When the deposit is withdrawn in a lean year it is added to any taxable income that year. Therefore it is not a question of avoiding tax; it is a question of deferring it. This makes it fairer because of the fluctuating income of a primary producer. I will read the second part of the amendment, which is quite long, in full. Interest on the equalisation deposit will be payable 'on the investment component only of deposits where the investment component is equal to the balance of the deposit as if tax had been payable in the year of deposit at the rate applicable to a producer's average income'. This means that the portion of the deposit which would have been paid in tax had not the income equalisation deposit been used does not earn interest. To give an example, if a primary producer were paying tax at the rate of 30 per cent, obviously 30 per cent of that deposit would not be able to earn interest. However, the balance of the deposit would earn interest and-this is fairly important-we have suggested that the interest rate should be set at 9.5 per cent. By using this two-part system for the deposit, where only the investment portion of the income equalisation deposit earns interest, it avoids the objection that some members of the Government have had that primary producers in higher tax brackets gain a greater benefit under the previous income equalisation deposits scheme. This system puts all primary producers on an equal footing, so that objection no longer applies. To explain further why the amendment is so important, I should like to point out one thing which the Government has failed to grasp completely. That is that, despite the availability of tax averaging provisions for primary producers, the amount of tax payable on fluctuating incomes can still be greater than the amount of tax paid by someone on a stable income. That is very important. I might add, as a side issue for the Government, that when this income equalisation deposits scheme was first discussed, it was recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission that tax averaging should be available to all taxpayers on fluctuating incomes, not just to primary producers. So it is a quite important point that, despite these tax averaging provisions, primary producers can find themselves in a position in which they are paying more tax than is paid by someone on a stable income who, on average, is earning the same amount. The reason for this is the stepped nature of the income tax scale. To elaborate , if a taxpayer does not utilise the full amount of a tax bracket at a lower rate in one year and the next year the taxpayer pays tax in a higher bracket, that person will pay more tax than will be paid by someone on a stable income. Putting it another way, the distribution of income between years is such that the lower marginal tax rate brackets are not utilised fully before some taxable income is taxed at a higher marginal rate. This can occur despite the effects of averaging. The effect of unused portions is to cause the rate of tax applying to a given total taxable income earned over a number of years to be higher than if the distribution of taxable income had affected the full utilisation of the lower marginal tax rate brackets. In other words, despite the averaging provisions, it is still quite feasible and, in practice, it can happen that someone earning a similar amount of income, through a fluctuating income, to someone on a stable income will pay more tax. To illustrate the effect of tax averaging and, furthermore, the implementation of income equalisation deposits, as we propose in the amendment, as these would apply to a typical farmer's income over a seven-year period, I seek leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, to incorporate some tables in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1 Taxable Income year income $ 1977-78 20,000 1978-79 40,000 1979-80 10,000 1980-81 20,000 1981-82 50,000 1982-83 5,000 1983-84 10,000 Total Income $155,000, an average of $22,143 per year. Table 2 Total taxable income Not less Not more Tax on total than than taxable income $ $ 0 4,595 Nil 4,596 12,500 Nil + 25c for each $1 in excess of $4,595 12,501 19,500 $1,976.25 + 30c for each $1 in excess of $12,500 19,501 28,000 $4,076.25 + 46c for each $1 in excess of $19,500 28,001 35,000 $7,986.25 + 48c for each $1 in excess of $28,000 35,001 and over $11,346.25 + 60c for each $1 in excess of $35,000 NB: This is the scale to apply from 1 November, 1984. Table 3 Deposits Withdrawals $ $ 1977-78 Nil Nil 1978-79 16,000 . . 1979-80 Nil 14,000 1980-81 Nil 2,000 1981-82 26,000 Nil 1982-83 Nil 15,000 1983-84 Nil 11,000 TABLE 4 1977-78 taxable income $20,000; average income $20,000 tax on average income=$4,306.25 average rate of tax=21.53 cent in the $ tax payable on $20,000 under averaging=$4,306.25 under marginal rates=$4,306.25 1978-79 taxable income $40,000; average income $30,000 tax on average income=$8,946.25 average rate of tax=29.82 cent in the $ tax payable on $40,000 under averaging=$11,928.00 under marginal rates=$14,346.25 1979-80 taxable income $10,000; average income $23,333 tax on average income=$5,839.43 average rate of tax=25.03 cent in the $ tax payable on $10,000 under averaging=$2,503.00 under marginal rates=$1,351.25 1980-81 taxable income $20,000; average income $22,500 tax on average income=$5,456.25 average rate of tax=24.25 cent in the $ tax payable on $20,000 under averaging=$4,850.00 under marginal rates=$4,306.25 1981-82 taxable income $50,000; average income $28,000 tax on average income=$7,986.25 average rate of tax=28.52 cent in the $ tax payable on $50,000 under averaging=$14,260.00 under marginal rates=$20,346.25 1982-83 taxable income $5,000; average income $25,000 tax on average income=$6,606.25 average rate of tax=26.43 cent in the $ tax payable on $5,000 under averaging=$1,321.50 under marginal rates=$101.25 1983-84 taxable income $10,000; average income $19,000 tax on average income=$3,926.25 average rate of tax=20.66 cent in the $ tax payable on $10,000 under averaging=$2,066.00 under marginal rates=$1,351.25 TABLE 5 Tax deductible Tax paid Initial Final using taxable Income Deposit taxable averaging Income year income deposit withdrawal income and IEDs $ $ $ $ $ 1977-78 20,000 Nil Nil 20,000 4,306.25 1978-79 40,000 16,000 Nil 24, 000 5,702.40 1979-80 10,000 Nil 14,000 24,000 5,858.40 1980-81 20,000 Nil 2, 000 22,000 5,335.00 1981-82 50,000 26,000 Nil 24,000 5,889.60 1982-83 5,000 Nil 15,000 21,000 5,191.20 1983-84 10,000 Nil 11,000 21,000 5,071.50 TOTAL 37,354.35 Mr HAWKER —I thank the House. These tables have been very kindly prepared by the National Farmers Federation. The first table contains a typical example of a primary producer's income over a seven-year period, showing how it fluctuates by anything from $5,000 to $40,000 in one year. This gives a total income over the period of $155,000, or an average of $22,143 per year. Also, just to put this matter in perspective, the second table points out the new tax rates as they will apply to income earned from 1 November 1984. Furthermore, in calculating the tax payable under the averaging scheme, a simple cumulative average of taxable income is used up until the fifth year, when the five-year moving average is used. This means that under section 151 of the Act the first application of averaging is allowed when, in a minimum period of two years, the taxable income in the first year is not greater than that of the second succeeding year. Section 151 would not stop the case study-that is the one in the tables-because the second year income exceeds that of the first. Table 4 sets out the tax calculations made for a taxpayer with income as listed in table 1. It sets out the position year by year, showing taxable income, the average income, the average rate of tax and the tax payable. The table shows, first, what the tax would be under averaging and, secondly, what would happen under marginal rates if averaging did not apply. Table 4 goes on to show the position in each year. Examples of the effects, with or without averaging, are given. The total tax paid by the taxpayer as outlined in the table is $46,108, just using the marginal rate-in other words, with no averaging. The use of averaging reduces the figure of $46,108 to $41,234. If one contrasts that with a taxpayer earning a stable average income of $22,143 a year, one finds that that person over the seven-year period would have paid only $37,044 in total tax, or $5,292 per year. In the absence of either tax averaging or tax deductible income equalisation deposits, this taxpayer would have paid $9,064 more in tax over the seven-year period than would the taxpayer on a stable income. With tax averaging , this person would still have paid $4,190 more than the pay as you earn taxpayer or the taxpayer on a stable income. The point I was trying to make at the beginning was that, despite tax averaging and its effects on a fluctuating income, a person on a fluctuating income who uses tax averaging can still pay more tax than someone on a stable income-indeed, not only more tax but a significantly larger amount. Mr Andrew —That is unjust. Mr HAWKER —I agree that it is very unjust. If we bring in the figures in table 5 , the effects of using tax deductible income equalisation deposits give the taxpayer the opportunity to smooth his taxable income to approach that of a person on a stable income. Table 5 is an illustration of how this would work. By the use of income equalisation deposits and tax averaging in the form the Opposition proposes in the amendment, the taxpayer in question would pay total tax of $37,354 over that seven-year period, which is now only marginally above the average tax paid by the person who is on a stable income. It can be seen that by the use of tax deductible income equalisation deposits, combined with tax averaging, the taxpayer on a fluctuating income would be on a more equitable footing with the taxpayer who enjoys a stable income. The important point is that we are not suggesting that there should be favoured treatment. We are suggesting only that there should be fair and equitable treatment. We are not asking that primary producers should pay less tax, but are pointing out that under the present system in some cases they are paying more tax. I do not think anyone in this House would agree that that is fair. Bearing in mind that primary producers have to live with fluctuating incomes-sometimes they fluctuate a lot, particularly in droughts of the kind that occurred a couple of years ago-I do not think it unreasonable that the House should be asked to take this amendment on board and incorporate it in the Bill. It is not only a question of having tax averaging, which the Government has agreed to continue; it is also important that we bring in these income equalisation deposits as part of the tax system to put primary producers on a fair and equal footing with other taxpayers. I understand that there have been a couple of objections to this proposal. I briefly point out why I do not think they are valid. The first objection is that a situation could arise whereby a tax benefit could be obtained through the manipulation of deposits and withdrawals to change provisional tax obligations. In other words, someone could use the IED system as we have proposed it to get a tax advantage over someone who could not use it. Senator Walsh stated in 1981 that this problem could be resolved quite easily by excluding income equalisation deposits from provisional tax self-assessment arrangements. So that is no problem. The second objection that has been raised is that there may be some administrative difficulties in calculating the investment component of the deposit. This also can be overcome, in one of two ways. The first is to make the interest payment in arrears when the marginal tax rate is known. In other words, no interest is paid on the deposit until the taxpayer knows what his marginal rate of tax is. The alternative, in getting around this administrative difficulty, is to allow the taxpayer to use self-estimation with scope for adjustments if necessary when the true tax situation is known. I say in conclusion that all this amendment is attempting to do is to achieve tax equity for primary producers, for those who are disadvantaged by the effect of sliding tax scales on fluctuating income. All it is attempting to do is to put those primary producers on an equal footing with taxpayers who are on stable incomes. Mr Andrew —It allows them to be prudent, too. Mr HAWKER —It allows them to be prudent; in fact, it encourages them to be prudent. It has been my pleasure to move this amendment in regard to the Government's new income equalisation deposits proposal to make the income equalisation deposit part of the mechanism to ensure that primary producers pay only their fair share of tax, as compared with taxpayers on stable incomes, and no more. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Before calling for a seconder I inform the honourable member for Wannon that it has been drawn to my attention that the proposed amendment was prepared for the original Bill. In future, I suggest that the honourable member consult the Clerks. Copies can then be made available for other honourable members and the Chair will be in a position to ascertain whether the amendment is in order. Is the amendment seconded? Mr Ewen Cameron —I second the amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.27) —I rise to follow the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) in the cognate debate on the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill 1984 No. 2 , the Income Tax Assessment Amendment ( Income Equalization Deposits) Bill 1984 No. 2 and the Income Equalization Deposits (Interest Adjustment) Bill 1984. I listened to what the honourable member for Wannon said about income fluctuations with respect to primary producers. We on this side of the House are aware of the difficulties that are faced by primary producers. However, I make one observation that needs to be taken on board by some members of the Opposition. This Government is concerned about those who earn incomes that fluctuate very widely. In fact, the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Amendment Bill is designed to reduce those fluctuations. There are those on the other side of the House who place great emphasis on what we call free market economics. We would not want to think that there was a great deal of controversy within the coalition between some who want to remove any fluctuations in the market-I take it from the honourable member for Wannon that in some sense what he was trying to do was to reduce all the fluctuations from the market-and others who are concerned to leave the market free to reign completely. I find that over time there is an inherent contradiction. I know that Opposition members are concerned about that. It is for the agrarian socialists of the National Party and the free market rationalists of the Liberal Party to find the capacity to live together. I listened intently to the honourable member for Wannon, who talked about the need to iron out fluctuations in income. We are aware of that. Our whole approach to wage indexation is designed to do that. The honourable member also needs to understand that there are some on his side of the House who find it very uncomfortable to talk about this degree of agrarian socialism. On the other hand, someone on this side of the House might not. We are also concerned about the situation that primary producers face. One difficulty is increasing cost pressures, and we are cognisant of that difficulty . Cost pressures are brought about by a number of influences, not only wage pressures but also interest rate pressures. In the last 18 months the cost pressures resulting from interest rate movements have been reduced substantially under this Government. In fact, the 90-day and 180-day bill interest rate has decreased by around 5 per cent from the rate under the previous Government. That has brought about a substantial reduction in cost pressures for primary producers. Secondly, wage movements are now more predictable. They certainly have a degree of equity about them because they are linked to the consumer price index. On those two counts the performance of this Government is very much better than the performance of the previous Government, which allowed interest rates to get out of hand. In its last two years in office its wages policy left a little to be desired. It affected rural producers very badly. Clearly, one of the responsibilities of government is to try to provide a stable economic environment. This Bill is designed to provide income stability for primary producers. With other parts of our economic policy, such as interest rate reductions and our wages policy, primary producers are facing a much better economic picture. I have said all that bearing in mind that honourable members opposite might want to talk also about fluctuating overseas prices. We on this side of the House are very much aware of that. We believe there is a collective responsibility in Australia to deal with the difficulties of people who operate in an export market when the domestic market is much more stable. There is no need to take issue on that matter. There is a recognition on both sides of the House that people dealing in a widely varying export market face considerable difficulties. I should have thought that the scheme of tax averaging and income equalisation deposits had application not only in the area of primary production but also in other areas. Members of the House will be aware that tax averaging also applies to some authors. They are able to average their incomes over some years. One area of particular concern to me is tax averaging for sports people. Sports people on professional sport incomes face difficulties. The income they have earned before entering the sporting arena may have been in the order of $8,000 or $10,000 a year. A person may be a very successful professional footballer in Melbourne and may earn an income of $50,000 by signing a contract with one of the successful clubs. After a short period when he has completed his playing period at a very high level of income he may go back to a very much lower level of income. Mr Fisher —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. It seems to me that the honourable member is ranging right away from the income equalisation deposits scheme for primary producers. He is now apologising for the fact that his Government has a different policy on sport. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member is speaking of fluctuating incomes, just as the honourable member for Wannon did. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As I was saying, the whole objective of income equalisation is to provide a tax averaging mechanism. I think the mechanisms that are contained in this legislation have application not only to primary producers but also elsewhere. I would think, talking again about the primary producers as well as professional sports people, we can make a very strong case for saying that, if this mechanism is effective-the evidence is that it is effective-we ought to be looking at it elsewhere. As I was saying, I believe that that mechanism should be applied. In fact the honourable member for Wannon said that he thought tax averaging would have application in other occupational areas. I am endorsing that. I thank the Chair for that ruling. I believe that there has to be considerable application in respect of occupational activity. There is a very high fluctuation in the income that one earns on becoming a professional footballer, the income that one earns in the time one is a professional footballer and the income that one earns at the end. In fact people pay very high marginal tax rates in those years in which they are engaged in professional football or other professional sports. Clearly, tax averaging has application in other occupational areas. One of the things this legislation is designed to do is to try to tie the return on those deposits to an interest rate that is more attractive than that offered to the general public by Commonwealth securities. Let me refer to what the honourable member for Wannon said about the degree of equity and fairness. If one is earning a rate of interest on deposits which is higher than that available to the general public it is very difficult to say that that is not a fair and equitable arrangement taking into account the interest rates being earned on Commonwealth securities. In fact, one recognises that interest rates have fallen since we have been in government. That is a good thing. But at the same time, as far as this mechanism is concerned, the interest rate being offered to people who take out these deposits is higher than that available to the general public. I say again that we should remember that we have to recognise that some industries have fluctuations in their performance. So, of course, does the building industry. There are enormous fluctuations in the performance of that industry. But at the same time we on this side of the House are not saying that we want to remove completely fluctuations from income. I take it that the honourable member for Wannon was speaking as if that was a goal. Clearly, that would not rest very well with the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) who is much more of a free market rationalist. In conclusion, in endorsing this legislation before the House, I believe it provides an effective mechanism. I have acknowledged that I believe the comments of the honourable member for Wannon have been listened to by members on this side of the House. In terms of the degree of fairness and equity, as far as wage fluctuations and interest rate fluctuations are concerned under this Government, primary producers, as well as producers generally, have had a better deal. To take up the point of the honourable member for Wannon, I believe that we can look seriously at applying the whole question of tax averaging to other occupations. The occupation that I am concerned to see it applied to at the moment is that of professional football in Australia. Such people clearly face a great degree of inequity. One would then look perhaps at applying that model to other professional sports, such as cricket and so on, where currently contrived tax shelters have been arranged by people in the market who call themselves tax consultants. We think it would make more sense, in terms of government policy, to arrange a scheme of tax averaging for those with fluctuating incomes in other occupational areas, not simply for primary producers. To take the honourable member's term of equity, that would be applying equity more reasonably across the community, not just to primary producers. Mr EWEN CAMERON(Indi)(10.39) —I would like strongly to support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). The income equalisation deposits scheme was introduced by the Fraser Government in 1976 as part of a package involving provisions for tax averaging and the establishment of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. The aims of the package were to provide incentives for primary producers, to avoid fluctuation of income and to try to ensure income tax equality with other members of the business community. One of the basic elements in the income equalisation deposits scheme, as introduced by the Fraser Government, was that money deposited by primary producers in a good financial year does not attract tax in that year. They can draw on this money in a bad financial year and pay tax on it at that time. It is obvious to any thinking person that this incentive provides much needed encouragement for a farmer to put money away in the form of an investment to provide for lean years, paying tax at the time of withdrawal. The income equalisation deposit was intended to minimise the need for governments to provide massive financial assistance to primary industry during times of drought , flood or other natural disasters. In other words, it is a self-help scheme with an incentive to encourage participation. It is a good example of the Opposition's philosophy of encouraging people to help themselves and, as such, will be re-established in full when it is re-elected to government in a few weeks time. I quote from the coalition's primary industry policy: We will re-establish income equalisation deposits as an effective means of equalising variable incomes, with tax being paid in the year of withdrawal only. We will apply appropriate safeguards to prevent any anomalies or abuse. The facts of the matter are that farm incomes are heavily dependent on the weather, home and export market demand and many other factors which are out of the control of the primary producer. The disastrous drought which gripped Australia prior to last year's good season affected the whole economy in this country. It greatly increased unemployment and it decreased income and employment opportunities. The breaking of the drought last year led to the current economic recovery and has enabled the Government to produce a Budget which, despite its superficiality, has introduced tax concessions and led to a certain amount of popularity within the electorate. The Hawke Government has paid little heed to the major role played by the rural sector in the present economic recovery. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the Government has also ignored the substantial benefit to government and taxpayers provided by the income equalisation deposits scheme. It would seem that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) and other members of this Government cannot comprehend that farm incomes can swing violently from a loss situation to a reasonable level from one year to the next. Under the legislation we are now debating, the primary producer will, in a good financial year, be faced with paying his income tax and his provisional tax and after providing for normal living and operating expenses will have little or nothing left to deposit in the IED scheme for the lean times which will surely follow. This emphasises the importance of the taxation provision in the Opposition amendment. It is the taxation concession which made the IED scheme so attractive to the primary producer. The legislation which is presently before the House reduces the scheme to nothing more than an alternative form of investing in government securities. The deposits become no more than ordinary savings bank deposits. Earlier this year this legislation failed to be passed by the Senate and the Government reduced the interest rate applying to IEDs to 7.5 per cent per annum for deposits lodged since 1 September 1983 and to 5.5 per cent for deposits made before that date. A Commonwealth Savings Bank passbook deposit earns 6 per cent on deposits over $4, 000 and a building society passbook account earns 8 per cent interest. Is it any wonder that the amount of money deposited under the IED scheme has dropped dramatically from a level of $160m in May this year to the current level of $3m? It is quite obvious why the rural sector has come to realise that the scheme proposed by the present Government is virtually useless. Australian primary industry leaders have, on many occasions since the initial introduction of this legislation, attempted to express the point of view of their members to this Government. The Victorian Farmers and Graziers Association and the National Farmers Federation have strongly pressed for the adoption of the second part of the amendment as moved by the honourable member for Wannon. This would provide that interest be payable only on the investment component of the IED. This means the tax would be deducted from the deposit prior to assessing interest. The amendment would remove the possibility of the scheme being used for tax avoidance and ensure that its benefits would be available to all primary producers. The National Farmers Federation recently placed a submission before the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). This submission states: The increased tax payments which may arise when taxable income varies from year to year under a progressive tax rate schedule are widely known. It is also widely acknowledged that there is a need for tax averaging measures to avoid these increased tax payments in order to improve the equity of the tax system. The decision in 1983 by the Government to revert to the previous tax averaging scheme and to remove the ability of Income Equalisation Deposits to achieve greater tax equity has raised once again certain problems. One such problem is that the amount of tax payable under tax averaging arrangements can still be higher for individuals with fluctuating incomes than for individuals with stable incomes. The submission goes on to develop the argument by citing a case study which clearly demonstrates that tax averaging alone is not sufficient to bring farmers ' tax contributions into line with taxation payments contributed by the pay as you earn taxpayer. However, with the use of averaging and IEDs the outcome is far more equitable. It must be recognised that agriculture has provided Australia's economic base and is still our largest export earner. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has forecast that aggregate farm income will fall by 30 per cent in 1984-85 and that costs will rise by 7 per cent over the same period. World commodity prices are falling and, with the high subsidies currently being paid by the European Economic Community and New Zealand for farm produce, the primary producer in Australia looks like facing a fairly lean period, even without the vagaries of the weather. It would seem to me to be of the utmost importance that we encourage and assist our primary producers so that Australia is in a strong position to benefit from any rise in world prices and demand. The National Farmers Federation states that over 50 per cent of primary producers have taxable incomes between $4,000 and $19,000 per annum. Under the new Hawke Government tax scales which come into effect from 1 November, this is the income range most affected. It has been suggested by some people that tax benefits would possibly be obtained through the manipulation of deposits and withdrawals to change provisional tax self-assessment arrangements. This could surely be solved by excluding income equalisation deposits from these assessments. Any difficulty in calculating the investment component of income equalisation deposits could be overcome by making the interest payment in arrears when the average rate of tax is known or by using a self-estimation process with provision for adjustment when the true taxation situation is known. Recent reports of a large plague of locusts, even larger than that experienced in 1953-55, are most alarming. I remind the House that, if the plague turns out to be as devastating as predicted, this will be a typical example of a situation where the withdrawal of IEDs could financially assist the primary producer. With the enormous drop in the current deposit level due to the Government's proposed withdrawal of the taxation advantage more and more farmers will rely on government financial assistance to recover from such a natural disaster as I have described. One of the major problems arising out of this legislation is that the family farmers are the most vulnerable. These are the people for whom the original scheme was formulated, who are in a position to benefit from the tax advantage and who will be most disadvantaged by the present Government's proposal. It is these people who need incentive to retain some of their income in a good year, otherwise the money is just paid out in tax and they have nothing to fall back on when times are bad. In bad times they have to be assisted by the government of the day. Failing this, many have to sell their properties. The Opposition feels that it is of the utmost importance that family farmers be encouraged, not discouraged, to stay on the land. I commend the amendment to the House. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.50) —Speaking to these income equalisation deposits Bills affords me an opportunity to refer to the old system of income equalisation deposits and the manner in which they have now been gutted to become nothing but an investment with doubtful benefits. I mention that because there is no suggestion that the former income equalisation deposits would ever have been an investment. The suggestion was that it was to be an income equalisation deposit to assist primary producers from one season to another, from one market to another and with all the vagaries that attend seasons, markets and prices. In fact, I believe that it was the major and most popular initiative that the Fraser Government introduced to assist primary producers. Why was it a major initiative? It was a major initiative because it allowed the tens of thousands of primary producers across Australia not to have to rely on governments for an overall industry stabilisation or underwriting scheme. It was a scheme which each producer could tailor to his or her own needs, knowing his or her own requirements, and then provide for them through the income equalisation deposits. Whilst it was not recognised by a large number of people throughout Australia, I believe it could have grown into the recognised program for primary producers in Australia. We have already heard from members of the Opposition about what the scheme was intended to be and what the National Farmers Federation said about it in its submission. I promoted the scheme and encouraged it throughout my electorate, particularly in the sugar industry. If there was a weakness in it, it was that people outside the industry, and even some within it, did not realise or appreciate what the income equalisation deposits scheme was supposed to do. In fact, I have argued with industry economists, those people who sit in the comfort of Queen Street, Pitt Street or whatever street it is in Melbourne and advise their industries out in the country what they should do. Seldom do any of these people stop looking at the scheme as an investment. They do not see it as equalisation and put themselves into the shoes of the producer who cannot escape tax in a good year but who then finds himself with no available benefit in years of low income. When the old averaging scheme was introduced there were substantial taxation benefits. I am not denying that. But one must also appreciate that when a deposit was redeemed it became taxable and fell into the tax system in that way. While the figures might show that, because of fluctuations of seasons, prices and profits, there was a loss to the Government in that regard, the loss was made up more than sufficiently by the low rate of interest that the investment then attracted, because it was pitched, I believe, at a level to give a reasonable return on the after-tax portion of the deposit. Again, that was not generally appreciated. Some years after the income equalisation deposits scheme was introduced I was speaking to a farmer outside Mackay. He really started ripping the socks off me because he was pointing out the problem that in years of high income the only way in which he could relieve his situation was to put the money into something permanent on the farm by buying a piece of machinery or getting his maintenance up to date. He said: 'We want some relief in those high income years whereby we do not pay tax on certain amounts'. I said: 'You already have it'. This was two or three years after the implementation of the scheme. There has never been any real encouragement by industry people around Australia or by bankers, who saw it as a challenge to their form of investment. They used to say that they could always improve the rate of interest and return. They, too, looked at an IED as an investment. I believe that the best point of the original IED was that there was a discipline on the person participating in income equalisation deposits to maintain his money in the deposit until it was needed. He knew that if he were to take it out to buy a luxury item such as a beach house or a boat he would pay the penalty of increasing his taxation liability, not decrease it. That was a very necessary discipline that made IEDs work. People maintained their funds in IEDs until the low prices came. I am very familiar with an industry that has had violent fluctuations in income . That is the sugar industry. There have been peak years, but I know and the people in the industry know that for every peak year there will be a trough. It is a trough that they are going through now. It is a trough that is being better navigated by those who invested in IEDs under the old scheme in the years of plenty than by those who did not. In fact, in any region or district one can find the contented farmer who is bringing these deposits out gradually, doing quite well on them, equalising his income, as against those people who put their surplus profits into something that they could not sell back to maintain their financial situation. That is the vital factor that is missing in the new legislation that is before us. I want to speak particularly about that. IEDs, in their time, provided a tremendous amount of money to the Primary Industry Bank. That money in turn has flowed back to benefit people right across the rural sector. So there was also that compensating benefit. The House now has before it a piece of Government legislation which has been returned from the Senate because of its non-acceptance of the legislation without the amendment which has now been moved by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). We will persevere with that amendment. I hope that the Senate sees fit to accept it before upholding this legislation. It is not a Budget Bill; it is a Bill which defines a form of deposit and it will have no Budget consequences at all. As I understand it, the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) indicated that the benefits were marginal, which indicates to me that there will be no effect on the Budget. I wish to look at some of the promises made by members of the Australian Labor Party in opposition, coming up to the 3 March election. They referred particularly to some of these aspects. They said that farmers could rest assured -I think that was the phraseology-that the Labor Party would make no great imposition on them. We can deal with that later. Another promise was to utilise a range of tax rebates to encourage producers to protect themselves against drought. Surely IEDs constituted one of these measures. That was a promise by the Labor Party. No indication was given that the averaging scheme would be changed. More than that, the Labor members said that IEDs would be maintained. When a promise such as that is given, one would assume that the IED scheme would be maintained in its present form. All of these promises were made to the rural sector, amongst others, to get its vote at that time. What have the primary producers faced in regard to those promises alone? The Government has actually gutted the income equalisation deposits scheme. It has turned IEDs into an investment of doubtful quality. There is no suggestion of any equalisation whatsoever in the scheme with the tax benefit removed. That was one promise. The promise was that the averaging formula would not be touched. I am not disputing the fact that the formula might have been too generous before. In fact, it was so generous at that stage that the IED itself became a device other than a tax advantage, which meant that it was more in its proper context of being an equalisation deposit. But the formula was changed. We find that primary producers throughout Australia are the only people who do not have the benefit of a tax zero ceiling of $4,595. Why is this? A producer who has had a high income in the previous four years may settle on an income between zero and $4,595, and be assessed on the average, which is above that figure. I believe that is a blatant injustice to the primary producers of Australia. It has been mentioned to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and I think to the Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer, who is at the table. But they have said: 'No, this is the complete answer to a complete averaging concept'. It is marvellous that they are prepared to talk about equality when denying a primary producer the basic rights of any other taxpayer in Australia by taxing him on an income of under $4,595, yet they give so much assistance in other industries. Among the reasons for the change given in the second reading speech was that the change was necessary to counter tax avoidance. As far as I am concerned that is a lot of bunkum. If the Government wants to go through the taxation legislation and take out all the tax avoidance measures it can do so but it should not selectively take out IEDs and other provisions for primary producers and label them as tax avoidance devices. The IED scheme was, as I mentioned before, a self-stabilisation plan tailored to individual requirements. How could that in itself be a tax avoidance device? If other industries run into bad seasonal conditions or bad markets they can use any tax measure that is available. But, more than that, the Government is normally called upon in these situations to give subsidies or tariff protection to southern people, people within the cities. Basically, this is what this Government has done. While removing such a simple device, with no taxation benefits or disadvantages, as mentioned by the Treasurer, it can still afford to prop up those inefficient industries that surround the cities. I mention the steel industry and the car manufacturing industry as two of these. One can only be led to the conclusion that this is a government for the cities and not for rural people. I have mentioned just some of the measures to assist primary producers that have been removed by the Labor Government. We also have to realise that wheat Bills are before the House at the moment. I understand that the new wheat legislation really guts the old legislation. By standover tactics, by blackmail, the Labor Government has entirely neglected the problems of sugar, which are massive at the moment. It gave indications that it would assist that industry and it has turned its back on it. By its meat inspection charges it has robbed the meat producers of Australia, who are trying to produce for overseas markets against foreign competition. Certainly, I believe that there was justice in giving primary producers advantages in the form of IEDs and tax averaging. It is not avoidance. As I mentioned before, it is all very well and good for this Government, through its Ministers, to say that the change has been made to counter avoidance, yet it gives protection to other industries and is prepared to give automatic pay rises to employees right around Australia. We know that this is a government which is dictated to by unions. The facts stand out very clearly. Let us look at the other reason given by the Government for the change. It said that IEDs were advantaging high income earners. First of all, it used the excuse that only 6 per cent of primary producers throughout Australia availed themselves of IEDs. Again, the Government did not look at the facts. Australia was going through a massive drought and incomes in some industries were insufficient to enable people to live during the year, let alone put some aside for deposits. Let us look at the figures that this 6 per cent represents. I have in front of me charts relating to deposits in the three years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. I could not get more recent figures. These charts show the situation as it applied to those on incomes under $26,000. I do not believe that a person on an income under $26,000 can be described as a high income earner. After all, parliamentarians are on $40,000 a year or more, and I would not say that they work longer hours or more productively than primary producers. With the average weekly income at between $400 and $500 a week, I believe everybody here would admit that $26,000 a year is not a high income. These charts for the period from 1979-80 to 1981-82 indicate that 91.8 per cent of primary producers who used the deposits had incomes of under $26,000 per annum. In 1980-81, 90 per cent of the primary producers who used them were earning under $26,000 and in 1981-82 some 89.1 per cent used them. It is utter rubbish to suggest that the advantages of this scheme were for high income earners. Let us look at the percentage of incomes deposited from those producers with incomes under $26,000. In 1979-80 the deposit figure was 59.7 per cent; in 1980- 81 the figure was 58.6 per cent, and in 1981-82 it was 56.2 per cent. In all cases a majority-close to 60 per cent-of income was deposited. On those figures one can hardly see an abuse of the scheme by high income people taking advantage of it and using it as a means of tax avoidance. I believe, as is the case with so much legislation, that it was dictated by city interests and not rural interests. I would like to know the position of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in this regard. The second reading speech of the Minister suggests that this new scheme will encourage primary producers to deposit money. I have some figures which show that since the announcement of the new deposit system-since September 1983-$1m has been put into scheme B, the scheme available to non-primary producers, and the amount deposited by the scheme A people, the primary producers, is $5m-this at a time when the main IEDs have shrunk from $146m to $120m, a reduction of $ 27m. How can the Government claim that this measure will encourage people to deposit money? Some $20m has been withdrawn from this scheme for very obvious reasons. People have been blackmailed to get out of it under threat of reduced interest rates. The scheme has attracted only $5m worth of deposits from primary producers. Again the Minister has misled the House. He says that the scheme is aimed at encouraging primary producers to deposit money. If that is the only reason, I suggest that he go back to square one, where our amendment will take him, and leave the scheme as it is. The new scheme offers no encouragement to primary producers to make deposits. Another aspect is the statement that there will be no taxation consequences. This overlooks entirely the fact that the money invested in the income equalisation deposits scheme will bear interest just as any other investment does. It will still be a wasting asset when one takes into account the consumer price index adjustments and the tax on the interest received. The income equalisation deposit will be flat out maintaining a real level, even if the interest is reinvested. I believe that the Senate initially acted correctly in refusing to accept the amendments to the IEDs without the further amendment that has been introduced by the Opposition at this stage. The first part of the amendment calls for the deposits to be deductible in full for taxation purposes, as they were before, provided the primary producer maintains the percentage. The second part calls for interest to be paid on the investment component only of deposits, as was the case before with a lower interest rate overall. The third part of the amendment asks that initially the interest be payable at the rate of 9.5 per cent per annum. I agree wholeheartedly with the attitude of the Opposition in seeking to amend this legislation. We have seen the Labor Party in so many ways legislate to the detriment of primary producers around Australia. Mr Robert Brown —Rubbish! Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is not rubbish; that is absolutely true. The honourable member comes from a grape growing area, and the Labor Party has insisted on a 10 per cent sales tax on the product. I think it would be better if the honourable member did not speak at all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HURFORD(Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(11.9) —In closing the debate I thank all honourable members who have taken part. To summarise the debate as I see it, one would have to say that the Opposition agrees with the Government that the old income equalisation deposits scheme was defective and needed to be changed. At least we should be thankful for small mercies that it has gone as far as that. I will not go through all the defects because they have already been outlined by others who have made contributions to this debate. One thing we can agree on is that something needs to be substituted for the old IED scheme. The Government's scheme of paying handsome interest rates to all eligible producers overcomes these defects. For most farmers the new scheme, on analysis, will give them greater benefits than the old tax-based ones. I repeat that it is only the higher income group farmers who would receive a greater benefit under the old tax-based scheme than they will under the one the Government has substituted. On the other hand, the Opposition wants to retain a tax-based scheme-albeit a different one-with interest paid on the net after-tax value of a deposit; that is, after deducting the tax saved by the tax deduction allowed on making the deposit. In short, such a measure would be simply unworkable. We must look at the administrative arrangements necessary for a scheme such as the one proposed by the Opposition and we must take the advice of the experts. What the Opposition is putting forward is simply unworkable because of interest delays, timing differences and other practical aspects relating to the fact that the interest rate could not be determined until assessments were finalised. Apart from the administrative difficulties, depositors would be unsure of amounts of investment which attract interest. The effective yield would be difficult for depositors to determine. If the interest were paid late and after the assessment , this would be inequitable. No interest would be payable for the earlier period of the investment and there would be delays varying as between different investors. If the interest were paid on an interim basis under the Opposition's scheme, the readjustment would greatly complicate the system. In other words, the Opposition is fooling us by suggesting that it has a system to put before this House and this nation. I repeat that it is putting up something which is totally unworkable. The Government cannot accept the Opposition's scheme because it is not a practical one. No such defects exist in the Government's scheme, as set out in the legislation before the House. If the Opposition fails to pass the new scheme in the Senate we will be left with the old arrangements. If there is one thing to be said about the old arrangements, as I said at the beginning of my contribution, it is that we all agree that they are bad and should be changed. I trust that the Opposition in the Senate will come to its senses and pass these Bills as proposed by the Government. They will be of enormous benefit to the greatest number of farmers. In the light of what I have said, there is no way in the world that the Government can accept the Opposition's amendment to the second reading of the Bill. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 1, clause 2, line 11, leave out ''1984'', insert ''1985''. No. 2-Page 1, clause 2, lines 12 and 13, leave out ''be deemed to have come into operation on 1 January 1984'', insert ''come into operation on 1 January 1985''. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.18) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Australian National University Amendment Bill and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill were introduced in the autumn session but did not secure passage. Because of the lapse of time, some minor amendments to the Bills are necessary, mainly involving the timing of effect. There are no policy changes proposed in the Bills. The main purpose of the Bills is to remove restrictions imposed by the Fraser Government on the funding of student organisations. The Bills also seek other amendments to these Acts requested by these institutions. In respect of the ANU Bill, there are two amendments. First, the removal of the annual appropriation of $650,000 to the ANU will take effect from 1 July 1985 in place of 1 July 1984. Secondly, the removal of the restrictions on the funding of student organisations will no longer be retrospective to January 1984, but will operate from 1 January 1985. The ANU requested this change. This removes the objections which were taken by the Australian Democrats to retrospectivity. In respect of the Canberra CAE Bill, there are four amendments relating to timing. As for the ANU Bill, the removal of restrictions on the funding of student organisations will also take effect from 1 January 1985 in place of 1 January 1984. The intention is to bring dates for the election of non-teaching staff, student representatives, alumni representatives and academic staff representatives to Council into line on a common date-27 September. Amendments Nos 2, 3 and 4 cover the mechanisms of phasing in this arrangement having regard to the likely date of effect of the Bill and, secondly, cover election of non- teaching staff to Council. This similarly covers the timing of the election of student representatives, and similarly covers the timing of the election of an alumni representative to Council. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.21) —The Opposition has no objection to the amendments. We are a little disappointed that the amendments proposed by my colleague the honourable member for Farrer, Mr Fife, when this Bill was previously discussed were not carried in this place or in the Senate. Those amendments related to the need, as we saw it, for an element of voluntarism in the question of the payment of fees and membership of student organisations. As a matter of principle, we still see that objective as being desirable. However, the matter has lost some force as a result of the change in circumstances that has occurred over time, particularly during the last year. The nature of student organisations is in the process of change, and some of the expenditures in which student organisations were prepared to engage previously are now no longer likely to be expenditures which will occasion as much hostility from students who are being asked to see their funds used for certain purposes. The Australian Union of Students, as an organisation, and one to which are related the clauses that the Government desires to delete from the relevant Bills, is undergoing very considerable change. There are efforts to form new student organisations which may well be far more responsive to student needs in time. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that funds which may have been sought to be paid retrospectively to January 1984 should not now be paid but, rather, that the ability of the university to develop a new policy for membership of student organisations and arrangements for the collection of fees in relation to those organisations will now come into effect from 1 January 1985 . The Australian National University has been considering the approach that will be taken when these provisions have been repealed, but certainly the removal of any element of retrospectivity should ensure that we shall not be looking back over our shoulders and seeing funds collected from students being used to pay for membership of an organisation which was proscribed in earlier years. To the extent that the element of retrospectivity is removed by these amendments, the Opposition commends the legislation. To the extent that the other dates have been amended to take into account the progress of this legislation through the Parliament, the Opposition has no objection to the proposed amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Consideration resumed from 13 September. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 1, clause 2, lines 11 and 12, leave out ''be deemed to have come into operation on 1 January 1984'', insert ''come into operation on 1 January 1985''. No. 2-Page 3, clause 7, lines 2 and 3, leave out ''commencement of this section '', insert ''election of that non-teaching staff member''. No. 3-Page 3, clause 8, lines 28 and 29, leave out ''26 September 1985'', insert ''the 26 September in the calendar year next following the calendar year in which those elections were held''. No. 4-Page 3, clause 9, lines 38 and 39, leave out ''date of commencement of this section'', insert ''election of that graduate member''. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.25) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. I have already explained the reasons for these amendments. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.25) —For the reasons outlined earlier, the Opposition has no objection to these amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. [COGNATE BILL: HOUSING ASSISTANCE BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Housing Assistance Bill 1984, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is there any objection? As there is none, I shall allow that course to be followed. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(11.27) —As the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford ) has pointed out, the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1984 and the Housing Assistance Bill 1984 are associated measures. The States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill seeks to obtain the approval of Parliament for the payment in 1984-85 of interest free capital grants to the States of $521,500,000 as part of the 1984-85 States' Loan Council programs, and amounts States may nominate from their 1984-85 Loan Council programs, and the Northern Territory from its equivalent general purpose capital advances, as being for the purpose of public housing and payable under the concessional loan terms and conditions of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement in accordance with arrangements approved at the June 1984 Loan Council meeting. The Housing Assistance Bill seeks to authorise the execution of agreements between the Commonwealth and the States, including the Northern Territory, relating to the provision of financial assistance for public housing throughout Australia. The grants for State works under the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill are being made in accordance with arrangements originally agreed at the June 1970 Premiers Conference, as part of revenue assistance arrangements under which the Commonwealth Government provides a portion of the States' Loan Council programs as capital grants in lieu of loan raisings. The purpose of the capital grants is to relieve the States of debt charges they would otherwise have to pay and thus free funds for other purposes. This procedure has been followed by successive governments and the Opposition is pleased to note that on this occasion the Government, certainly for 1984-85, is following this procedure. Grants amounting to $521,500,000, equal to one-third of the approved Loan Council programs for the States in 1984-85, were agreed to at the 21 June 1984 Loan Council meeting. The Bill also authorises the payment of capital grants in the first six months of 1985-86 pending passage of similar legislation in that year. The Government has pointed out that the object of providing concessional loans for public housing of amounts to be nominated by the States and the Northern Territory is to increase the amounts which they direct to public housing. To be eligible to nominate amounts, however, a State or the Northern Territory must be able to meet its matching requirements for the purposes of the Commonwealth- State Housing Agreement. Since most States and the Northern Territory have not yet nominated additional amounts for public housing out of their Loan Council programs, the Bill seeks general legislative authority to make the payments at the appropriate time without at this stage specifying figures. Overall funds to be provided to the States in 1984-85 have already been determined. This Bill, however, provides for certain of these funds to be provided under the concessional terms and conditions of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement to the extent that the States and the Northern Territory nominate funds for public housing. The Bill also authorises the payment of nominated amounts in the first six months of 1985-86 pending passage of similar legislation in that year. The amount of the grants and the concessional loans for public housing is included in the borrowing program approved by the Loan Council for the Commonwealth Government and the Bill provides the necessary borrowing and appropriating authority. The States and the Northern Territory can nominate part of their approved borrowing program for public housing, but must be able to meet the matching requirements of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The Minister has reminded the House that the interest is 4.5 per cent per annum and the loan repayable over 53 years. I understand that payments under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement will amount to some $623m in 1984-85. The Housing Assistance Bill is the Minister's own Bill seeking parliamentary approval for the agreement which has just been entered into. Before I proceed with the Housing Assistance Bill, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the legislation brought forward by the Government on this occasion carries forward the legislation that was enacted by the Fraser Government in 1981. The main thrust of that legislation is embodied in the legislation before the House, and to that extent I compliment the Government on continuing many of the initiatives that were taken. Indeed, the Minister for Housing and Construction in his second reading speech pointed out that the funds would be provided by the Commonwealth to the States and the Northern Territory exactly on the basis set out in the 1981 legislation. The Minister in his second reading speech on the Housing Assistance Bill indicated that the stated principle of the agreement between the States, the Territory and the Commonwealth Government is to ensure adequate housing for individuals at a price within their capacity to pay. It seeks, first, to alleviate housing related poverty and, secondly, to ensure that housing assistance is equitably distributed. In implementing the foregoing, the Minister has pointed to the pertinence of a number of principles to which I wish to refer. First, assistance is to be related to needs of people rather than to type of accommodation; secondly, public rental housing; thirdly, income related assistance to tenants; and, fourthly, home ownership assistance. The proposed agreements are to operate from 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1994. The Minister for Housing and Construction, in his second reading speech and in statements that he has made elsewhere, has made a great deal of the fact that this agreement is being implemented for 10 years. So far as the Bill is concerned, it is relevant and important for the House to be aware that appropriations of only $510m for public housing for 1985-86 and 1986-87 have been made. The Minister has specifically stated that funding for subsequent years of the agreement and total funding for all years is to be determined annually. It is important that we keep in mind that there is absolutely nothing in the legislation to indicate that the level of funding that is provided for the next two years will be maintained in future years. So when the Minister responds I think it would be helpful to the House and to the public to have some indication-I realise that he has made it clear that the Government is not prepared to be specific beyond the two-year period that I have referred to-of the level of funding, the thrust and the priority that the Government sees in this area for the future. As I said, the package of legislation before the House, leaving aside the level of funding and also some of the other specific matters that I will refer to in a moment, really carries forward the main thrust of legislation brought into this Parliament by the Fraser Government in 1981. So for that reason and because the funds that are being provided for the next two years are at an appropriate level , keeping in mind the other priorities of Government, the Opposition will be supporting this legislation. I refer to the Government's first home owners assistance scheme. In speeches in this House, in answer to questions and also in speeches and statements outside the House the Minister, understandably, has drawn attention to the success of this scheme. It has been a successful scheme. The Minister, in his second reading speech, pointed out that some 55,000 first home buyers received assistance under the scheme during 1983-84. He estimates that a further 80,000 first home buyers are expected to benefit from the scheme during 1984-85. I have conceded that the scheme has been successful insofar as it has assisted a large number of first home buyers. That has been the centre or the jewel, if you like, in the housing crown of the Government. I draw attention to two aspects of the scheme. The first is that the Government has already shifted ground in relation to eligibility. Quite recently, in the context of the Budget, the Government announced that single persons will no longer be eligible for assistance under the first home owners assistance scheme. A large number of these people have made representations to my office. Undoubtedly a number of them have made representations to the Minister. These people had an expectation, because of the criteria that were laid down, that they would receive assistance under this scheme. What the public is wondering and certainly what the Opposition is wondering at present is whether that is as far as the Government intends to go so far as the eligibility criteria are concerned. For example, it was suggested in the run-up to the Budget that the Government was considering a number of possible alterations to the criteria. As it transpired, this was the only one that surfaced. We realise that we are on the run-up to an election. Probably if the Minister and the Government had other changes in mind they thought it prudent to put those changes aside, at least until after the election, on the basis that it might be returned. I would like the Minister, when he responds to this debate, to give an assurance that the Government does not intend in the future to narrow further the criteria for the first home owners assistance scheme. When a criterion is laid down for a scheme of assistance such as this by any government, the people who believe that they will benefit from the scheme obviously start to plan their affairs accordingly. No doubt a great many people already have had their hopes dashed as a result of the first move, the first step back in the eligibility criteria for the first home owners assistance scheme. When we look to other parts of the legislation, which I will come to presently, in relation to the purchasing of government homes we find that a new concept has been introduced, which I think is referred to as a subsidy recoupment scheme. I wonder whether that same kind of concept might be in the mind of the Minister insofar as the first home owners assistance scheme is concerned. In brief, what it means is that the assistance is provided when people meet a certain income or means test but later they are required to pay all the sum back. So I would also like to obtain from the Minister an assurance that he does not have this in mind for the first home owners assistance scheme and an assurance that the Australian Labor Party, if it is elected at the next election, will not move down this track. For the Opposition's part, we give an assurance that we will not do so. I think that the Australian public is entitled to have that assurance from the Government of the day. One thing that is fairly evident, of course, in this legislation-it was evident in the first statement that the Minister put down as Minister for Housing and Construction last year after the change of government-is that there is a steady shift of emphasis from home ownership to rental accommodation. One has to read the fine print to pick it up. With the success of the home owners assistance scheme, the perception outside is that there is not much difference, if any, between the philosophy of the Labor Government and the philosophy of the Liberal and National parties so far as home ownership is concerned. Of course, there is a distinct difference. That is brought out by the fact that as soon the Government took office it started to move away from home ownership. I pointed out in this House at the time the Minister brought his statement down in, I think, May of 1983 that he was doing this. What the Government did at the time was to reduce overall the funds available for housing in Australia and to increase the amount available for public housing. Of course the private home owners and those who had expectations of purchasing homes were the people who really suffered at that time. That thread is still running through this legislation. I remind the House of some of the things that the Government did last year that certainly militated against home purchasers in this country. The Government ripped apart and mostly discarded the elements of the former Government's 1982 home purchase assistance measures. In March of 1982 the former Government introduced the home deposits assistance scheme which was designed to assist low and middle income earners to bridge the deposit gap with a maximum cash grant of $3,500. At the same time a tax rebate, reducible over five years, was introduced for all new and recent home purchasers. In August 1982 these measures were enhanced with the tax rebate for all home purchasers, applicable to all interest payments over 10 per cent. In particular, the decision of the Government to terminate the general tax rebate for home purchasers was a callous blow to middle Australia, particularly many young Australians who had purchased a home in the previous few years. In fact, I calculated that many home buyers are now paying extra tax of around $300 a year as a result of the Government's decision. Looked at in another way, the general housing tax rebate of the former Government effectively reduced interest rates for most home purchasers by between 1 per cent and 2 per cent. What I have said, in effect, is that the Government has had a measure of success in relation to the first home owners assistance scheme but it has provided additional funds to public housing at the expense of people who are buying their homes and who are not eligible under the first home owners assistance scheme. I think it is important that I place on record the philosophy of the Liberal and National parties in this area. Our philosophy contrasts with that of the Labor Party. It is to give as many Australians as possible the opportunity, indeed to provide incentive for all Australians, ultimately to own their own homes. Our performance outstrips our rhetoric. The record of the Liberal and National parties in government demonstrates that we will do everything possible to provide incentives for Australians to own their own homes . It is interesting to reflect-I will do it only briefly-on the level of home ownership. In 1947 in the closing years of the Labor Government Australian home ownership was only 58 per cent. By 1971 it had risen to 68 per cent. In 1976, after another Labor Government, the rate had dropped to 66 per cent. It rose again during the period that we were in office. Perhaps the Minister can give me the up to date figure but I think it is 68 per cent or 69 per cent now. I am not canvassing that figure. The point I am making is that in government we have consistently put into place and maintained policies that have encouraged Australians to own their own homes. Home ownership today, largely as a result of policies pursued by Liberal and National Party governments, is the prime aspiration of most Australians. The other point I refer to-it is very important-is the subsidy recoupment scheme. The Minister, in his second reading speech, made little, if any, reference to it. As I understand it, the matter has been the subject of discussions between the Minister and his State colleagues and also with other special interest groups in the housing field. I would like the Minister, for the benefit of the House and certainly for my benefit, to explain how he sees this scheme operating. As I understand it, the scheme is designed to provide the maximum assistance possible during the period that the family needs it and later to recoup it by way of lengthening the loan period or increasing the payments. I am not pretending to be an authority on this matter because the Minister has not outlined the Government's clear intention or the details of the scheme; but as I understand it the proposal is that regular payments would be related to a family 's income. It could well be that in the early years of a purchase of a government provided home the family would receive a subsidy and later that subsidy would be recouped. The Opposition has no problem at all with the principle of making the family payments more attuned to the market rates if the family can meet those payments; but what concerns us very much is the claw back arrangements which appear to be inherent in this proposition. I emphasise that it is a new concept. That is why I mentioned it earlier in relation to the first home owners assistance scheme. If the Government is to move down the track of providing the assistance that a family needs and to put that assistance in the ledger as a debt to be repaid later when the family is earning a higher income or when it sells the home, the public needs to know that that is in the Minister's mind-this legislation and the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement provide for this-and that it is the intention to pursue this course. Secondly, we need to know from the Minister how the scheme will work. In some circumstances it could mean that a home owner at the end of a certain number of years could owe more than he did at the time of taking out the loan. That would be a daunting message to give to a prospective home owner. The point I keep making is that governments, be they Labor or Liberal-National Party governments, should encourage every Australian family to move towards home ownership if that is within a family's reach. We should bring home ownership within the reach of more and more families. If we include in a proposal to purchase a subsidy in early years with a view to that subsidy being recouped in later years, I suggest that that will be a deterrent. It also raises the question I have mentioned previously-I will mention it once again-of whether this concept will be introduced into the first home owners assistance scheme. In other words, a person may be means tested today-it has to be a family now; it cannot be an individual-and receive assistance under the first home owners assistance scheme. His financial circumstances may change the next month, the next year or five years down the track. Is it the intention of this Government to recoup all or some of that assistance? That is a very relevant question. It is a fair question to put to the Minister, particularly as a new concept is being introduced to home ownership. It will deter a number of would-be purchasers and will consign those people to rented accommodation for a longer period and, perhaps, for the whole of their lives. I conclude by saying that the Opposition supports the legislation before the House. We are advised that all State governments have agreed to the terms of the new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. But I seek the cast iron assurance of the Minister that the Labor Party will not extend the recoupment scheme to any other part of the housing package. I would like an assurance, if the Minister is able to give it to us, that he does not propose to move into some other areas. It would be ludicrous to provide unemployment relief to a family today because a breadwinner is out of work and then, because the family wins the lottery or becomes very comfortable in subsequent times, ask it to repay the unemployment benefit payments. I am not suggesting that the Government has that in mind but it has moved into the recoupment area. I would like to know, and I am sure that the people of Australia would like to know, whether the Government has in mind moving the same concept into any other area of government administration, and certainly into any other area of the housing package. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(11.55) — The Housing Assistance Bill 1984 embodies the most important Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement since the first agreement was signed in 1947. It is worth remembering that that agreement was also brought together by a Labor government after a period of severe disruption and need in the Australian community. It was a major plank in the Australian Labor Party's 1983 pre-election housing platform that the 1981 agreement of the Fraser Government be renegotiated with the States. To put the whole housing issue in perspective, it is well worth examining why this Liberal-National Party agreement of 1981 needed such immediate renegotiation. The 1981 agreement had a hopelessly inadequate base level of funding of only $ 200m. In fact, in a period of massive unemployment and redistribution of wealth, engineered by this Opposition when in government, the amount of Federal funds spent on housing was, in real terms, only half the expenditure of 1974-75, during the term of the last Labor Government. Before those opposite attempt to complain about big-spending Labor governments, let us look first of all at the need that existed in 1981 for housing in this so -called lucky country. Based on a general income eligibility criteria of 85 per cent of average weekly earnings, it is estimated that at June 1981, 37 per cent of all private renters, or about 350,000 households, were eligible for public housing but were unable to obtain it. This represents some one and a half times the number of families already in public housing in Australia. Also, over half of Australia's private renters with incomes less than $115 per week at that time paid more than 40 per cent of their income in rent. That would leave only about $69 a week to live on. At the same time, according to the 1981 census, at least 132,000 Australians were living permanently in caravans. More recent studies by the Victorian Ministry of Housing in 1984 suggests that this figure is now much higher. In November 1983 four out of the six capital cities for which figures are available had vacancy rates below 3 per cent. That level is generally taken to indicate a balance between supply and demand in the rental market. At 30 June 1983 there were 126,000 outstanding applications for public rental housing. This represented an increase of 15 per cent on the previous year. Obviously a large number of those people who are apparently eligible do not even apply for public housing because of the lack of resources available in this area. These are the facts of life in Australia today and they have been the facts of life for many yesterdays before this. They are the facts and the living conditions of human beings which the former Liberal-National Party Government, which is now in opposition, ignored. Let us not dwell for too long on yesterday' s Fraser Government. Its only relevance today is that in housing, as well as in many other parameters of social and economic development in this country, its performance is an indicator of the lowest point to which we could expect to sink -the least that Australians could ever expect from a government and all that they could ever expect from this Opposition. Let us now look objectively at the advances made in the Hawke Labor Government' s two Budgets and the new principles of this 1984 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table headed 'Federal Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement Funding'. Leave granted. The table read as follows- FEDERAL CSHA FUNDING (a)-1974-75 TO 1984-85 Real grants Real Percentage equivalent (1984-85 as (1984-85 Year Nominal prices) (b) grant prices) (c) $m $m $m 1974-75 391.4 1021.8 2 519.5 1975-76 377.7 835.1 3 431.3 1976-77 385 .8 748.8 3 385.9 1977-78 400.0 711.9 3 364.9 1978-79 330.0 552.0 4 287.7 1979- 80 274.0 426.1 38 295.0 1980-81 286.5 405.4 39 281.6 1981-82 264.2 336.5 45 243.4 1982-83 406.4 468.3 64 383.9 1983-84 567.0 610.2 74 531.4 1984-85 623.3 623.3 100 623.3 (a) Includes allocations to States and NT under CSHA, Commonwealth-NT Agreement , Crisis Accommodation for Families in Distress Program, Dwellings for Pensioners Act (1974-75 to 1977-78), and Special Employment-related Programs Act 1982 (1982-83 and 1983-84); Includes actual expenditures under Mortgage and Rent Relief Program; Excludes ACT in all years and NT prior to 1979-80. (b) On basis of CPI Total Housing Group (estimated percentage increase of 7.6 per cent for 1984-85). (c) Sum of actual real grants provided and ''grant equivalent'' of loans; latter based on 10 per cent p.a. discount rate; on this basis $100 loans equivalent to $50 grants. Department of Housing and Construction August 1984 Mr STAPLES —I thank the House. It is obvious from this table that there has been a real increase of more than 62 per cent in funds provided for public housing by the Commonwealth since this Government came to office. In fact, in real terms it is an all time high, eclipsing even the progressive expenditure of 1974-75. It looks even better when we realise that the expenditure in 1982-83 included the wage pause funds. Furthermore, since the all time effective low of 1981-82 under the Fraser Government, it is an effective increase of 156 per cent in spending on public housing in Australia. Let us look at a few of the more notable features of this new Commonwealth- State Housing Agreement and in doing so I commend the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford), the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and their State counterparts for their perseverance in bringing about this Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Today there is a guaranteed base Federal funding of $500m per annum for the next three years, compared with a guaranteed minimum of $200m under the old agreement. The full market rent basis has now been replaced by a more realistic cost rent basis. Broader eligibility for public housing is included. This means that no needy groups of persons will be excluded from receiving assistance on the grounds of their age, sex, marital status, religion, ethnic origin, disability or life situation. Single non-aged persons with high housing needs who have previously been excluded in some States from public rental accommodation will now be eligible for assistance. A rental purchase scheme will extend home ownership to low income persons. It will be of particular benefit to low income persons, who are reluctant to make a commitment to borrow money because they fear that changes in circumstances may create extreme financial hardship for them in the future. Revised home loan arrangements will ensure that subsidies go now to those in need. Subsidies will be provided when needed and will be reduced as the borrower 's ability to repay the loan increases. Under the crisis accommodation program in 1984-85, $12.6m for capital expenditure will be provided to the States and the Northern Territory. This is an increase of 29 per cent over 1983-84. Linking this with the proposed supported accommodation assistance program, we have an overall program that has been brought together by this Government after years of pilot programs under the former Government. Along with the new local government and community housing program, today we are witnessing an increasing flexibility and capability to deal with crisis accommodation for young people, women and general homelessness. The new local government and community housing program is really an exciting new initia- tive, one long fought for in the Labor Party. It provides a new and exciting avenue of housing development involving the third tier of government- local government-and community groups as well. On top of the $7m provided this year in the Budget and the $10m in each of the next two years under the local government and community housing program, the Department of Territories and Local Government has also set aside approximately one-third of a million dollars to assist local government authorities prepare their cases for participation in housing under this new program. I mention also the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the work he has done in this area to see that an extra $4.6m is made available to the Aboriginal Development Commission for housing loans and housing grants; $3.2m of that amount has been made available in grants. Extra funding will also go to Aboriginal housing from general increases in Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement funds. While huge overall increases are evident we must not allow these figures to beguile us into self-congratulation. They are increases on a zero or miserably low base from the Fraser years. Today I call upon this Government to redouble its efforts in these areas in Budgets to come. Unfortunately there has been so much neglect and abuse of public housing by the Commonwealth and several States over the years that any significant impact on the waiting lists and the cost of dignified and secure accommodation will take many more years of accelerated expenditure in housing. To me, the true measure of this country's celebration of its bicentenary in 1988 would be that there were no longer homeless people in this country, that all Australians enjoyed their right to secure and dignified accommodation at a price they could afford. People in Australia are fighting for that right for the least powerful in our community. I believe that today, as we are debating this Bill in the House, these people deserve recognition for the role they have played in the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. There are groups of ordinary people in the community working together to better their lives and housing conditions. Those people are involved at regional level in housing councils and their affiliated organisations in the community. I mention the North Eastern Housing Council in my area of Melbourne and those who work with organisations such as the Youth Accommodation Coalition of Victoria and its affiliates, Shelter Victoria and National Shelter, the National Youth Coalition for Housing, the union movement itself, and many other groups. I hope that they will grow stronger and stronger because secure shelter is a primary need of us all, and that is their objective. What is the use of a $2.6m flag pole for the new Parliament House on top of the hill or winning the America's Cup if we do not have a roof over our heads tonight? That is the crisis that thousands of people face in Australia tonight, Wednesday, 3 October 1984. It will be their crisis again tomorrow night, 4 October, and on and on until we , as a nation, realise that housing is a basic right for all Australians. This country cannot hold up its head with pride and achievement until the inequality, indignity, powerlessness and social and economic disadvantage of housing related poverty are eradicated. I commend this Bill to the House as a start of a determined 10-year step in that direction. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.06) —I want to take the opportunity in the consideration of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill and the Housing Assistance Bill to match some of the Government's rhetoric with its performance in areas in which it has particular responsibility for housing. If honourable members read the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) they will be aware that he identified the Government's objectives in the area of housing. He identified the objectives of the Government's programs as being: . . . to provide more effective assistance to low income families seeking to buy a first home and to ensure an adequate supply of housing finance at affordable interest rates. I will emphasise that again: . . . to ensure an adequate supply of housing finance at affordable interest rates. He went on to say that the Government's objectives were: . . . to generate additional activity in the housing industry in order to stimulate job creation and economic growth-to re-establish confidence . . . . . . to increase the availability of public housing and other innovative forms of low cost housing for the large number of needy households in the community. They are desirable objectives. I think the comments of the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Staples), who is about to leave the chamber, about the plight of the needy in endeavouring to acquire a home are comments that ought to be made. But there is one area in Australia where the Government has the total responsibility for the provision of housing; that is the Australian Capital Territory. This legislation does not make provision for housing funds in the Australian Capital Territory. If the Government's performance, effectiveness and programs in housing are to be measured in any area, the Australian Capital Territory is an appropriate starting point. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) has, over a period, had a professed interest in housing. In fact it was his area of expertise. It is well known that he wanted to be the Minister for Housing and Construction but he was not given that opportunity; he was given the opportunity to serve as Minister for Territories and Local Government. The fact is that the Minister, over a period, starting from his appointment, has expressed a continuing interest in housing. He took a personal interest in the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme-the scheme that is designed to provide housing for the needy in Canberra-from the time of his appointment. In December 1983 he announced an increase in the upper limit applying to homes purchased under the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme. In March 1984, presumably because funds under that scheme were not being spent fast enough for his liking, he initiated a conference on land and housing in the Australian Capital Territory. After that conference he made a number of decisions: He decided to abolish the $62,000 limit on the value of a home that might be purchased under the scheme; he increased the maximum total loan borrowing permitted from $50,000 to $60,000; he said that no assistance would be given to applicants whose incomes were too high to make them eligible for assistance under the first home owners scheme; he took the existing barrier on applicants' cash and readily converted assets from $15,000 to $20,000; the total repayments on all housing loans were normally to be set at 25 per cent of household income, but he increased it to 30 per cent in the Australian Capital Territory. He made a number of other changes, but I do not think it would be appropriate for me to detail them in the time I have available. The fact of the matter is that he then went out publicly and asked people to borrow moneys under this scheme. He took the extraordinary decision to advertise . He went on radio and television and encouraged people to take out loans under this scheme. He did it right up to the time of the preparation of this year's Budget. It became apparent immediately after the Budget that this scheme had run short of funds. All the funds available last year had been spent, all the money that was to be allocated under this year's Budget had been spent in advance, and an excessive number of loan applications had already been approved. People were expecting funds and had entered into contracts. This is the measure of the Government's performance which we are being asked by the Minister to accept as being exemplary. In the end the Minister had to call an end to the scheme which was to provide for the needy in the Australian Capital Territory. The scheme effectively came to an end because the Minister was able to get from his colleagues only sufficient funds to ensure that loans that had been approved could be met. No funds were to be available thereafter for any needy applications. I think that is an atrocious situation. It is a performance which I think deserves the highest possible censure of the Minister by his colleagues. Quite frankly, anybody who administered and took a personal interest in a scheme of that sort and who allowed a situation to arise where all funds were expended at the beginning of the financial year and no funds were left to look after the needy, the homeless and people seeking to acquire their own homes in the Australian Capital Territory, deserves to be censured. I have sought considerable information from the Minister on the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme. I asked the Minister what briefings relating to that scheme he had received from his Department during the previous 12 months. I ask: Did the briefings include regular reports to him on the number of loan applications made, the number of loans approved, the extent to which funds had been made available to the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme and the residue available for further loans? In the Budget context, I asked what briefings the Minister had received on the housing loans scheme and what additional funds had been requested to enable the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme to meet approved loans, outstanding unapproved loan applications and anticipated loan applications during the financial year. I asked him what inquiries he had instigated in relation to this matter. I asked who would conduct those inquiries , what their terms of reference were and to whom they would report-to him, the Government or the Parliament. I also inquired as to the date the report could be expected. It seems that from then on the Minister has been extraordinarily silent except when pushed into responding on this matter. He has left it to the Public Service , largely, to carry the blame. I find that extraordinary in all the circumstances, bearing in mind the Minister's self-claimed expertise. That matter ought to be taken on board by all members in this House. I said at the time that it was extraordinary that the Minister should be calling for a full scale internal review and report after he had taken such a personal interest in the basis upon which the conditions and loans policy should proceed, and particularly the lending policy. I wondered why we had seen so many twists and turns in which he had been so much involved and why he had then wanted to abdicate any responsibility on this matter. When the matter was considered by Senate Estimates Committee F there was very considerable discussion. Mr Rope, the Commissioner for Housing in the Australian Capital Territory, revealed that there was something of the order of 2,000 people on the waiting list for housing loans under this scheme in the Australian Capital Territory. He made it clear that all of the money was committed and that the only moneys that were likely to be available for any further loans- particularly for those in the most necessitous circumstances-might come from repayments of outstanding existing loans. What troubled me even more was the fact that Senator Reid, who sought information of the sort that I had sought from the Minister by means of questions on notice, was unable to obtain that information from officers. Senators were quick to defend the public servants involved in a way which the House ought to note. Senator Reid asked questions such as: Did he know how many people were applying for loans? Did he know the rate at which applications were coming in? Mr Fraser said: I would have to go back and check through the briefing that we provided during the Budget discussions. He went on to say: There is no regular report to the Minister in relation to applications for Commissioner for Housing funds. Senator Reid asked: Did he seek information from you as to what was occurring in relation to the statements he made, to your knowledge? In defence of the Minister, Senator Grimes said: Some of these questions would be better referred to the Minister. The Chairman, Senator Georges, responded: I have a feeling that they ought to be. They are questions of substance for which the Minister is himself personally responsible. You are placing a public servant in great difficulty in trying to answer questions which the Minister himself ought to be answering. That was the view of the Minister's colleagues. The fact of the matter is-- Mr Uren —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I am not trying to gag the honourable member from debating this issue, but I want it debated in the proper place. He is debating housing in the Australian Capital Territory. It is not a matter that comes under this Bill. It is not covered by the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement or any Commonwealth agreement. Therefore, I say that he is out of order. If he wants to discuss it, we will discuss it in the right place where I have the right, as the Minister responsible for this, to reply to it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! As I understand it, the honourable member was making a connection between remarks cast about welfare housing provisions. If he got back closer to the legislation, it would be helpful. Mr RUDDOCK —I will do that. Mr Uren —If I might say so, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that it is clear in your mind and so that you can make the appropriate ruling-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have made the ruling and I will-- Mr Uren —If I might point out to you again, I am saying quite clearly that the Australian Capital Territory does not come under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement which is covered by this legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has made that point and I understood what he said the first time. I call the honourable member for Dundas. Mr RUDDOCK —Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to tie these remarks into the Bill. The Minister perhaps was not present and did not hear the comments I made at the beginning of my address. For his benefit I will make the observations once more. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) spoke in his second reading speech about the Government's program in the area of housing. He said that he identified the objectives of the program as being to provide more effective assistance to low income families seeking to buy a first home and to ensure an adequate supply of housing finance at affordable interest rates. These were stated to be the Government's objectives. I am endeavouring to measure those stated objectives against the Government's performance in the area in which it has total responsibility. The Minister for Territories and Local Government is totally responsible for housing in the Australian Capital Territory. There is no intervention by any State government. There are no State government programs of a supplementary nature. All the programs are purely a Commonwealth responsibility. The fact is that, if the Government's objectives are to be measured against any record of performance, they ought to be measured against performance in-- Mr Uren —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a further point of order. I object to the honourable member raising a matter to which it is not appropriate for me, as the Minister, to reply. This debate is not the appropriate one in which to discuss Commissioner for Housing loans in the Australian Capital Territory. There is another more appropriate manner in which this can be debated. If it is debated we will be able to discuss it in a proper way, and if-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Dundas. Mr RUDDOCK —I would welcome the Minister's response in this debate. I am sure that his colleagues would not mind his having an opportunity to respond in the area for which he is responsible. The fact is that this Bill provides funds for housing in an effort to provide housing finance at affordable interest rates for low income families. A measure of the nature of the discussion that took place before the Minister entered the chamber was the comments from the honourable member for Diamond Valley, who canvassed considerably the Government's record and performance. I would like to make only one or two more points because I promised to cut my remarks short to facilitate the Government's program. The Minister has taken up some of the time I might have used in relation to this matter by his interventions to date. I come to one final point in which I think the Minister has some particular responsibility. I welcome his indication that he would like to make a statement on this matter and I would hope that he would like to do so in the Parliament. Mr Uren —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is the Minister taking a point of order? Mr Uren —Yes, it is a point of order. I am asking you, Mr Deputy Speaker, under what rule and in what way the Bill before the House and which we are now discussing covers the discussion now being carried out by the honourable member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister knows very well that the Chair is not obliged to give reasons for its ruling. But I did at the outset give an indication why I thought the honourable member for Dundas was in order. There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Dundas. Mr Uren —He raised a further matter. I have been in this place long enough to know that you happen to be in the same political party as the honourable member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Uren —I do not want to have to move dissent from your ruling because of your political-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will not reflect against the Chair in that way. I call the honourable member for Dundas. Mr RUDDOCK —I regret the tone of the Minister's comments because I would welcome the opportunity to debate this more fully. The business of the House is very much in the hands of the Government. If the Minister thinks that he has an opportunity to bring on legislation whereby matters relevant to his portfolio might be discussed more fully, that might be appropriate. But housing is the matter under discussion. It is appropriate to examine the Government's record and I think the Government's record in the area of housing in the Australian Capital Territory is clearly wanting. The fact is-- Mr Uren —Again I take a point of order. I take the point of order that this is outside the discussion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —The Chair has already ruled on that. There is no point of order. Mr Uren —I do not want to have to move dissent from your ruling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Uren —Let me say this further to the point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I have ruled on the matter . I call the honourable member for Dundas. Mr RUDDOCK —The comments that I wanted to make finally relate to performance in this area. As I said, the Minister has been remarkably silent until almost the last five minutes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member might help by not referring to the Minister. Mr RUDDOCK —The fact is that in relation to this housing question we now know that a senior public servant, a man who was very highly admired by the Minister according to his own statements-- Motion (by Mr Uren) proposed: That the honourable member for Dundas be not further heard. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Mr Young —Mr Deputy Speaker, I think there has been some confusion. It was not the intention of the Government to call a division. I realise the concern that the Minister has about the matter. We will give an opportunity for some response to be made later. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Would the Minister like to withdraw the motion? Mr Young —Yes, I think that is the best step. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave has been sought to withdraw the motion. There being no objection, leave is granted. We will stop the ringing of the bells. I call the honourable member for Dundas. Mr RUDDOCK —I suspect that I will not have a great deal of time in which to comment on the matters that I wish to raise. The Minister may have been successful in cutting short the time that I would have spent referring to the fact that there was a move to replace the senior officer of the Commissioner for Housing loans scheme.He was replaced and made a scapegoat for the way in which the Minister himself has refused to accept responsibility in relation to the management of this scheme. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(12.27) —Because of time constraints I will confine my remarks to just one part of the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill, the part which honours this Government's commitment to the Australian people to increase the availability of public housing and other innovative forms of low cost housing. After a year of negotiations and discussions with State governments, local governments and community groups, the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement has been renegotiated. This Bill authorises the Government to enter a 10-year agreement with each State and the Northern Territory for the provision of home purchase and rental assistance housing for low to moderate income earners. This new Agreement sets out principles which will guide the development of public housing over the next 10 years. Its objectives are first to alleviate housing related poverty and, secondly, to make sure that housing assistance is as far as possible delivered equitably to persons resident in different forms of housing. The Agreement has rejected the concept of setting public housing rents at private market rental levels. This market rent concept merely makes the rents of public tenants subject to the vagaries and speculative activity of the private rental market. The Agreement reintroduces cost rents; that is, rents determined by the cost of the provision and operation of public housing. That is fair, equitable and understandable. The Agreement also provides for specific housing programs, including pensioner housing, Aboriginal housing, crisis housing, mortgage and rent relief and local government and community housing. This innovative feature of the Agreement-the local government and community housing program-will aim to give local communities a bigger involvement in public housing. This is the area that I want to bring to the attention of the House. Under this program local governments and community groups will be able to develop projects such as co-operatives, group housing and boarding house accommodation which will assist in meeting the needs in their particular areas. Financial assistance will be provided to local governments and community groups to buy, build, lease or upgrade dwellings for low cost rental housing. A minimum of $7m will be provided by the Commonwealth in 1984-85 and $10m will be provided in both 1985-86 and 1986-87. I regard this as seed money from which great programs can grow. Local communities will be able to borrow from the private sector with Government assistance. This means that housing stock available for low income earners will be expanded and diversified and will be able to be managed by groups in the community and their local government. I want to tell the House of a local council in my electorate where this innovation is not new. Indeed, this council provided the model for the whole local government and community housing program. I am speaking of the Waverley Council. Many years ago the Waverley Council introduced a wide range of social welfare reforms. These reforms were developed by dedicated people in the community whose desire was to provide a real social mix for the Waverley municipality. At Bondi Beach, one of the most famous surfing beaches in the world, it was possible for rich and poor alike to enjoy the benefits of this renowned area. Under the guidance of the then Mayor of Waverley and my State colleague Ernie Page, these community welfare and housing reforms took shape. Under the Labor controlled Council these schemes developed, proving that local government has a very important role to play in the development of public housing for its own area. Local government is best suited logically to take that responsibility. It is the form of government which is closest to the community. This is recognised in this agreement by the local government and community housing program. Now in Waverley these programs which were in operation for so long no longer exist. They have all been dismantled. At the last Council elections the Liberal Party gained control and the Liberal Mayor promised to make Bondi Beach a Camelot by the sea. We all know that Camelot was a place where everybody was a king or a prince and there were no paupers. That is just what is happening. Bondi will now belong only to the wealthy. In what has been a most blatant political action, the new Council deliberately dismantled the former Council's programs and has begun to sell off Council-owned properties to private developers. In April 1980 the then Labor Council appointed a community housing officer, the first ever to be appointed in Australia, funded jointly by New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services, the Housing Commission and the local Council. In other words, it was exactly the model for what is now being proposed for all councils throughout Australia by this agreement. The function of the housing officer was to work with Council on the development of housing policies tailored to the individual circumstances of the municipality. The two-year pilot project began with very clear objectives: First, to research the housing needs in the area; second, to develop a housing policy for people on low incomes who needed housing; third, to direct the provision of housing resources to areas of greatest need; fourth, to encourage community development of community-based housing initiatives; and fifth, to advocate and lobby for additional housing resources with State and Federal authorities. In other words, it was the very model for what is now being offered to local government throughout Australia by this CSH agreement. It became the policy of the Waverley Council to use its housing stock, even stock that was destined for some other use in the future, for low income housing . It became very apparent to the Council that there was a great need for crisis and medium term accommodation, especially for women and youth, and this it was able to provide on a temporary basis. A series of group homes for the aged were set up where elderly people could live in a supportive and independent environment. In 1981 when a property developer made application to build a huge retail-residential complex in the heart of Bondi Junction, an agreement was made with the Labor Council that 35 of the residential dwellings would be given to the Council for use as pensioner dwellings. However, the Council opted to take the money in lieu of the dwellings because it thought it could build more units for the aged in the municipality more quickly with the money. So the Council applied to the Federal Government for additional funds to embark on a program to build approximately 70 one-bedroom home units for the aged. It was granted $1.1m by the Commonwealth Government. It is hard to believe, but when the Liberals took control of the Council they rejected this grant from the Federal Government. One block of eight units in the development that had been vacant for some months was offered on the open market. The New South Wales Housing Commission, in a desperate attempt to keep some low cost housing accommodation available in the municipality, made a leasing offer. That offer was rejected by the Council. Eventually the Housing Commission purchased the units because it was the only way in which accommodation could be secured for the elderly. A block of land on which the previous Council planned to build 30 units for low income earners, including pensioners, was sold by the new Council to a private developer, with the new Council itself providing the finance. There are many other despicable examples of the complete lack of concern that this Liberal Council in Waverley has for many of my constituents who do not have the financial resources to compete on the open market for decent rental accommodation. The Council rejected the Government grant because it did not want to be tied in any way to the provision of low cost housing for the aged. The community housing officer's position has, of course, been terminated. Other councils have taken up that brilliant idea of appointing such officers. A very successful innovation under the wage pause program was developed by the Eastern Suburbs community youth support scheme whereby young unemployed people were renovating council properties to provide low income housing. This was immediately successful in the Randwick municipality where it was implemented but in Waverley the new Council withdrew all the stock, so there was no opportunity for that to take place. In conclusion, I point out that these programs, which have now disappeared from the Waverley municipality, were once held up as an example for local governments from all around Australia. They are now, of course, provided for in this housing agreement. They were used as a guide for what local governments, in consultation with their communities, could do to develop public housing programs to suit their own localities. Even though the callous present Liberal-controlled Waverley Council has sought to tear down the efforts of many dedicated people who have worked so hard to make those housing programs work, I hope that other local governments will now follow the lead of the previous Waverley Council under Labor and introduce the same housing reforms set out in this legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.35) —In order to facilitate the Government's legislative program I will abbreviate my remarks. I say from the outset that if ever a Minister deserves to have his name changed it is the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). I commend to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that this Minister be renamed the Minister for the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. In 1983, with a great fanfare of trumpets, the Minister brought in a first home owners scheme which was commended by this side of the House even though we thought its predecessor was a better scheme. However within 12 months, after 55, 000 Australians had been assisted under that scheme, the Government hacked it away. It particularly hacked it away in relation to young, single female Australians who want to own their own home. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is appropriate that you are in the chair, with your long-standing record of supporting the ambitions and the right to achieve of young Australian women. If a young lady in Australia today is earning more than $13,950 per annum, under this miserable socialist Minister for Housing and Construction she cannot be assisted under the first home owners scheme. I think it is to the standing discredit of this Government that having brought in a scheme which we all supported-I sat in a hotel breakfast room in Hobart and saw the Minister beaming to the nation on television from a hotel breakfast in Sydney-within 12 miserable months it has declared war on young, single Australians who want to own their own home. I think that is disgraceful. The Government did not increase, as it should have, the upper income limit for eligibility for the scheme. That should be indexed to allow for inflation. What the Government did, as the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) has pointed out so correctly, was declare war on middle Australia. It is somewhat reminiscent, is it not, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the remarks of a former socialist Minister in an earlier administration who referred to the home owning aspirations of Australians as destined to create a nation of 'little capitalists '? The little capitalist syndrome runs strong in the ranks of the Hawke socialist Government. What the Government has done is extraordinary. It has increased the appropriation for housing assistance, yet it has made it harder for the people who should be helped under this scheme to qualify. I do not understand why the Minister turned his back on a scheme which he brought in with such enthusiasm and which was greeted on a bipartisan basis. Surely this Minister deserves the sobriquet 'the Minister for the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away'. What will happen next year if, by some grotesque misfortune of fate, the Hawke socialist Goverment wins the next Federal election? I think all Australians should take a lead from what happened in the Budget this year. The Minister gives one year and he takes away the next. I am the first to concede that this Minister has a number of good things going for him. The permanent head of his Department is probably the best thing he has going for him. The Minister is a pleasant, amiable Minister and on paper he has done quite well. But to bring home very forcibly where Tasmania has been short changed I will refer briefly to some figures from the Budget documents because I think it is important to put the matter into context by way of comparison. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have my eye on the clock, as do you, in deference to what the Minister said. Sure, the bald figures look good but let it not be forgotten that these are tied grants, specific purpose grants, and made even more specific by virtue of the agreement to which the Minister referred in his second reading speech, which will go for 10 years. I refer to how the rest of the money which is going to Tasmania has been adversely affected and why it is that the Government's housing package is not such a good deal for my State of Tasmania as it might otherwise have been. I refer to page 17 of Budget Paper No.7. By way of comparison I point out that in the last year of the Fraser Government the tax sharing per capita relativity figure for 1982-83 for Tasmania was 1.87261. In the first year of the Hawke socialist Government it dropped to 1.75931 and in 1984-85, under the Hawke socialist Government, it will drop to 1.646. If I turn the page and look at the differential relativities implied by proposed per capita relativities and actual tax sharing grants, I see that for Tasmania for the last year of the Fraser Government the figure was plus 56.4 per cent but for the first year of the Hawke socialist Government it dropped to plus 47.5 per cent. For comparison, in 1984- 85 the figure will drop; it will be only 38.5 per cent, a drop of 18 per cent from 1982-83 to 1984-85. It is when one takes these figures into account that one realises the Minister is selling Tasmania a pup in relation to the great deal we are supposed to have received. I refer to the distribution of State government Loan Council programs which appears on page 27 of Budget Paper No. 7. Again, for comparison I must make the point that in 1983-84, under the Hawke socialist Government, $102,955,000 was made available and for 1984-85 the figure is only $109,648,000, a miserable increase of only 7.01 per cent compared with a massive increase of 32.32 per cent for New South Wales under the Wran Labor Government and 25.12 per cent for Victoria under the Cain Government. Where is the justice for Tasmania there? I turn to the advances for houses for ex-servicemen. These figures are found on page 41 of Budget Paper No. 7. In 1981-82, under the Fraser Government, $75,000 was approved for advances for houses for servicemen in Tasmania; in 1982-83 $19, 000 was approved; in 1983-84 not a cent was approved; and in 1984-85 not a cent is proposed. Where is the justice for Tasmania? Finally, because these amounts are relevant to the overall picture, I refer to the recurrent grants for home care services under the provision of the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969. Let me give the bald figures. In 1982-83, under the Fraser Liberal Government, Tasmania received $813,000. In 1983-84, under the Hawke socialist Government, that figure dropped to $630,000. In addition, when I turn over the page I find the same story emerges in relation to grants for senior citizens centres. In 1982-83, under the Fraser Government, $262,000 was allocated. In the Hawke socialist Government's first year in government $226,000 was allocated. What has the Government budgeted for this year? A miserable $207,000 for senior citizens centres. This Minister and this Government have a lot to answer for. The so-called good deal for Tasmania pales and looks very thin indeed when one looks at the other figures. I hope that the Minister comes to his senses and does the right thing for Australia's smallest but nevertheless most wonderful State. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(12.42) —I have one minute in which to sum up. I take this opportunity to thank all honourable members who took part in the debate. I am glad that the Opposition knows a good thing when it sees it and is not opposing the States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill and the Housing Assistance Bill. There are a few matters to clear up from the contribution of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife). For instance, he thought that singles were excluded from the first home owners assistance scheme. They are not excluded from the scheme. Justifiably, their income limit has been made half that which applies to doubles. No further changes are in mind. I want the honourable member for Farrer and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) to know that 80,000 people will be helped in this financial year and that $265m will be put aside for the first home owners scheme. We want all who want home ownership to obtain it and our programs are designed to make sure that those who could not otherwise afford it will be able to do so. We also recognise that all cannot aspire to home ownership. Therefore we need rental stock. We are getting on with the job and the speeches of the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Staples) and the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) show how we are doing that. We are seeking to recoup subsidies under the home purchase assistance scheme. The States are formulating their own guidelines for achieving this. We do not want an erosion of those rolling funds; we want more people to be helped in future years. The money received by people who are eligible for the first home owners scheme, of course, is not recouped. In summary, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. More houses are being built; more people are going into home ownership. Even Tasmanians have reason to feel pleased. In 1981-82, under the honourable member for Denison and his group, under the Fraser Government which he supported, only $31.90 per head was spent on housing. In 1982-83, $43.80 per head was spent. However, in 1983-84, under the Hawke Labor Government, $60.90 per head was spent and in 1984-85 $63.70 per head will be spent. I have much pleasure in supporting this legislation and hope that the House will support it too. 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 Hurford) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State. I refer the Minister to the letter sent to the Prime Minister by Commissioner Costigan dated 5 March 1984 from which four sentences were deleted when it was tabled in Parliament. Did those four sentences refer to a person or persons being investigated by Commissioner Costigan? Were the investigations referred to by Mr Costigan completed by him before he was forced to cease investigations on 30 June and, if not, are they currently being pursued? Mr YOUNG —I do not have the correspondence before me today, and I would not, under any circumstance, give the information the Leader of the Opposition seeks in terms of naming the people. I should have thought that he would have had enough of that. Let there be no misinterpretation of the role of Commissioner Costigan. He is not carrying out his role on behalf of the Australian Labor Party or the Liberal Party of Australia or the National Party of Australia; he is carrying out his role under the reference that was given to him by the former Fraser Government. All the investigations he has handed over to the National Crime Authority are still being carried out. Mr SIMMONS —Will the Treasurer advise the House of the views of Australia's economic performance conveyed to him by business leaders and senior officials during his recent visit to North America? Mr KEATING —I am very happy to report to the Parliament that in the United States there was very intense interest in Australia, particularly on the part of other members of the world community at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings. In the United States particularly there is a great deal of excitement about the prospects for Australia, especially with the way in which our economy has turned from negative growth, under our predecessors' policies, to very strong positive growth in 1983-84 and in view of the indications for strong growth in 1984-85. The fact that we were able to achieve that very strong growth with a very dramatic decline in inflation from the 11.5 per cent with which we were left in March 1983 to the 5 per cent forecast in this Budget, and with inflation running at around that level now, was regarded as a very substantial achievement. As well, I think one of the other factors that have reinforced the interest on the part of people abroad is the freeing up of the market which this Government has undertaken-the deregulation of markets, both the range and the pace of the deregulation, and the courage the Government has shown in the floating of the Australian dollar, the abolition of exchange controls, the abolition of the deposit maturities controls in the banking system, and, of course, our policy of making the whole banking system more competitive and more dynamic with the entry of foreign banks into that system. In the meetings I had with the Under-Secretary of the United States Treasury, Mr Beryl Sprinkel, and the Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve system, Paul Volcker, both displayed not only a great understanding and knowledge of the Australian community-one would have to observe that they could not carry in their minds such a knowledge of all economies-but also a very deep and close understanding of the performance of the Australian economy, the policies of this Government, the changes we have been making, and, of course, the prospects for the future. One of the things that seemed to impress everyone was the dramatic decline in the level of industrial disputation, and the fact that Australia's rate of industrial disputation had dropped to its lowest level in 15 years, which they regarded as a matter of note. Most importantly, I suppose, the fact is that Australia is back in the international race again. It is competitive with an inflation rate akin to those of our major trading partners. Our growth rates are back up to levels that can produce increments to wealth and to living standards. The other thing is that we now have an exchange rate determined by market forces rather than by the aberrant forces which were allowed to obtain in the days of the former Government. In other words, we are beginning to hear people talk about Australia now rather than its potential. We always used to hear that Australia had this great potential, but what I think dashed people's expectations about this country was that despite the fact that we had an enormous pick-up in accelerated investment in mining a couple of years ago, the former Government blew the recovery. Instead of the investment in mining being the icing on the cake, it became the cake-and a very small cake at that. So it was always a case of Australia's potential, but there was never any realisation of it. The fact that that realisation is coming about is something they regard as long overdue, but because the United States, particularly, has always been a strong investing force in this country, people there are especially interested and, indeed, very pleased by the fact that government is in such good hands. I thought it might also be worth saying that as far as the world economic situation goes, it is now very much better than when the Budget was formulated. People are much more relaxed about the state of the world economy. Indeed, at the Interim Committee of the IMF, in which I participated this year as last year , the atmosphere was entirely different from the atmosphere of crisis which accompanied the meeting last year, with the debt rescheduling programs of a number of South American countries, as well as Mexico. This year the temperature at the Interim Committee of the IMF was very much lower. There was a much greater feeling that the world could manage its affairs, that these debt reconstructions could be undertaken, and that generally not only was the United States economy strong but the recovery had spread to other countries, particularly to those in Europe and to Japan; in other words, that the world recovery was no longer simply the engine-room of the United States economy pulling the world along but had broadened to Europe and Japan. Whilst it is true that growth in the United States economy is starting to slow somewhat, the fact is that people regard growth in that economy as being on a low inflationary growth path and very strong. A very interesting statistic which has not been released in Australia is that the latest IMF forecast for all industrial countries is up by 1.25 per cent, from 3.75 per cent growth forecast for calendar year 1984 to 5 per cent. This is very much stronger than the international performance which obtained at the time the Government put its Budget together. On that basis we would have to say-- Mr Lusher —Boring. Mr KEATING —It would be boring to the honourable member. Mr Lusher —Lift your game, Paul. Mr KEATING —Apart from the smut and the slurs in which the honourable member trafficks, he has no other ideas and no other policies. I can understand that he would not be interested in the world economy or the Australian economy, but other people are. The fact is that with that very much stronger growth in the world economy and that higher forecast growth coming from the IMF of the world's growth in calendar year 1984, this sets a much better framework for our own economy in 1984-85 than that which was even there when we forecast growth in the Budget. All in all, there is intense interest in Australia abroad, and I have never experienced a better atmosphere in both Washington and New York. There is much praise for the Government's policies and great expectations for a continuation of non-inflationary growth in this country. Mr PEACOCK —I refer the Special Minister of State to the Prime Minister's statement yesterday in which he indicated that it would be virtually impossible for a State representative on the Inter-Governmental Committee to stop something being investigated by the National Crime Authority. To test this, but, more importantly, to have the matter dealt with after lengthy delays, will the Minister now ask the National Crime Authority to seek a reference on the recent allegations against the New South Wales drug squad, which were passed to the New South Wales police over one year ago but appear not to have been resolved? Mr YOUNG —I can inform the House that I have written to the States. It is intended that the Inter-Governmental Committee will meet in the week commencing 19 October to discuss references that ought to be made to the National Crime Authority. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House whether there have been any developments in the current dispute involving the Builders Labourers Federation? Mr WILLIS —Yes, I can give the House some information on this matter. May I first provide some brief background. The House will recall that there has been a superannuation package developed in the building industry, which package had the support of the Federal Government on the basis that accompanying superannuation was an industrial relations package which we believe provided the best possible basis for improving industrial relations in this much troubled industry. An undertaking was given by the Builders Labourers Federation to support that industrial relations package contained in the memorandum of understanding, and commitments were given to the present Government, to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to building industry employers and to the Federal Court of Australia. The situation at the beginning of this week was that all building unions except the BLF had signed that memorandum of understanding. The BLF was refusing to sign, and refusing basically for reasons that had little, or indeed nothing, to do with the welfare of BLF members. The BLF was conducting a wide-spread campaign to force employers to pay into the superannuation scheme without BLF commitment to the agreement. Meetings had been arranged for today, between the building unions and the ACTU this morning, and between the ACTU, the employers and the Government this afternoon. The Government's position has been that the BLF is in blatant breach of formal and serious undertakings and was forfeiting its right to represent employees in this industry. The Government was therefore prepared to take strong and effective legislative action to remove the BLF's right to represent building workers. I inform the House that such legislation would be quick and effective, in contrast to the extraordinarily lengthy and ineffective proceedings initiated by the previous Government. The Cain Government in Victoria was also prepared to take supportive legislative action. The situation today is that while building unions were meeting the ACTU in Melbourne, the BLF Federal Secretary, Mr Gallagher, was here in Canberra meeting the Master Builders Federation of Australia. Notice of that meeting was not conveyed to the Government before it was held. We understand that at this morning's meeting the BLF agreed to sign the memorandum of understanding, which includes the industrial relations package, with the Master Builders Federation of Australia, but the terms on which that agreement or the agreement to sign the memorandum of understanding has been made are not entirely clear. I have had some conflicting reports on that matter and I do not wish to take it any further at this stage. They do not appear to be very important additional elements. Apart from these additional aspects, there is at this stage no agreement with the construction contractors who are the other segment of the building industry. Therefore, at this stage it is not clear to what extent the BLF is committed to the agreement-firstly, because of some uncertainty about the agreement with the Master Builders Federation; secondly, because of no agreement with the Australian Federation of Construction Contractors; and, thirdly, because we are not at this stage entirely sure how committed to the memorandum of understanding and the industrial relations packages the BLF is. However, a meeting is now taking place in Melbourne at the ACTU headquarters at which these matters should become somewhat clearer. The Government expects the BLF to fully support the memorandum of understanding . That includes the lifting of all bans on employers over superannuation, and demarcation disputes such as those at the Sydney Police Headquarters and the Melbourne Cricket Ground lights. Clearly, under the memorandum of understanding such matters should be settled in accordance with the procedures set out in the memorandum of understanding. We also expect the BLF to maintain its commitment to industrial stability that is part of the memorandum of understanding. If these commitments are not met the Government remains prepared to take the action which I have outlined today and which will be effective. Such action will mean that the BLF will not have coverage in this industry, in whole or in part. Therefore, we look to the BLF to make the full commitments that are required by us. If those commitments are not forthcoming, this Government will be taking the action I have outlined, swiftly and effectively. Mr SINCLAIR —The Deputy Prime Minister, who represents in this House the Attorney-General, will be aware of the scathing attack on the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union by Mr Kerry Packer. Does the Government accept Mr Packer's criticism of the Costigan Royal Commission? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I did notice the statement made by Mr Packer. If one looks at the statement closely, it can be seen that the attack was basically related to the fact that the National Times had published so much information. It of course creates a problem when a report has been prepared for the Government but has not yet been received by the Government and apparently the Fairfax Press is able to have access to such material. That of course embarrassed the situation of Mr Packer. It will also be noted that a letter appeared in the National Times from Mr Justice Stewart of the National Crime Authority deploring the fact that this sort of information was published because it could prejudice people who were the subject of investigation. The honourable member appears to be suggesting that at this stage the Government should be taking notice of what Mr Packer said. The Government notes what he says, but we are awaiting the report from the Costigan Commission. Mr MILDREN —I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Given the very marked improvement in the Australian economy since this Government came to office, what is the Government doing to ensure that this improvement is being given appropriate recognition in world financial markets? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Ballarat for his question. It should be increasingly apparent that the Government does not have to do very much to make the remarkable performance of the Australian economy evident to the rest of the world. It is self-evident. It is a measure of the innate and deep modesty of my Treasurer that in the answer he gave to the first question in this House today he did not feel himself able to refer to the acknowledgement which has been made of his own great achievements. Therefore, I will extend my own immodesty to cover him. It will come as little surprise to Australia to find that Australia's Treasurer was recently named by the influential Euromoney magazine as its 1984 Finance Minister of the Year, a thoroughly deserved award. Mr Spender —Was it Mexico last year? Mr Hawker —Who got it last year? Mr HAWKE —I can understand the consternation of Opposition members-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HAWKE —I know that the House will be pleased to hear what was said in its October issue when it announced the award. This is something all Australians should be proud of, even Opposition members who should think about their country rather than themselves for a moment. It stated: In Euromoney's rankings, Australia is second only to Saudi Arabia in economic performance this year. The article also states: . . . at a small private lunch with senior bankers and brokers . . . in London last year . . . Keating's performance was described by one of those present as ' . . . the best performance by an Australian Treasurer in London for 20 years'. Even more impressive was the statement by Euromoney's Managing Director. When he was bestowing the award in Washington, Sir Patrick Sergeant described Mr Keating as 'the most impressive Treasurer since the war'. As though that is not enough, and indeed it is extremely eloquent in itself, I also draw the attention of the House to the September issue of the United States based magazine, Institutional Investor. Institutional Investor has a section on 'The world's best finance ministers'. Who should we find among those who are described as 'the best breed of new finance ministers'? Paul Keating. I draw the humiliation of the other side to a conclusion by drawing the attention of the House to the sentence in that issue which states: . . . Keating contrasts favourably with his more abrasive predecessor, John Howard. What a devastating understatement! We simply have to ask ourselves: What award did that failed Treasurer ever come within a bull's roar of winning? Mr MacKELLAR —Has the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs noted the systematic attack on Australia and ANZUS being mounted by the Pacific Trade Union Forum under the inspiration of the President of the New Zealand Labour Federation? Will the Government remind the Forum that the ANZUS Treaty contributes to a security arrangement in the Pacific which is the very foundation of the economic future of the region? What action will the Government take to dissociate Australia from moves within the trade union movement to destroy ANZUS? Additionally, what action is the Government taking to persuade New Zealand of the essentiality of ANZUS rather than expecting that process to be the responsibility of the United States alone? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know of no action by the Australian trade union movement to destroy ANZUS. That is the first thing that ought to be refuted. There certainly is a conference of trade union officials in the Pacific. I noticed the statement made by the President of the New Zealand trade unions which indicated their objections to certain provisions of ANZUS. I think what the honourable gentleman is about is suggesting that the Australian Government thinks there is something wrong with ANZUS. He knows that that is not our position. However, from New Zealand's point of view, I admit that Mr Lange has a view on that portion of the ANZUS Treaty which he feels can be interpreted as prohibiting the visit of nuclear warships. It relates solely to that. One will notice that Mr Lange says that he supports ANZUS in all other respects. Opposition members interjecting- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I note the Opposition's objections to what Mr Lange says. We in the Australian Government do not take the same approach to ANZUS as that taken by the present New Zealand Government. However, the issues are very clear. Both countries strongly support ANZUS. The terms of ANZUS require consultation in times of conflict or disturbance in the Pacific. But the refinement of that policy by the New Zealand Government is, I think, to do justice to Mr Lange, in accordance with public opinion in New Zealand. The New Zealand public feel that they do not want nuclear warships to visit New Zealand. I think the matter runs across party lines in New Zealand. Honourable members opposite shake their heads but those of us who have been to New Zealand recently and who have discussed the matter with people who oppose Mr Lange agree that there is a very substantial peace movement in New Zealand which objects to the visits of nuclear ships. In Australia we do not do so; nor is public opinion in Australia of the same feeling. The honourable gentleman should note the distinction. At the same time, we recognise the value of ANZUS. In fact, as we have said in the past, it was a Labor government which first encouraged ANZUS on the basis that there would be peace and stability in the Pacific. ANZUS makes a very substantial contribution to peace and stability in the Pacific. We welcome ANZUS. We think it is an intelligent co-operative arrangement which is enhanced by the ability of the leaders of the three nations concerned to be able to discuss matters from time to time. In regard to the interpretation of what one could call the nuclear aspect of warships, there is at this stage a distinction between ourselves and New Zealand, but in no way does that weaken ANZUS. Let me make it very clear that the New Zealand trade union movement is entitled to express a point of view. The point I emphasise to the honourable gentleman, and it must be the cause of some interest to him, is that the view expressed by the leader of the New Zealand trade union movement is also, I think, a view expressed on behalf of the majority of New Zealanders. Mr SAUNDERSON —I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction: As last Monday was the first anniversary of the introduction of the first home owners scheme, will the Minister advise the House on its progress? Mr HURFORD —I congratulate the honourable member for Deakin on his perception. Of course 1 October was the first anniversary of the introduction of the first home owners scheme. As to its progress report, the House will have noted already in Question Time today that collectively honourable members on this side of the chamber are a very modest lot. We are not good at blowing our own trumpets. We are not good at giving these progress reports. However, I would have to sum up the progress of the first home owners scheme by saying that it has been outstandingly successful. I draw the figures to the attention of the honourable member for Deakin and other members of the House because they speak for themselves. Up to last Friday, 28 September, no fewer than 124,500 applications were received, a magnificent response from the community. Of course, a lot of that was due to the pent-up demand because of the very poor years that preceded our Government's coming to office. Of the 124,500 applications, 80,000 have already been processed and over $220m has been paid out to the community to help those in greatest need to enter into home ownership. The news is even better because we are heading for another very successful year in the first home owners scheme. I confidently expect 1984-85 to see another 80, 000 people successfully receive their cheques. That will mean that the Government will pay out $265m. This has not only helped to get the economy going with 70,000 to 80,000 people helped into employment on- site and off-site but also it has been a story of social progress. Most of the people who have been helped under the first home owners scheme are those who would not otherwise have been able to undertake home ownership. We have not rested on that achievement. As the honourable member knows, before lunch we passed through this House the Housing Assistance Bill which, through its home purchase assistance measures, will help more people on lower incomes into home ownership. Through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement we will be helping many people who cannot aspire to home ownership into the rental area. We are not just concentrating on home ownership. Tomorrow I will lead a delegation of private sector construction people and consultants on a mission into East Asia and South East Asia. I thought I had better mention that in case nobody noticed that I had gone. This will be the last occasion in October on which I will have a chance to answer a question on housing. Of course, I will be back in November to answer any questions that may be put to me. I point out that I have had not one question on housing from Liberal Party members in the 18 months I have held this portfolio. I want to be quite fair about this. I have had one question from the honourable member for Paterson who, sadly, is not here today. Of course, he belongs to the National Party. I will send him a little cheerio and congratulate him on the fact that he was the only member of the Opposition to ask a question on housing. My cheerio is to this effect: 'Frank, your seat may have been abolished but hang in there and come back into the Parliament because you are better than all the trendy Liberals put together'. Mr SPENDER —I refer the Minister for Defence to the current negotiations on the acquisition of helicopters for the Royal Australian Navy. Can he advise us, first of all in general terms, of the cost differentials between the Westland package and the Sikorsky package? What are the competing merits of the Australian industry participation programs put up by those two companies? Can he tell us what consideration is being given by the Government to the establishment of an Australian helicopter manufacturing industry? Mr SCHOLES —While the matter is under active consideration by Cabinet I think it would be inappropriate for me to deal with the question of cost differentials. Mr Sinclair —Is it the ACTU that is considering it? Mr SCHOLES —I note that the Leader of the National Party shows an interest. It is always nice to find that people who have been in office for years and who have deferred decisions consistently find an interest when they are in opposition. There is a proposal before Cabinet for the acquisition of helicopters for the FFGs of the Royal Australian Navy. Basically, the industrial packages involved in that proposal amount to approximately the same amount of work value to Australian industry. It is considered to be an important element of acquisitions and has been for several years, hence the development of Australian industry participation programs and offset programs against overseas purchases. The development of an Australian helicopter industry is a commercial matter which impinges upon but is not directly relevant to defence requirements. It is a matter which has been and is being addressed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Mr SNOW —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the serious long term threat to Australian primary production caused by deterioration of our resource base? Can he inform the House of the steps the Government is taking to ensure the long term viability of primary industries by implementing policies which conserve our basic land, forest and fishery resources? Mr KERIN —In contrast to the neglect and irresponsibility of the previous Government when there were six farmers in the Cabinet, this Government believes it has a clear responsibility for ensuring the conservation of our resource base as it directly affects the economic well-being of each and every Australian, particularly our farmers, graziers and fishermen. This was an area of neglect under the previous Government. It preferred to turn a blind eye to all the resource questions, such as land degradation. The irresponsibility of the previous coalition Government-a very fragmented coalition it is these days- persevered to the extent that it was prepared to take only short term decisions. During the term of its office our land resources degraded, our water resources degraded, there was more salinity and the Government paid little attention to fisheries or forest resources. The Leader of the National Party in debates in this place when he was in government justified his Government's decision not to be involved in soil conservation. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) was the responsible Minister. I remember that in response to the 1978 joint collaborative study between the Commonwealth and the States on soil erosion he came forward with a release, a plan, a decision by the Government in respect of soil erosion. What happened? The razor gang sabotaged the lot. That was the action of the National Party. Even though the National Party takes different lines in different areas, following the last State election its leader in New South Wales, Mr Punch, said that the Commonwealth should not be involved in soil conservation. Land degradation, soil erosion and salinity currently affect 50 per cent of agricultural land in Australia. This Government has moved in those areas. I am pleased to say to the House, of course, that we have established a national soil conservation program with funding this year of $4m. This program is based on a carefully developed set of guidelines arrived at in consultation with the States . There is a national component and a State component. I am pleased to say that this has been most favourably received and it is making a timely contribution to the strategies in the battle against land degradation in this country. The depletion of our forest resources is another area of concern for the Hawke Government. We have moved to develop, again in consultation with the States, the industry and conservation groups, a national forest strategy. I am pleased to report that this document is expected to be released for public comment in the near future. It will provide a national framework whereby the States and the Commonwealth can properly manage Australia's forests for all uses on a long term basis. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro takes a particular interest in fisheries whereas the previous conservative Government-I have said it is a fragmented coalition; it can hardly agree on a Senate ticket in most States-addressed the question of fisheries on the basis of waiting until they were agreed. Honourable members are aware that the Commonwealth has a clear responsibility for fisheries in the 200-mile zone. The previous Government always put fisheries into the too-hard basket. The former Government was not prepared to take any action on fisheries management or planning with respect to that resource because that was against its ideology. The situation got so bad that virtually every fishery in the fishing zone for which we have clear responsibility suffered from over-exploitation or over- capitalisation or a combination of both, to the extent that the southern bluefin tuna fishery was almost at the point of extinction and in danger of collapse. In response to this shameful situation we inherited from the former Government we have moved to institute management plans in the northern prawn fishery, the southern bluefin tuna fishery, the south-east trawl fishery, the Bass Strait scallop fishery, the east coast prawn fishery and the southern shark fisheries. These management plans often involve hard decisions. But this Government is prepared to take these decisions in the interests of our resource bases, whether they be land, soil, water, forest or fisheries. Mr McGAURAN —Is the Minister for Trade able to inform the House whether a new beef agreement has been reached with Japan? If so, on what terms and conditions? If not, why not, given that the previous agreement expired some 18 months ago? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The reason there has been a delay in entering into a new agreement is that there has been difficulty in getting Japan to agree to what would be a fair share for Australia's beef exports to that country. The honourable member will recall that in my earlier answer given to the Opposition shadow Minister for Trade I made clear that the problem we were facing was one of discrimination on the entry of beef particularly when it related to high quality and grain fed beef. That caused argument with the Japanese negotiators who made it very clear, quite rightly, that at the time of the original negotiations there was to be a right of entry for 16,000 tonnes of grain fed beef which was to escalate to 30,000 tonnes by the time that agreement expired. At the same time we took the view that we should have been able to hold our share of the market. That share of the market was never held by the previous Government, nor could it have been while increased high quality grain-fed beef was coming into the whole system. The Americans were getting all that part of the quota and, accordingly, the Australian proportion was getting less. But we argued that, as it was to be a multilateral and not a bilateral arrangement, we should have had the right to tender for that portion of the quota which we had been denied. Let us face it, that problem still exists. But that is the argument that has been going on. On the second count, if the Americans were to be given special consideration because of the grain-fed beef to the extent of 30,000 tonnes-that was going to increase-it does increase under the new arrangements made by the United States of America-why could not the Australian quota in respect of the other beef also be increased by the same amount? The Japanese have not agreed with that position . They have agreed with the position that we get the right of entry of an additional 2,100 tonnes. They have agreed also that we would have a base factor of 24,000 tonnes for chilled beef and we would have also a base factor for frozen beef. We would have an additional 4,000 tonnes, I think it is, over four years in respect of that area. They have agreed also that perhaps we can have right of entry in respect of six cuts of high quality grain-fed beef whereas before we were able to get entry of only four cuts. In other words, there has been some progress in that area. As a result of the discussions that have taken place over a long period, I reluctantly hold the view that there is no alternative other than to accept the position that we really inherited from our predecessors. The agreement they negotiated was on a basis that discriminated against Australia. We can hardly complain under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade now that we have been discriminated against because the Japanese are arguing that it was known at the time of the original negotiations that a preference was to be given to the United States. We object to it. We think it is contrary to GATT. Nevertheless, I am confident that we can get a settlement of the matter which in no way adversely affects beef sales within another 14 days. Mr KEOGH —Is the Minister for Health aware of an advertisement recently placed in the Queensland Press by the Moran health care group which suggested that Queensland's sick aged are being unjustly treated? Can the Minister assure the House that the Commonwealth nursing home arrangements do not discriminate against Queenslanders? Dr BLEWETT —Yes, I am aware of a misleading and rather dishonest advertisement placed in the Queensland Press by the Moran health care group, which of course operates one of the biggest chains of nursing homes in this country. I was particularly disturbed by that advertisement because it set out to cause, I think, unnecessary concern to both nursing home patients and their relatives. The advertisement tries to suggest that, because the Commonwealth nursing home benefit levels are lower in Queensland than in some other States, patients in Queensland are being disadvantaged. Of course, that advertisement totally disregards the basis on which those payments are made-payments which were determined by the previous Government in 1977. In 1977 the previous Government introduced a system whereby nursing home benefit levels were set once a year with increases occurring every November. The benefit levels were set so that in each State the Commonwealth benefit, plus the minimum patient contribution, was sufficient to cover the total charges raised for 70 per cent of the beds in private nursing homes in each State. So every State was treated in exactly the same way. Seventy per cent of their beds were totally covered by the nursing home benefit plus the patient statutory payment. All States were treated the same. The reason that the benefits are different-as the Moran group knows very clearly because it has been involved in this for years-is that the cost structures of nursing homes are different in each State because State governments require quite different staffing levels and they have quite different demands. For instance, Mr Moran knows quite clearly that those costs are very much lower in Queensland than in some other States and that is why the payments are different for Queensland. The advertisement is so misleading that, having looked at it, one would want to know what happened to Western Australia. Mr Moran mentions all the other States and leaves out Western Australia because it simply does not support his argument . He also says in that advertisement that thousands of Queensland pensioners are having to pay extra fees in their nursing homes. From 1 September only 1,000 out of the 12,000 Queenslanders in nursing homes will have to pay something more than their full pension. But it is the same in every other State. There are a number of people in the high cost, expensive end of nursing homes that we do not fully cover. Let me turn to the motives behind this advertisement. It seems to me that the real aim of this advertisement is simply to increase the profits of this group. We do not oppose the private sector in the nursing home industry. In fact, this Government has given substantial support to the private nursing home sector. But one must question the motives of a man who provides this misleading, distorted and worrying information, a man who has made a fortune out of the nursing home industry in this country. Mr Moran was recently included in the Business Review Weekly list of Australia's wealthiest 200 people. It was said that he had a value of $30m, made mostly from the private nursing home and private hospital area. It was pointed out in that magazine that in the past 18 months he had swung his activities from his base in New South Wales to Queensland because he felt that the red tape, the conditions, the standards of nursing home demands, were less in Queensland than in other States. However, when he got to Queensland and found that the same basis applies in relation to cost, he then placed in the newspaper misleading and distorted advertisements which serve only to worry the pensioners of Queensland and, of course, if they were successful, to push up his own profits. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983, I present the annual report on the operation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983 for the year 1983-84. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present a report to the Attorney-General by the Administrative Review Council on the structure and form of social security appeals, together with the text of a statement by the Attorney-General relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 24(1) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975, I present the Australian Bureau of Statistics annual report for 1983-84. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 24(2) of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act 1975, I present the Australian Statistics Advisory Council annual report for 1983-84. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970, I present the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation annual report for 1983-84. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Pursuant to section 42(d) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, I present the annual return of persons granted Australian citizenship during 1982-83. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members I present the report on the national road freight industry inquiry. The report was made available to all honourable members during the recess. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 53(3) of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946, I present the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) annual report for 1983-84. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 99(1) of the Telecommunications Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Australian Telecommunications Commission for the year ended 30 June 1984. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Territories and Local Government) —Pursuant to section 122 of the Repatriation Act 1920, I present the Repatriation Commission annual report for 1983-84. Mr SPEAKER —I have 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 failure of the Government to clearly state whether it will impose on the States overriding national uniform land rights legislation in accordance with its platform and the five non-negotiable principles laid down by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. 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)(2.55) —Soon after the election of the Hawke Government, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) outlined his proposals to introduce uniform land rights legislation. He indicated that such proposed legislation would be in accordance with his five principles. Those principles include Aboriginal land to be held under inalienable freehold title and Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land. His proposed uniform land rights legislation, which is to be imposed on the States, was to be introduced early this year. It was put back to August of this year. As time passed, the complex nature of this sensitive issue has left this Minister stranded, unable to address fundamental questions but unwilling to abandon his personal commitment to the emotive but empty rhetoric of confrontation and imposition, a rhetoric and commitment his Cabinet colleagues now find politically unattractive . Accordingly, he delayed the introduction of the legislation until after the election. What are the reasons behind the Minister's proposals for uniform land rights legislation? The Minister has never provided detailed and compelling justification for his desire to impose uniform land rights legislation on the States. He has never identified in what way he believes the diverse and real needs of the Aboriginal people can be remedied uniformly across Australia. He has never identified in what ways the various State land rights laws or proposals are defective. He has never identified which States in particular require overriding and interventionist legislation imposed by Canberra. He has never identified how, in practical terms, he intends to implement his uniform land rights legislation. If it is to be through the Commonwealth's power of compulsory acquisition, he has never addressed the consequences of such Commonwealth-State conflict and its effect on the Aboriginal people. All mainland States have land rights legislation or are considering proposals for such legislation. All such legislation or proposals are inconsistent with the Minister's five non-negotiable principles. As I have quoted before in this House, the Minister has said that no State meets the criteria for his land rights principles. The inescapable conclusion is that legislation to be introduced by this Government will have an impact on every State. The Minister has failed to identify what is wrong with the existing State legislation. Let me briefly detail the areas of clear conflict with his stated non- negotiable principles. The South Australian Maralinga legislation provides for arbitration in the event of a refusal by Aborigines to allow mining on their land. I refer particularly to section 21 of the Maralinga land rights legislation. This is inconsistent with the Minister's principle of Aboriginal veto on mining. The Minister has an obligation to inform this House in what areas he believes the South Australian legislation is defective. The Maralinga legislation represents a genuine endeavour by the Parliament and people of South Australia to develop equitable land rights provisions, and yet the Minister by his silence holds a threat over that accepted and operating legislative framework. Similar conflicts arise in every mainland State. The New South Wales Government has on its books land rights legislation. The Minister has a duty to inform the House in what respects, in his view, that legislation is defective. Again, the Minister's principle of Aboriginal veto on mining on Aboriginal land is at variance with the existing New South Wales legislation. How will the Minister's land rights proposals affect the existing New South Wales legislation? Last week in Western Australia Premier Burke provided, albeit in vague terms, the basis of his proposed land rights legislation. His proposals are in direct conflict with the Federal Minister's principles to be imposed by way of uniform land rights legislation. In particular, Premier Burke's proposals do not include an Aboriginal veto on mining. The Minister recently was asked about the effect his legislation would have on Western Australia. He indicated that he does not accept the Burke Government's approach, but prefers the Seaman approach to land rights. Mr Holding —When did I say that? Mr PORTER —During the Australian Broadcasting Corporation interview last week. Mr Seaman's report will be the subject of further consideration during the drafting of the Government's uniform land rights legislation to be imposed on the States, including Western Australia. The Victorian State Government has indicated that its proposals are also inconsistent with the Minister's principles, in relation to both land to be granted by way of inalienable freehold title and the veto on mining Aboriginal land. The Queensland Government has legislated to give secure title to Aboriginal and Islander reserves but the Federal Minister has not identified the areas in which the Queensland legislation is defective and how he believes his legislation will overcome these defects. The Government has a duty to inform the Australian people as to the detail of its proposals given that on the basis of the Minister's own statement, his legislation will have the effect of changing the current land rights laws which apply in every State. The Minister's failure to provide such information has led to uncertainty, confusion and concern in the wider Australian community. The Minister's failure to properly confront these issues has fuelled wild speculation, emotive reaction and a backlash against the Aboriginal people. The Minister must clearly identify the key elements in his proposed uniform land rights legislation. The Minister must unequivocally indicate to this House today, when providing details of his proposals, whether they will in fact be based on his five principles. The uncertainty and confusion in this area have been increased by recent statements by Premier Burke after his consultations with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Mr Burke said that the Prime Minister had given an undertaking 'that the Commonwealth would take no action to prejudice decisions by the State Government on the sensitive Aboriginal land rights issue'. Premier Burke's statement regarding the Prime Minister's undertaking is in direct conflict with everything the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has been saying in the last 18 months. Further, reports of the Cabinet discussion last week indicate that the Government no longer has confidence in the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs' five principles which were to be the basis of land rights legislation. In the words of the Chairman of the National Aboriginal Conference, Mr Rob Riley: 'It was confusing having the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs saying one thing and the Prime Minister another'. The House and the Australian people deserve to be let into the secret as to whether the Minister's five non- negotiable principles are, in fact, to be the basis for uniform land rights legislation to be imposed on the States. There is no doubt that the Government's, and in particular the Minister's, handling of this issue has been disastrous. The Minister has managed to get miners, farmers, the States, the Aboriginal people and, indeed, the general public off-side. The editorial in Tuesday's Sydney Morning Herald stated: For Mr Holding, the land rights issue has blown out of hand. The editorial concluded by saying: The difficulty in drawing up a uniform law to take into account this diversity within the States is obvious. The muddling over the legislation has not helped matters and Mr Hawke is now facing the probability that its time has passed. On the other hand, the coalition's stance in relation to this matter is absolutely clear. We oppose the imposition of uniform land rights legislation on the States. We have clearly identified changes we would make to the Northern Territory land rights legislation. We have a proven record of achievement. We implemented the land rights legislation in the Northern Territory and we did so without the confrontation, bitterness and division which this Minister has generated. Our published policy is a reasonable and practical approach to the problems confronting the Aboriginal people. We introduced the Northern Territory land rights legislation and, after the experience of eight years, we appreciate that there are problems with that legislation. We have proposed changes to that legislation to take account of the problems which have arisen. In the past, the Minister has responded with an abusive diatribe to the genuine concerns raised in this area by the Opposition in debates such as this. The time has come for the Minister to address calmly and responsibly the issues we have raised. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(3.08) —I welcome the opportunity provided by this matter of public importance debate to debate calmly and rationally the issues in question. Since the honourable gentleman saw fit to quote a Sydney Morning Herald editorial, let me point out that a similar editorial dealing with the policy statement of his own Party was deeply critical of the fuzziness of his Party's policy on the role of the Commonwealth in the whole issue of land rights. The editorial pointed out that some of the detail of the Opposition's policy was highly commendable in part. It went on to say: . . . the party's opposition to uniform land rights legislation-based on what in this context is one of the white man's most baffling shibboleths, States' rights-undercuts the recognition of the fundamental importance of land rights. If there is confusion within the community, if there is antipathy within the community, if there is uncertainty within the community, much of that is attributable not merely to the fuzziness of the Opposition's policy in this area but to the fact that the Liberal Party and the National Party, but certainly the Liberal Party talk with two voices on this issue. Let me deal with the policy statement of the Liberal Party. Central to this issue is: What is the role and what is the responsibility of the Commonwealth in this whole area of land rights? That role and that responsibility were recognised by the Fraser Government when it introduced land rights legislation in respect of the Northern Territory. The policy document which has been put forward by the Opposition states, in effect, that its policy is that, insofar as the States are willing to meet their obligations, the Opposition would support State legislation and only where necessary would it seek to impose its own legislation. That is to say, not even this Opposition says that there is no role for the Commonwealth. It says: 'If we were a government we would encourage the States to introduce legislation; but if they fail to do so, as a last resort we would accept our constitutional responsibilities in respect of land rights'. I believe that is a fair and just interpretation of the policy that has been put forward by the Opposition. That is precisely the way in which the Government has gone about its relations with the States in encouraging the States to develop land rights positions. It is all very well for the shadow Minister to say what has happened in the States, but let us just look at that. When we came into government the New South Wales Government introduced its land rights legislation. Aspects of that legislation were not warmly received by the Aboriginal people and they asked immediately for Commonwealth intervention. We said that we would not intervene as this was a matter for the State to sort out with its Aboriginal people. We said that we would take up any of the problems not dealt with in that legislation within our discussions and our processes in the development of the principles which have to be attached to any uniform concept. Equally, the Victorian Government introduced its legislation. It has been subjected to extensive consultation with Aboriginal groups. It has now been revised. We were again asked to intervene, but we said that this was a matter for the State Government in Victoria to get right with its people and that in that context we would respond at an appropriate time and through the processes which we have structured with Aboriginal people to consider these very important issues. In respect of Queensland, we are still awaiting the responses of the Queensland Minister. We are still waiting for him to honour the undertakings that he has given to the State chairmen of reserve communities as to the handing over of full responsibility, management and control of those reserves to that leadership. On the basis of a request from State chairmen we have deliberately withheld any further discussion until those discussions are complete. In respect of the land rights legislation in South Australia, I am on public record as saying that the South Australian Government has gone so far in this area that there is very little for the Commonwealth to do except to work in co- operation with the South Australian Government to develop some uniform applications, and the State Government is perfectly happy to involve itself in that. Does this sound like exercises in confrontation and antagonism? Duplicity is practised by the Opposition in respect of this matter. It is all very well for the Opposition to attack the Government on the basis of antagonism, but where has the opposition to land rights been fomented in Australian society? When the shadow Minister speaks, does he speak for a national party? What are the policies of the Liberal Party in respect of this issue? Let us take the case of New South Wales. Whatever criticism the Aboriginal people have of the structure of land rights in New South Wales, Mr Greiner, the spokesman for the Liberal Party, says that his Party will not have a bar of land rights. That is his position, and he condemns his Federal colleagues for even endorsing the principle, providing lip service to the concept. In Western Australia, Mr Hassell has made it perfectly clear that he will oppose the whole concept of land rights legislation. He has gone right across the face of Australia, deliberately misleading and misinforming the people of Australia in respect of the aspirations and hopes of the Aboriginal people. Mr Hassell, at a joint Press conference in New South Wales, said to the people of Australia: 'No one's home is safe, no one's backyard is safe, unless you all stand up and oppose land rights'. He knew when he said it that it was a false and mischievous assertion. I publicly disowned it and I publicly repudiated it, but we heard not a word from the Opposition or from the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Let us move on to the position in respect of Western Australia. The Government of Western Australia, having looked at the complexities of this issue, decided to establish the Seaman inquiry. The Federal Government endorsed and supported that inquiry. We said that we regarded the report of that inquiry as being significant not merely to the Government of Western Australia but also to a whole range of State governments and to the Commonwealth. I stand by that position. I believe, as I have said, that Mr Seaman's report is an excellent document. I believe that it is a document which commands the attention not merely of the Government of Western Australia but also of the Commonwealth Government and the other State governments. It makes many interesting propositions that have to be seriously considered by Aboriginal leadership and by all those who are genuinely concerned with this problem. I am accused of delay, but let us look at that. We established a process in which the leader of the National Aboriginal Conference and the land councils in Australia were invited to participate in the formulation of a wide range of discussions which involved considering the full ambit of the very complex issues which deal with the aspirations of Aboriginal people, their role in Australian society and the role of the Commonwealth in discharging its constitutional responsibilities. When that body and that assembly said to the Commonwealth and to me as Minister 'We need more time in order to discuss these issues', I was happy to agree to that request and it was on that basis that the timetable was changed. I regarded that request as being one that ought to be responded to by any government of sensitivity. I find that request far more compelling than the kind of unctuous nonsense that I have heard from the shadow Minister. Let us turn to Western Australia and the position of the Burke Government. Mr Burke has made his position perfectly clear. In respect of the formulation of his Government's attitude to the Seaman report, he said that the State Government's package represents the fairest and best package available and, having regard to the control of the Legislative Council, it is the best possible basis on which to frame Western Australian land rights law. What did he mean by that? He meant that the political colleagues of the honourable gentleman opposite have made it clear that they will vote against and work against the whole concept of land rights legislation. Is Premier Burke able to mount his responses to the Seaman recommendations as if he had a free hand? Of course he is not. He is forced to develop a package on the basis that whatever he takes into the Legislative Council will be opposed tooth and nail by the Liberal Party , the political colleagues of the people who sit opposite. Mr Porter —And you do not believe it goes far enough? Mr HOLDING —I believe and I have said that Premier Burke is a better judge of the legislature of Western Australia than I am. I wish him well. He has my full support and the support of the Government in endeavouring to produce the best possible package of legislation. Mr Porter —What are you going to do? Mr HOLDING —Let me say this to the honourable gentleman, who does not come into this House with clean hands. Is he prepared for the first time in his political life to stand up to his colleagues in the State Parliament and say: 'It is Federal Liberal Party policy to support land rights'? The honourable member should abandon his opposition and accept the invitation of Premier Burke to help draft meaningful legislation. However, there is not a bit of it. The honourable member knows that he will not do it. His basic political position is one-- Mr Porter —Our policy is clear. Mr HOLDING —The policy is clear! The honourable member should tell me how clear this thing he calls a policy is when he is told the position by his State leaders. The policy is clear, but what does this Opposition member do when he is told by State leader after State leader-he is told by Hassell, by Greiner and by Kennett in Victoria-that they are opposed to the whole concept of land rights? The policy of the honourable member for Barker is that if the States do not implement a policy the Commonwealth must. He sits here and says: 'The policy is clear'. No wonder the Aboriginal people have had a gutful of the hypocritical stance that passes for a policy. They condemned the Opposition's policy, and they rightly condemned it. The honourable member may be assured of this: The broad guidelines that we have adopted are to be adhered to. We will continue our discussions and negotiations with Aboriginal people because their voice is a voice that must be heard and be responded to. We will involve, as we have already involved, the farming community, the mining industry and the tourist industry. We will invite their contributions and we will develop a package in terms of the policies which have been outlined. We will encourage the States to go as far as they possibly can. Premier Burke has the best wishes of the Government and the support of the Government in a very difficult political situation. This stance of the Opposition is hypocritical. Honourable members know that their Western Australian parliamentary colleagues will work against, vote against and undermine any attempt at land rights. It is typical of the kinds of attitudes which have bedevilled the Liberal Party and lowered its respect in the community and the Aboriginal community in particular. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.23) —We have just heard a remarkable speech from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). The Minister had 15 minutes in which to assure the people of Australia of his policy and he spent all of that time trying to denigrate the Opposition's policy. He deliberately and consciously avoided making any statement here today on where he stands on Aboriginal land rights. He is willing to criticise a State Premier but in this place today he is not prepared-- Mr Holding —Do you support land rights? Mr TUCKEY —You have had your go; keep quiet, you silly man! Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr Holding —Do you support land rights? Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, you never stopped him. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member resume his seat? The Minister will cease interjecting across the table and heed the Chair. I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —The Minister is prepared to criticise two State Opposition leaders, yet not once did he say what he would do if they carried out the policies to which they have committed themselves. They have the courage to say where they stand, for better or for worse. Mr Holding —Do you support land rights? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has already been warned. He will now not interject. Mr TUCKEY —However, the Minister is not prepared to tell us what the Commonwealth would do. That is the situation we have arrived at today and it is a far cry from that which prevailed when the new boy came to this place. He is quoted in a Department of Aboriginal Affairs Canberra document dated 25 July 1983 as follows: Mr Holding said consensus was what he would be aiming for in the talks with the States culminating in uniform land rights legislation to be introduced in the Budget session next year. Something has happened to that too. The document continues: He said: 'I don't want to twist anybody's arm but there may be occasions when we have to break a few.' What have we had today? The Minister cannot even find people's arms today. He has just ducked for cover and he has nothing whatsoever to say. What is the situation we have? We have the Holding statement brought to this Parliament. This dreamtime person brought it in here and told us what he would do. He gave us the issues. He stated that Aboriginal land was to be held under inalienable freehold title. In the five principles he also refers to: Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land; access to mining royalty equivalent; Is that the Minister's position? The Minister has just endorsed Premier Burke's position. Premier Burke tells us in paragraph L of his statement of principles- he claims he has principles; I think he doubts that the Minister has: The Government asserts that minerals are the property of the Crown. The control of royalty payments will remain the prerogative of the Government. That control will not remain with the Aborigines. You have just endorsed that. That is what you did a minute ago. Or is it that you feel that that is the appropriate position to take a month before an election because you do not mind being able to roll your colleagues in Western Australia? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will speak through the Chair, not directly to the Minister. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, is it the Minister's policy? Maybe you can answer the question. You sit in the caucus with him. Is it just a sham? Have all these people in Western Australia been misled by the Premier of Western Australia? Is it a fact that the mining lobby that is patting itself on the back this week cannot count its chickens because this Minister, who has just nodded his head, has confirmed that it is still right that there will be Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land, and there will be access to mining royalties? It is recorded in Hansard that he said: 'Yes, yes'. The Premier of Western Australia is assuring the mining industry that it can be right with him because that is his policy. Included in the Premier's policy-some of my colleagues here might be interested to know this-is paragraph M which states: There will be no veto of mining or exploration. We are not sure whether that is applicable in every area or just to Aboriginal areas. However, we know that that is what the Premier of New South Wales has said. This apology for a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs thinks he has a policy. I well remember his approach to the Nicholson inquiry. He told it that it was permitted to tell lies to a political enemy. That is a philosophy which is laid down in black and white under oath by this Minister when he was called as a witness on the notorious Richmond Council inquiry. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will stick to the terms of the matter of public importance; it does not include the Nicholson inquiry. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly will. I am warning people. Mr Hand —Ask Austin Lewis about the Nicholson inquiry. He can tell you-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will cease interjecting. He is not helping the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —He said that it is a fair go to tell fibs to a political enemy. Who will be the political enemies of this Minister in this business? We know that this Minister has failed, in the 15 minutes which were given to him, to say a simple few words. Those few words are: 'Our policy at this time is'. Mr Holding —What is your policy? Mr TUCKEY —On this issue I will read to the Minister what the Federal Liberal policy is. The Federal Liberal policy states: Federal Legislation We opposed the imposition-- Mr Holding —Do you support land rights? Just tell us. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, I have the call. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has already been asked not to interject. I reinforce the request. Mr TUCKEY —Our policy states: We opposed the imposition on the States of Federal uniform land rights legislation when in Government and we maintain our opposition to such legislation. That statement is clear enough. It is as clear as the typewritten print. The fact of life is that that is the position and always has been the position of the Liberal Party since Aboriginal land rights legislation has been around. The Minister has said some interesting things in that wonderful statement I quoted from earlier. He said that that was going to change the world which he has now forgotten existed. His own has probably been hanging on the back door of a certain room for some time. He states on page 22 of his statement: Human Rights are more important than 'State Rights'. Just in case everybody did not get it, he said later in his statement: I repeat: the human rights of Aboriginal and Islander Australians must take precedence over 'State Rights'. A few questions have been put to me by way of interjection by the Minister but it may be time he asked himself a question as to what he believes are State rights. By some peculiar feat, which is not difficult for a person of his makeup and interest in centralised government and all that, it is not unusual for him to think that State rights mean the institution of the State. I have a different view. I say that it is the right of the people living in that State. In the State in which I live those people have given a very clear message to the Premier about what they want. He has not gone as far as his colleagues in their conferences. As we know, their view has not changed. They are still telling people at Federal and State level that there will be land rights, there will be total control over mining, and there will be Aboriginal veto. But in the light of that pressure, the Premier of Western Australia has at least taken some notice of what the people of Western Australia are telling him. Is that not terrible? Is it not horrible that these people should have a view, and that they might like to think that things should be as they wanted when they elected parliament, be it State or Federal? This Minister has never checked it. He got carried away with his urban tunnel vision. He has never been out there. What did he do when he was given a message stick? He was so dumb and inexperienced that he put it in his pocket thinking that it was a peg. This is the man who is given this job when there are people even in the Labor Party who have lived a little closer to Aboriginal people and who would have a better understanding of what they are. But it is traditional that we send out people of this nature to make these decisions. What are some of the other things that the Minister has said? He quotes Mr Justice Woodward, saying that in 1974 Mr Justice Woodward said that to deny Aborigines the right to prevent mining on their land was to deny the reality of land rights. The Minister was reported in the Daily News of 2 May 1984 as having said: Let me make it quite clear that the present Government will continue to endorse that view. What has happened to those fine views today, as we face an election and some popularity polls and the words of his fellow Ministers and his Prime Minister and others? They say: 'Don't do it, Clyde; it is bad news out in the electorate' . That is how much principle this man has. He could not break an arm or even a little finger at present on this issue. He has gone to water. What is more, he is not prepared to say what his position is. Having been given 15 minutes, he thanked us for the time and gave us an expose of our own policy-which we believe is okay and will do the job, particularly because it grants rights to people within a State to make decisions about land which is theirs. I just wonder what this Minister's position would be if, for instance, the Upper House in Western Australia threw out the legislation entirely. What would he do? Mr Holding —What is your position? Mr TUCKEY —I am not the Government. You are the Government. You wanted to act like the Opposition. You were average in opposition; you are a failure in government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member may continue. His time has not yet expired. Mr TUCKEY —I do not need any more, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that I have closed on a good point. Ms FATIN(Canning)(3.33) —Before I address myself to the substance of this debate I should like to remind the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) that governments forgo mining royalties and that the Aboriginal people get royalty equivalents. That is a very important point that he does not seem to understand. Today we see a despondent Opposition trying to make as much political capital as it can out of one of the most sensitive issues facing this nation. This debate has been brought on by the Opposition for reasons of political opportunism. The shadow Minister knows that in my State of Western Australia there is a level of anxiety amongst the population which has been stirred up by the conservatives purely for political purposes. The honourable member for O' Connor says that the people of Western Australia are telling the Western Australian Government how they feel. They are responding to the deliberate scaremongering that has been going on in that State for many months. Many of us who, for a number of years, have taken part in land rights discussions are disgusted by the tactics of some of the people who are using fear, misinformation and sheer scare tactics to gain political advantage. Whilst they do this, they are spreading tension in our community. Why is this campaign being waged when we have Federal and State Labor governments addressing themselves to the issue with considered responsibility? It is because the Liberal Party and the National Party in Western Australia are facing three State by-elections and a Federal election. Their overall appeal to the electorate is at such a low level that they are resorting to scare tactics over land rights in an attempt to gain support at the polls. The people of Western Australia will not be fooled by these tactics. They will see and respond positively to the co-operation between the Burke Government and the Hawke Government, and they will see their genuine, concerned efforts to approach fairly and to resolve the whole complex question of land rights. Last week the Premier of Western Australia, the Hon. Brian Burke, tabled in the State Parliament the long awaited Seaman report and, with it, a statement of principles on which his Government will base its land rights legislation. The community response to the Seaman report has been, for the most part, heartening. The report is learned, lengthy and detailed-compiled by the obviously competent and dedicated Mr Paul Seaman, QC. The statement of principles deserves to be read into Hansard, in part, as the principles, too, reflect a responsible approach by the Western Australian Government to the land rights legislation. I quote briefly from the statement: The Government will provide for the conciliatory resolution of conflicts over land by a process of negotiation and agreement. This process will be inclined towards selective and rational land access, management and control. The system will rely on locally based regional organisations to ensure that the aspirations are those of the Aboriginal people actually concerned. Consequently, the Government will introduce legislation to establish an Aboriginal Land Tribunal to act as an arbitrator and assessment forum for land claims made by Aboriginal people where negotiated settlements cannot be achieved . The Tribunal's jurisdiction will not extend to privately owned land on freehold title, or so as to deprive pastoral lessees of their pastoral leases. When one discusses this issue with a number of people in Western Australia who have been deliberately frightened about the loss of their private property one can genuinely say that there is a situation in Western Australia of which the Opposition parties cannot be proud. One of the most encouraging developments in the Western Australian Government's approach to its land rights legislation is that since issuing its statement of principles it has sought assistance from Aboriginal, agricultural and mining groups in the drafting of the legislation. Mr Burke told the organisations that the Government would be prepared, if necessary, to pay the salaries of the people nominated for the drafting period, which is expected to be about two months. Invitations have been extended to the National Aboriginal Conference, the Primary Industry Association, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association, the Chamber of Mines, the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association and the Australian Mining Industry Council. Mr Burke is to be commended for taking an unprecedented step in extending these invitations, because establishing common ground between the groups is essential to the success of the legislation. Not only has the Western Australian Government extended invitations to the groups I have mentioned, but also it has invited the Opposition to participate. Mr Burke has called upon the Opposition to assist in the drafting of the legislation. He has stated: It is time that political differences were set aside in the interest of drawing up workable legislation. Unfortunately, on Monday night of this week the Opposition made it plain that it was not interested in Mr Burke's offer. I find this very unfortunate because here we have a unique opportunity for all interested groups to get together to draw up a bipartisan piece of legislation which would enable Aboriginal Australians to be given secure title to appropriate land. The coalition will not participate in that. Not only will it not take part in this commendable exercise, but it flatly opposes any form of land rights for Aboriginal people. I find this situation quite amazing. Here in this Parliament the Opposition has a policy document and statement on Aboriginal affairs which contains a fairly comprehensive section on land rights, yet its colleagues in Western Australia publicly deny the Aboriginals any form of land rights. I quote from an interview given by Mr Hassell in Sydney in July of this year. Mr Hassell was in Sydney launching a national campaign against land rights and said that all Australians must unite to defeat what he called a major danger to Australia's economic future. Mr Hassell said: Land rights is a racist concept, it involves the principle that Aborigines have a right to claim land because they are Aboriginal and because they're Aboriginal Australians. The land rights that at present exist in the Northern Territory have been a disaster and if they are applied to Western Australia as is proposed by the Federal Minister and the State Government in the West and if they are applied to other States as intended it will be an even bigger disaster for the whole of Australia. I repeat that Mr Hassell's view is that land rights is a racist concept. I hope that in what I have said today I have been able to indicate the very real concern and responsibility felt by this Government and the Western Australian Government on the whole question of Aboriginal land rights. Those two governments recognise the problems they and the community face in ensuring that the Aboriginal people receive justice. This Government is not going to force its way into a State and make irresponsible and unrealistic demands. We are about negotiation and discussion. The Western Australian Government is faced with a hostile upper House and an Opposition which does not acknowledge the justice in any land rights claims. It is a government which commissioned a comprehensive study of the land rights issue in Western Australia. It is a government which has invited all groups involved in land rights to join with it in compiling land rights legislation. It is not acting hastily or foolishly. I congratulate both the Burke Government and Hawke Government on their continued discussions and dialogue on Aboriginal land rights, and I condemn the coalition parties for their hypocritical, irresponsible scaremongering, which will not gain them any comfort at the polls. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, I present the final report of the Committee, incorporating a dissenting report, together with the minutes of proceedings and a letter from the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department relating to one aspect of the inquiry. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr SPENDER —by leave-Longer ago than I care to think, the Fraser Government established a Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. I was elected as its Chairman and when the Hawke Government gained power the Committee was re- established and, once again, I was elected Chairman. Considering that the Committee in its old and new forms included the Attorney-General, the Minister for Science and Technology and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, that was a real, if perhaps solitary, mark of consensus politics in this Parliament. Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the special rights, powers, privileges and immunities of the Houses, their committees and members. The purpose of our report was to examine the law and practice of parliamentary privilege and to report on what changes were thought to be desirable. We all know that the purpose of parliamentary privilege is to safeguard, in the interests of the nation, the efficient and independent working of Parliament as an institution. I think most honourable members will know that on Federation we adopted the privileges of the House of Commons. Those privileges go back over a very long period. As long ago as 1704 the House of Commons recognised that it could not change, save by statute, any of its privileges. So essentially the privileges of these Houses are grounded on laws and on practices which go back for some three centuries or more. Some of the laws as they presently apply to this House might be said to be antique, ill suited to the needs of the Houses, and obscure. There have been vast changes in the past 200 or 300 years, and indeed since 1901. The conclusion of the majority of the members of the Committee was that some major changes were required in law and practice. For my part I would say that, in looking at changes, the test should be to ask ourselves: What are the privileges needed by today's Parliament and its members for the independent, efficient and fearless working of Parliament as the body responsible for governing the affairs of the nation? What should be the practices for the implementation of those privileges? The key recommendations relate to a number of areas, and I shall commence with the penal jurisdiction. Our recommendation is that Parliament retain its penal jurisdiction. There have been a number of suggestions that the capacity to deal with breaches of privilege and contempt should be transferred to the courts or to some other tribunal. After careful consideration the Committee thought that the proper and wise course was for Parliament to retain the exercise of penal jurisdiction itself. Transfer of the jurisdiction to the courts could, among other things, give rise to real possibilities of conflict between the courts and Parliament. The Committee also believes, and it recommends, that the penal jurisdiction should be exercised as sparingly as possible, and only when necessary to prevent substantial interference with the work of Parliament. It should never be exercised in connection with plaints of a trivial nature. With one major qualification, our recommendation is that there should be no substantive change in the law concerning contempt, that is, Parliament's power to punish for a breach of its privileges or any other contempt, but that the Houses should adopt a set of guidelines which will indicate the matters which might be regarded as contempt, or the more important of those matters. This action would serve to advise the community of Parliament's thinking, but would not result in Parliament losing its capacity to take action against matters which might not fall under any particular heading. One cannot foresee what may be done in the future and what may constitute a grave contempt of Parliament in that it would be a novel action designed to impede the working of Parliament. The major exception is this: The Committee recommends that the capacity for Parliament to take action against a person for what are known as defamatory contempts or libels on the Houses should be abolished or, failing that, that defences such as truth or an honest or reasonable belief in the truth of a statement made should be available. We do not think that Parliament has brought any credit on itself-or I should say that I certainly do not feel Parliament has brought any credit on itself-in the way in which in the past it has dealt with attacks on Parliament, on members of parliament, or on groups of parliamentarians. The Oakes case was a vivid illustration of the problems Parliament can get itself into when it examines an attack made on members of parliament by the media. We are robust enough in this House and have the means at our disposal to answer any challenge that may be made to us. Therefore, we believe that defamatory contempts should be abolished. Turning to the treatment of complaints of contempt of Parliament, we have certain recommendations to make. One is that complaints should be raised in writing with the Presiding Officer instead of the present practice, which is to make a public and quick statement of the nature of the complaint. The Presiding Officer would then give his decision after having a mature opportunity for reflection and, in the time between the complaint being put in and the Presiding Officer's decision, the member could reflect as to whether he wanted to pursue the matter. We think that major changes should be made in the hearing procedures of privileges committees. The procedures of the committees should be reconstituted to meet the requirements of natural justice, in particular, towards persons who have been charged or who are the subject of complaint before a privileges committee. They should, for example, have the right of full legal representation. They should be able to examine and cross-examine witnesses, bearing in mind that if we are to retain the penal jurisdiction and if we are to retain, as we believe we should, real sanctions, including the sanction of imprisonment, a person who may face such a sanction must have the fullest opportunity to meet the case put against him and to present his own case. We recommend that the Houses should by statute be given the powers to commit a person to prison for a period not exceeding six months. That would replace the present elastic period which is for the life of the House in question with thereafter a power to recommit. We also think that there should be a power to impose a monetary penalty in place of a sentence of committal. The recommendation is that there should be a maximum penalty of $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a corporation, although views have been expressed to me very recently by one or two members of the Committee to the effect that we should look at the maximum amount which a corporation may be fined and reconsider a figure such as $25,000. The Committee was very anxious that this report be tabled before Parliament rose. At a very late stage the Committee received an advice, of 18 September 1984, from the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department. The Committee has considered it since it was received. It is our view that a scheme for collecting fines along the lines proposed by the Secretary should be adopted. That letter has been tabled. The Committee also proposes that where there is a penalty or where it is envisaged that a penalty be imposed, there should be seven days notice of the proposal to impose that penalty so that members can inform themselves and think very carefully about their actions. On the only occasion when a penalty of imprisonment has been imposed by the Federal Parliament, the notice given was scant. It is perfectly obvious that if-and one hopes that it will never happen-one is to contemplate the imposition of a penalty involving imprisonment, one needs to have a cool head. The House itself should have a cool head and an opportunity for mature reflection before moving to consider the question. The Committee is of the opinion that the power to expel members should be abolished. That is the prerogative of the people. After all, a fairly elaborate set of rules is laid down by the Constitution relating to the eligibility of a person to be and to remain a member of parliament. In the one case in which the power has been excercised, that is the Mahon case, it was, in our view, demonstrably misused by the House of Representatives. The Committee is also of the view that where a person is committed, that is, where a person is effectively sent to gaol, and this is done in contempt proceedings by Parliament , the resolution and the warrant should each state the ground of the commitment and thus permit a very limited involvement by the High Court of Australia which would be able to examine solely the question as to whether the ground stated in the warrant was capable of constituting a contempt of Parliament. If Parliament cannot state the ground properly, patently Parliament should not commit. The Committee was deeply concerned by the question of misuse of parliamentary privilege. We are all aware of complaints of misuse of parliamentary privilege that have been made. They have been made currently. They have been made in the past. I quote from a report in Hansard of the debate on the Broadcasting Bill in 1946 which shows that the question was as alive then as it is now. The then honourable member for Warringah, Mr Spender, who was temporarily suffering the vicissitudes of Opposition, had this to say on the Broadcasting Bill-- Mr Ruddock —I hope history repeats itself. Mr SPENDER —It will. The honourable member for Warringah said: We must consider the damage that might be done to persons other than members by statements made in Parliament. Members have an opportunity to reply in Parliament to charges made against them, but no such opportunity is enjoyed by citizens outside. I say with a slight sense of deja vu or perhaps apres vu that Mr Beazley interjected: Citizens are often criticised in the press, too. There is no difference between that and criticism in Parliament. Mr Spender answered: In the press, a charge made in Parliament against some person may receive publicity because it has sensational value; but because the refutation has not the same sort of value, it is either not published at all or the item appears in an obscure place and in a manner which is not a sufficient refutation. I am directing my attention to the need to protect persons outside Parliament from the effects of statements made inside Parliament . . . Times have not changed. I am very glad to say that the Committee proposes that for a trial period there be a limited right of reply to non-members who believe that they have been subjected to unfair or groundless attacks in Parliament. The proposal is that such persons could refer complaints to the privileges committee of the relevant House. There would be certain ground rules; for example, that the complaints should be confined to a factual answer and not contain an attack on the member involved. The committee would be able to recommend that the rebuttal be incorporated in some form in the parliamentary record, that is, in the House from which the criticism comes. I hope that this mechanism proves successful and that it will be, with the rest of this report, implemented and will remain a feature of our parliamentary life. The Committee recommended that there should be an expanded definition of proceedings in parliament for certain limited purposes relating to defamation. That is a highly technical recommendation and one that I do not intend to go into now. The Committee also recommended that the laws of qualified privilege as they apply to reports of the proceedings of the Parliament be modified to produce uniformity throughout Australia in the publication of fair and accurate reports of proceedings. It is absurd that there should be one law in one State and another law in some other State because of our federal system and that the same statement emanating from the national Parliament may be judged differently according to the State in which it is published or republished. The Committee also recommended that the practice of requiring leave to be granted for reference to be made to parliamentary records, usually Hansard, in court proceedings and before royal commissions and tribunals to be specified be abandoned and that, for the limited purposes only of enabling it to be proved as a fact that certain statements have been made or certain things have been done, permission be given for reference to be made without leave. This does not in any way diminish the protection afforded to members of parliament and to Parliament by article 9 of the Bill of Rights. But it is absurd that these days the public record of proceedings in Parliament cannot, under the practices presently in force, be admitted into evidence in court proceedings without a petition first being made to the House or without, during the times that the House or Senate is not sitting, application being made to the Presiding Officer. In relation to parliamentary committees the recommendations are these: That Parliament enact a Witnesses Protection Act which would make it a statutory offence to threaten, punish or injure, or attempt to do so, a person on account of evidence given or to be given before a parliamentary committee. Witnesses would also be given a right to initiate civil proceedings for damages. It is only just that Parliament extend to witnesses the widest of protection and that if a witness is injured because he seeks to assist Parliament-it is almost invariably to assist a committee of the Parliament-he should have a right of action against those who harm him, and also that they should be subject to the prospect of criminal prosecution or the reach of Parliament's contempt power. The Committee has also recommended that a detailed series of guidelines for the conduct of ordinary committees, that is non-privilege committees, be adopted. Other recommendations include those in respect of immunity from attendance as a witness and immunity from civil arrest. Honourable members will recall that somewhat biblically-no doubt this goes back to the days when 40 days were required to get from one end of Britain to the House of Commons-the immunities extend to 40 days on either side of a sitting of Parliament, which effectively means that a member can be exempt from civil arrest, so far as that relic of the past is still with us, or from attendance as a witness. We propose modifications to this rule and specific modifications that would make it more open for members of parliament to be witnesses in times when the Parliament or committees in which they are involved are sitting. We set out in the report a detailed proposal for implementation. I think we all , save for the dissentients to the extent that they have dissented, hope that the report will be implemented and that it will not gather dust. This must surely be the last time that Parliament enters into a review of this kind. If we do not accept the report and implement the recommendations we may as well throw out the window any prospect of bringing the law and practice of parliamentary privilege into the 1980s. I conclude by saying that I have been greatly assisted by all members of the Committee, both past and present. I particularly extend my thanks-I do so without making any invidious comparisons-to two of the Ministers who stayed on board the Committee, namely, the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), who stayed on as Deputy Chairman. They have heavy work loads but they were very assiduous in their attendance and their contribution to the final result has been considerable. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —by leave-I welcome this opportunity to participate in the presentation of the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. After dissatisfaction with the existing law of privilege was expressed in the Berthelsen case of 1980 and the Oakes case of 1981, on 23 March 1982 the House of Representatives resolved to set up a joint select committee on the law and practice of parliamentary privilege. On 29 April 1982 the Senate concurred. When the original Committee convened the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) was appointed Chairman. Senator Gareth Evans became Deputy Chairman. We began work in 1982 and continued with minimal change after the election of the Hawke Government in March 1983. Indeed, it was a measure of the bipartisanship in the Committee that the original officeholders were kept on. The report makes 35 major recommendations. Twenty-eight are unanimous. In seven cases reservations were expressed in a joint dissent by Senator Rae and Senator Jessop. The majority wanted to abolish the category of contempt by defamation; the senators wanted to retain it. We thought that the power to expel members was now politically quite unrealistic. The senators disagreed. We thought that the power to fine needed to be secured by legislation. The senators thought that this was an inherent power of the Houses. On the broad thrust of the report we all agreed. When I went on the Joint Committee I was strongly of the opinion that the conduct of privilege hearings ought to be transferred to a court. That was a view put by the honourable member for Holt (Mr Duffy) and me in our joint dissent in the Oakes case, which was heard at the end of 1981. This was the position taken in 1908 by the last Joint Select Committee on Privilege, in its strangely named Quick report. No action was ever taken on its findings. Whilst I still feel some reservation about whether parliamentarians should be judges in their own cause I am prepared to support the traditional position on the basis that the method by which the hearings are carried out is reformed. In our dissent in the Oakes case the honourable member for Holt and I wrote: The present methods of conducting privilege hearings are objectionable on the following grounds: (a) Hearings, including the cross-examination of witnesses, are held in secret and witnesses are warned that they may not even discuss the conduct of the hearings with their legal advisors. (b) Persons summonsed are denied the right to be assisted by counsel. (c) Members of Parliament, attacks on whose dignity and function are the subject of contempt proceedings, are not only the victims but also take roles as prosecutors and judges. The first two objections were dealt with very well in the report and I think that much of my objection in the third point is removed by the abolition of the category of contempt by defamation. It means that when the power to hold hearings is exercised it will be done sparingly, in major cases. Because the activity of the committee will be subject to scrutiny there will be perhaps as much restraint exercised by the committee as would be expected of a judicial tribunal. In these circumstances I think that the Star Chamber nature of the proceedings is removed. It must also be said in fairness that the Senate has already acted, somewhat in advance of the House of Representatives, in reforming its privilege proceedings, which are much more open and much more in conformity with the contemporary spirit of justice. One historical point that should be made is that section 49 of the Constitution declares: The powers, privileges, and immunities of the Senate and of the House of Representatives . . . shall be such as are declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom , and of its members and committees, at the establishment of the Commonwealth- That is, on 1 January 1901, in the last three weeks of Queen Victoria's life. In a sense that is where the House of Representatives still is. It was frozen on 1 January 1901. Standing Order 1 of the House of Representatives provides: In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by sessional or other orders or practice of the House, resort shall be had to the practice of the Commons House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in force for the time being, which shall be followed as far as it can be applied. For the first time we can make a small declaration of parliamentary independence . It is one of the very rare cases when it will be possible to bring about a change in the Constitution by a simple resolution of this House and the Senate. I express the hope that this report will be adopted. Whether the duration of this Parliament will be long or short is not for me to speculate on. But because of the broad sympathy for the report I hope that it can be dealt with expeditiously. With good will and a recognition that there might not be an abundance of time to talk about the subject I hope that it can be adopted before the House rises. Accordingly, I move: That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's reports on proposals for variations of the plan of lay-out of the city of Canberra and its environs, the seventy-eighth series, third report, and the eighty-third series, first report, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the reports be printed. Mrs KELLY —by leave-The first report I have tabled is the seventy-eighth series of variations reports on traffic problems in Deakin and Forrest, a matter that has been before the Committee for approximately two years awaiting a solution from the authorities involved. The previous Committee first looked at these problems when making its first report on the seventy-eighth series in October 1982. That Committee approved an extension to Melbourne Avenue as part of the access road system to the new Parliament House. But it made a condition of approval that a workable system be produced to deter through traffic from the north from using the parliamentary perimeter roads and Melbourne Avenue as an alternative route to the south, exacerbating long-standing traffic problems in Deakin and Forrest. The traffic problems in Deakin and Forrest have been of tremendous concern to local residents. During the course of its consideration of these problems the Committee has received many submissions from residents asking the Committee to ensure that a solution be found to the problems. In addition to the many individual submissions, two petitions were presented to the Chairman in July 1983 and February 1984 signed by 183 and 165 residents respectively, asking the Committee to ensure the reduction of traffic on this unintended alternative through route to the south. The Committee was aware that a solution acceptable in total to all residents could not be found, because of the conflict in views of residents. However, the Committee believed there was a commonly shared problem to which a solution acceptable to most residents could be found. In October 1982 the National Capital Development Commission undertook to provide a workable solution to this problem by the next variation hearing. However, no proposed solution was presented to the Committee until October 1983, despite the establishment of a joint task force consisting of officers of the Commission, the Department of Territories and Local Government an the Australian Federal Police to find a solution, and despite the expressions of concern by the Committee that no solution had been put to it. When the NCDC's proposal was considered by the Committee in December 1983 it was clear that it was not acceptable to both the NCDC and the Department, nor was it acceptable to most residents in the area. The NCDC asked the Department to accept responsibility for pursuing the necessary consultation and developing a workable solution to the problem. The Department, following further study, developed a proposal which it believed would assist in preventing the growth of through traffic in Deakin and Forrest. A brochure incorporating a questionnaire on the proposed solution was sent to householders in the area and the Department conducted a 'shopfront' for a period of a week to explain its proposal and obtain public response. Some minor modifications were made to the proposal as a result, but the majority of respondents to the questionnaire and those who attended the 'shopfront' supported the proposal. The Department then put its proposals to the Committee. The proposals involved two elements. Firstly, traffic arrangements were proposed at the intersection of State Circle and Melbourne Avenue which would prevent cross-movement between the new Parliament House and Melbourne Avenue. This measure was designed to ensure that there was not a tremendous growth in Melbourne Avenue traffic as a result of traffic generated by the new Parliament House. Secondly, the Department proposed a series of roundabouts in Deakin, Forrest and Red Hill residential streets to reduce the overall speed of traffic to improve road safety and to deter through traffic from using these residential streets. The Committee supports the Department's proposals as an acceptable solution to a difficult problem. The Department's proposal to prevent direct access from Melbourne Avenue to the new Parliament House is essential to minimise the through traffic using Melbourne Avenue and residential streets further south in Deakin and Forrest. The proposals for a series of roundabouts must be considered as only working effectively to deter traffic and reduce speeds if implemented as an integrated package of measures and the Committee supports them as such. While these proposals may not significantly reduce the existing traffic in Deakin and Forrest, they will assist in reducing the growth of traffic, reducing the speed of traffic and improving road safety. There is public support for, and expectation of, the implementation of the proposals in total. Apart from the particular problems with the design of the Melbourne Avenue- State Circle intersection and the cost of the Kent Street-Carruthers Street roundabout, which are discussed in detail in the report, the Committee recommends that the Department's proposals be implemented as an integrated package. While realistically the proposals can only be implemented progressively because of budgetary considerations, the Committee wishes to see the entire package implemented by the end of the 1985-86 financial year. I am sure that the presence of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the chamber today will ensure that that will happen. The measures will only be fully effective once they have all been implemented. The Melbourne Avenue-State Circle intersection proposal, which will involve little cost, should be implemented as soon as the design problems can be overcome. The second report I have tabled reports on eight items in the eighty-third series of variations which the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) has indicated to the Committee have priority. There were no public objections to any of these proposals. A number of these items to which the Committee has given priority are part of the land development program which is attempting to overcome the problem of a shortage of land and housing in Canberra . Variation No. 1 in Florey is particularly important in this regard as part of the development of Florey. It will be undertaken by the Housing Industry Association with the aim of providing house-land packages for low and middle income earners. This involvement enables the acceleration of land servicing and the construction of housing. The development in Florey will be subject to detailed guidelines which will ensure that standards of land development and housing construction which apply elsewhere in Canberra are met. The NCDC will make regular inspections to ensure that the standards as set out in the deed of land development are met. The Committee approves this variation and the other seven variations which are included in this report. The Committee hopes to consider the other variations in the eighty-third series, including those to which there were objections, as soon as possible. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-The speed with which the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) delivered the statement and the nature of these reports are such that I imagine many honourable members and honourable senators, Ministers in particular, are unlikely to wade through them and find the salient points. In one respect, while the report which relates to the seventy-eighth series is one which was supported by the whole of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, including me, one matter may be of interest to honourable members insofar as access to the new and permanent Parliament House is concerned . The effect of the decision of the Committee is to preclude direct access from Melbourne Avenue, particularly to the executive area of new Parliament House. It is designed in such a way as to minimise the amount of traffic that is likely to use the residential streets in that part of the city. But its impact is such that, if any parliamentarians, Ministers or other persons, including perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), en route from the Lodge, were seeking to use Melbourne Avenue, they would not be able to obtain direct access to Parliament House but would have to complete a circuit of State Circle before they could turn into what would be the entrance off Melbourne Avenue. I think that is an important matter that honourable members should be aware of. I have no objection to it but it may well be, if honourable members have an interest in it, that they should make their views otherwise known and take a greater interest in the reports of the Australian Capital Territory Committee than they might otherwise do. The second matter I would like to address really arises in the eighty-third series and relates to the variation of road additions to the suburb of Florey. I emphasise the importance of this development because it is novel in Canberra. It is novel because the Florey development is to be undertaken by the Housing Industry Association under a deed of land development with the National Capital Development Commission. In effect, it is a private sector subdivision in Canberra. Although the private sector is bound to build homes on the land that is purchased as part of this package the fact of the matter is that the amount of money that will be expended by the private sector in bringing this development on train ensures that further moneys are available to undertake other land development projects in Canberra. It is a worthwhile initiative and I have commended it. It should have been undertaken earlier. Notwithstanding objections that we heard to the concept of private sector development in Canberra, the fact that moneys were required to be released for other purposes meant that this project was undertaken in this way. There are a number of other projects-one involving the Master Builders Association and another involving the Australian Gas Light Co.-that are also to be undertaken on the same basis. The fact that we have evidence from the National Capital Development Commission in the report in favour of private sector land development I think is very worth while. I certainly hope that when projects of this sort are suggested in the future there will not be any knee- jerk reactions on the part of what will then be the Labor Opposition to private sector developments in the national capital. This project has established the principle and the desirability of the principle. I would like to mention briefly one other matter. There is a proposal to forgo certain road reservations in Narrabundah to enable the leasing of a caretaker's cottage associated with the Narrabundah Oval to the Aboriginal Corporation for Sporting and Recreational Activities. There are provisions requiring the Aboriginal Corporation for Sporting and Recreational Activities to accept responsibility for the maintenance of this oval and to ensure that it is in a satisfactory form for a variety of purposes, particularly sub-leasing purposes. I understand that this oval is being made available to the Aboriginal Corporation on the same basis as other ovals in the Australian Capital Territory for sporting organisations are made available for sporting organisations on a home ground basis. It is important to note the reference in the report to the fact that the Department of Territories and Local Government assured the Committee that the Aboriginal Development Commission provided the necessary guarantees that the Aboriginal Corporation would be able to meet the costs of rental and undertake its obligations in relation to the leasing. I simply point that out for the benefit of honourable members. When the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory tabled its report on the Murrumbidgee River I was away in Sydney for the day and was unable to respond on behalf of the Opposition. When the report was tabled in another place , mention was made of the fact that the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Fry), would retire at the end of this Parliament, that he had served as Chairman of the Committee for the duration of this Parliament and that he had been a member of the Committee for a long period . On behalf of the Opposition, I take this opportunity-even though the honourable member for Fraser is not present-simply to record my appreciation for the way in which he has undertaken his duties as Chairman. I commend him for his outstanding work as a member of the Committee. I found it a pleasure to work with somebody who had a real involvement in the city and a concern for the environment. On many issues we have found that we have a great deal in common. It has brought us together in a very positive and worthwhile way, working for the benefit of Canberra. I want to inject a very positive note on the work of the honourable member for Fraser. Unfortunately it is not the same commendation that I have been giving recently to his aspirant successor, Mr Langmore, because I regret to say that notwithstanding the high standards of the present member for Fraser it appears that the Australian Labor Party is resorting to the worst Tammany Hall practices involving the Public Service in Canberra in providing campaigning facilities and opportunities for a candidate. This deserves to be condemned to the greatest possible degree. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.25) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Banks (Shareholdings) Act 1972 in order to facilitate the establishment of new banks in Australia as well as to improve the ongoing administration of the Act. The amendments will ensure that the limitation and control of shareholdings in banks do not act as a barrier preventing the establishment of new banks where that would be in the national interest. The Banks (Shareholdings) Act will, however, continue to be an important aspect of the prudential supervision of banks in Australia. The Government believes that the establishment of new banks will bring substantial benefits to the Australian community through the development of a more innovative, efficient and competitive financial system. Ultimately, a more dynamic financial sector will help to promote a higher rate of economic growth, providing more jobs and a higher standard of living for the people of Australia. The Government has already taken significant steps to improve the competitiveness of the Australian financial system and, particularly given the central role of the banking industry, to facilitate the establishment of new banks in Australia. On 10 september 1984 the Government invited applications from domestic and foreign interests wishing to operate as banks in Australia. The amendments to the Banks (Shareholdings) Act contained in this Bill will ensure that the Government will be able to meet its objective of increasing competition in the banking industry and improving the range of banking services available to the Australian community. The Banks (Shareholdings) Act currently limits any one shareholder or related groups of shareholders to a holding of less than 10 per cent of the voting shares of a bank. The policy presumption in favour of dispersion of shareholdings in banking implied in this requirement is an important prudential safeguard which is designed to protect depositors. The amended Act will continue to reflect that policy presumption. The existing Act has, however, hampered the establishment of new banks in Australia. It has been difficult to find at least 11 unrelated shareholders of appropriate standing as required by the Act to form a new bank. The 10 per cent limitation on individual shareholdings may also have limited the capacity of banks to increase their capital bases. To overcome these difficulties the Bill amends the Act by increasing the size of an individual shareholding in a bank which may be held, without the Governor-General's approval, from 10 to 15 per cent of the voting shares of a bank. While the Bill increases the threshold limit on an individual or related shareholding in a bank from 10 to 15 per cent, it does provide that the Treasurer's approval is required to take a shareholding beyond 10 per cent but within 15 per cent. However, the Treasurer shall not refuse to allow a person to take an interest in a bank exceeding 10 per cent unless the Treasurer is satisfied that such a holding would not be in the national interest. The need for the Treasurer's approval for individual shareholdings to move beyond 10 per cent will provide protection against the possibility of undue influence by shareholders who may be judged to be incapable of providing the necessary ongoing support for a bank. It also provides a mechanism to avert possible conflicts of interest or an undesirable concentration of power which might arise from a shareholder having significant interests in more than one bank. In this regard the general policy presumption will be that individual or related shareholders should not have an interest greater than 10 per cent in more than one bank. The Bill also provides for the Governor-General to grant an exemption to the 15 per cent limit on individual or related shareholdings in a bank if such an exemption is considered to be in the national interest. It is this provision which will facilitate the early establishment of new banks as outlined in my public statement on 10 September. The promotion of competition in the banking industry is considered by the Government to be in the national interest. Consequently, an exemption to the 15 per cent limit would be appropriate if it facilitated the establishment of a new bank that should provide strong competition and which met the high prudential standards of entry into banking. In this regard, it is envisaged that a large shareholding in a bank would be approved only where the shareholder concerned had demonstrated an extensive record of undoubted financial strength and stability, had the financial resources to maintain the bank's viability in the longer term, would give an unqualified commitment to the prudent development of the bank and there was no conflict of interest arising from other activities of the shareholder. In the main, such shareholders could be expected to have been predominantly involved in the business of banking and finance. The Bill also provides scope for desirable flexibility in the application of the 'association' provisions of the Banks (Shareholdings) Act which provide for a person to be deemed to have an interest in a bank by reason only that the person is an associate of another person. While these are complex provisions necessary to ensure that the main intent of the Act is not undermined by the indirect holding of interests in banks, they can be more restrictive than was originally intended. For example, by these provisions a person may be prevented from being a director in two different corporations that each have a shareholding in the same bank, even though such directorships may result in no significantly greater degree of concentration of ownership or control of the bank. Under the amendments in this Bill there will be scope for the Treasurer to apply the Act so that it does not unnecessarily interfere with other commercial arrangements. The other major change introduced by this Bill is to make governments and their agencies, insofar as they are shareholders in banks holding an authority granted by the Governor-General under the Banking Act 1959, subject to the provisions of the Banks (Shareholdings) Act. The Government believes that this Bill will facilitate establishment without weakening the protection of bank depositors. It will enable the early establishment of relatively large and strong banks which will bring more competition and innovation into our financial system. At the same time, the Bill improves the ongoing administration of the Banks ( Shareholdings) Act. I commend the Banks (Shareholdings) Amendment Bill 1984 to honourable members and indicate that these changes to this Act provided the opportunity for the historic change in the Australian banking system which this Government is now in the course of implementing. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Withdrawal of Bill Mr SPEAKER —I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Canned Fruits Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1984, currently order of the day No. 9, Government Business, does not comply with the provisions of standing order 213 as certain clauses do not come within its title. Pursuant to the provisions of standing order 214, therefore, the Bill shall be ordered to be withdrawn. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the Bill be withdrawn and that order of the day No. 9, Government Business , Canned Fruits Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1984, second reading, resumption of debate, be discharged. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(4.33) —The Opposition does not object to the withdrawal of the Bill and it is not appropriate for me to canvass at this stage the merits or otherwise of it. However, I place on record our protest at the way in which the Government is going about its legislative program. To us it is quite amazing that a Bill of major interest to the canned fruits industry and the thousands of people directly or indirectly connected with it could be presented before this national Parliament and then have to be withdrawn because the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and/or his Department have not adequately done their homework. Surely it must disappoint you, Mr Speaker, to preside over a Parliament where a Minister in charge of a very important piece of the Australian economy does not know what he is talking about. We have 21 pieces of legislation dealing with primary industry being rushed through this Parliament, blackmailing the Westminster system and perverting the system of parliamentary representation. Indicative of the haste is that the Minister has to tell us here that he does not know what he was talking about and the Bill did not have its correct title. What does it apply to? What is it all about? Sure, it is a technical matter; it is a matter of relatively minor significance. But it repeats a practice of this Government and of this Minister, who are littering this place with decisions and policies which they have not got right, and farmers throughout Australia are quite obviously fed up. We have seen many instances of this. In March the Minister introduced six Bills to do with inspection charges. I tried to tell him in this place: 'Please go and do your homework. Get the ground rules right'. He had to withdraw two of those Bills in this Parliament. He was not prepared to go to the second reading stage in this House. He sent the Bills to the Senate. Because we are interested in primary industry matters, I ask: What happened there? We exposed his shallow attitude, his incompetence, his inability to get to the heart and thrust of the matter. Those Bills were defeated in the Senate. He was going to apply charges from 1 October. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs knows that he should not get too far from the subject of this motion, which is the withdrawal of this Bill. Mr McVEIGH —I am making this point. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member can do that in passing, but he cannot extend it. Mr McVEIGH —I am just making the point that I believe it is wrong under the Westminster system for a Minister to introduce into this Parliament legislation which is wrong in fact and which is not even correct in its title, for the Opposition then not to have an opportunity to draw to the attention of the Australian people the haphazard way in which he and the Government treat primary industry and their absolute inability to get their focus and sense of priorities right, and for them then to expect us to debate matters legitimately. All along the line we have been trying to tell them: 'Please hasten slowly. If you do not understand it, if you do not know anything about it, come to us and we will try to educate you'. I am trying to make the point that I hope that you, Mr Speaker, can take up with your colleagues the fact that when they come into this national Parliament they should be correct and know what they are talking about. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should not reflect on the Chair. Mr McVEIGH —I am just asking you, Mr Speaker, to use your good offices. Mr SPEAKER —My colleagues are all members of the Parliament, not just the Ministry. Mr McVEIGH —I know you try to look after us and you do it very well. Mr SPEAKER —I think the honourable member might have misused the phrase. Mr McVEIGH —Mr Speaker, I ask you to use your good offices as Speaker to try to indicate to them that the time of this Parliament is very important, that each matter is of great significance and relevance, and that it should not be torpedoed and perverted by people rushing Bills in here for the sake of trying to get them on the Notice Paper when they do not know what they are talking about. I just make that point. I think I have every right to make it. I make it legitimately, and I am correct. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill replaces the Bill I have just withdrawn on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel as the long title did not fully reflect the provisions in that Bill. The provisions of this new Bill are identical to the previous Bill and the points made in my second reading speech for the previous Bill also remain the same. By way of explanation to the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), two words had to be removed from the title of the Bill I have just withdrawn. The two words were 'section 4'. I am told that the need to change the title of the draft Bill was overlooked during some last minute changes to the layout of the Bill and that it was subsequently picked up by the draftsman after introduction here. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.39) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1984). Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1984) which I have just tabled decrease the excise rate on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas-LPG(N)-from $39.96 to $34.70 per kilolitre on and from 1 October 1984. This alteration was announced by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) on 30 September 1984. I commend the Proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr McVeigh) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(4.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to implement a number of recent Government decisions in relation to the supplementary licence scheme, loopholes in the ownership or control provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 and recommendations of the Administrative Review Council regarding Australian Broadcasting Tribunal inquiry procedures. I shall be shortly introducing related amendments to the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Act 1964 and the Television Stations Licence Fees Act 1964. The proposed amendments can be summarised as follows: In relation to supplementary licences the Bills will implement government decisions on three issues. These are, firstly, insertion of concentration of media ownership as a factor to be considered by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in considering supplementary radio or television licence applications; secondly, the aggregation of gross earnings to determine total licence fees payable by those holding both a supplementary and commercial station licence; and thirdly, empowering the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to determine progressive commencement dates for transmission facilities required to provide a supplementary radio or television service. The Bill will also close certain ownership or control loopholes relating to the acquisition or increase in a prescribed interest by means of voting control, and indirect acquisitions of excess prescribed interests in licensee companies. In relation to Australian Broadcasting Tribunal inquiries this Bill includes amendments to provisions which prescribe the composition of the Tribunal for the conduct of inquiries as well as amendments to provide for extension of a licence pending completion of a renewal inquiry. There is expected to be an increase in Government revenue arising from the proposed amendments of the licence fees Acts . However, it is not possible at this time to provide a realistic estimate of the extra revenue which may be obtained. The other amendments which I have briefly outlined will not result in any significant costs, revenue or savings to the Government. I now turn to the detail of the proposed amendments. (A) Supplementary Licences-Concentration of Media Ownership I remind honourable members that the major purpose of the supplementary licence scheme is to provide a greater degree of commercial programming choice to people living in areas which are outside the mainland State capital cities and which could not support an additional commercial radio or television service without threatening the viability of existing services in the area. Honourable members will recall that, in a statement to this House on 30 November 1983, I indicated that the supplementary licence scheme would proceed. I also foreshadowed the introduction of legislation to make explicit the need for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to take concentration of media ownership in an area into account when deciding whether it should grant a supplementary licence or recommend to me that I should invite applications for an independent commercial licence. I pointed out that, just as the Government is committed to the proposition that the greatest possible diversity of programming ought to be available to audiences wherever they live in Australia, so we are also committed to the proposition that, in any area, programming diversity ought to be provided by as wide a range of competitively and independently owned media outlets as possible. The Labor Party, when in opposition, supported the broad thrust of the supplementary licence scheme. However, at the time, concern was expressed that the scheme had the potential to exacerbate concentration of media ownership in a number of areas. For example, in some areas, one company could own or control the sole commercial radio station and the sole commercial television station and , in some instances, the local newspaper as well. Sub-section 83 (6) of the Broadcasting and Television Act requires the Tribunal to have regard to specific public interest criteria when it is considering whether to grant a supplementary licence application or to recommend that applications be invited for an additional commercial licence. This Bill will add concentration of media ownership or control in the area to be served to the public interest criteria to be considered by the Tribunal. The term 'media' has been defined so as to include Press, radio and television. This amendment is consistent with the Government's policy of encouraging diversity in programming and control. It should be emphasised that this amendment does not purport to empower the Tribunal to regulate Press ownership or control. It merely directs the Tribunal to take account of all relevant media interests in determining whether a supplementary licence should be granted or whether it considers that a fully competitive service would be both viable and in the public interest. Aggregation of Licence Fees In my statement to this House on 30 November 1983 I also foreshadowed the introduction of legislation to require that revenues earned by a person or organisation holding both a commercial and a supplementary licence, whether for radio or television, be aggregated for the purpose of determining the total licence fees payable to the Commonwealth. In a case where a supplementary licence is held by a consortium of companies, licence fees will be calculated for each member on the aggregated gross earnings from its commercial licence and its share of the gross earnings of the supplementary licence. The Government considers that these proposals are fair and equitable. Supplementary licences represent a benefit which is available only to those who already hold a licence, and aggregation of earnings accurately reflects the total use made by the licensee of the radio frequency spectrum. I will shortly introduce amendments to the broadcasting and television stations licence fees Acts to provide for these proposals. This Bill includes a consequential amendment of section 106 of the Broadcasting and Television Act to enable the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to request both aggregated and separate accounts and other records for related commercial and supplementary stations. This amendment ensures that the Tribunal can obtain all financial information which is relevant to the calculation of licence fees. Progressive Commencement of Transmission Facilities for Supplementary Services The service area of a supplementary service will be substantially co-extensive with the area served by the related commercial station and any associated commercial translator stations. Multiple transmitting facilities may be required to deliver the service to the whole of the service area but, in contrast to the other services, supplementary translator stations will not require separate licences. Section 89C of the Act presently requires that all transmission facilities required to provide a supplementary service must be brought into operation on a single date for commencement of the service, as specified by the Tribunal. The Government recognises, however, that where multiple transmission facilities are required, it may not be practicable for the supplementary licensee to commence the service throughout the service area on a single commencement date. The Bill therefore provides for amendment of section 89C to empower the Tribunal to determine dates for progressive commencement of supplementary licence translator stations. The amendment will enable the Tribunal to evaluate the economic arguments associated with any application by the supplementary licensee to phase in the operation of supplementary translator stations. If these arguments are accepted, the Tribunal may determine that supplementary translator stations shall be brought into service progressively over the five- year period for which a supplementary licence is granted. Ownership or Control Loopholes On 19 July 1984 I announced the intention of this Government to introduce amending legislation in order to close two potential loopholes in the ownership or control provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act. I indicated at the time that the necessary amendments would take effect from the date of my announcement to prevent exploitation of the loopholes before legislation is in place. Voting Rights Loophole The first potential loophole in the Act may have allowed a person who acquired voting rights, rather than a shareholding interest, in a licensee company to avoid those provisions of the Act which were intended to require a process of approval by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to an acquisition of, or increase in, a prescribed interest in a licence. The effect of the loophole is that significant changes could occur in the control of licensee companies without the approval of the Tribunal. In such an event, the Tribunal's role in overseeing changes in ownership or control, in accordance with the public interest criteria set out in the Act, would be undermined. The Bill closes this loophole by extending the requirement for Tribunal approval to cover any transaction by which a person acquires a prescribed interest in a licensee company or, being already the holder of interests in a licence of a kind amounting to a prescribed interest, acquires further interests of that kind in the licence. The Bill provides that the relevant amendments apply to any transaction which has taken place since 19 July 1984, being the date of my announcement of the Government's intention to close the loophole. Indirect Interest Loophole The second potential loophole is the unintended result of amendments introduced in 1981 by the previous Government. Those amendments were intended to provide a six months period of grace to persons who unintentionally breached the ownership or control limitations of the Act by virtue of share transactions to which they were not parties. The loophole occurs in a situation where a person or company acquires a prescribed interest in a licensee company as a result of a transaction to which he or it was not a party and where the parties directly involved in the transaction do not require Tribunal approval under the Act. Using this loophole, it may be possible for a company, through acquisitions by its subsidiary companies, to acquire any number of prescribed interests in radio and television licences and therefore to completely nullify the multiple ownership or control provisions of the Act. On a literal interpretation of sections 90C and 92 of the Act a third party who acquired excess prescribed interests in this way would not commit an offence under the Act. The Bill closes the loophole by providing that, where a party to a transaction does not require Tribunal approval of the transaction, but a third party acquires an excess prescribed interest by virtue of the transaction, the third party must reduce his holdings to the prescribed limits within six months of a Tribunal decision to either approve or not approve the transaction in relation to the third party. An application for approval must be lodged with the Tribunal within 28 days of the transaction. However, if the third party fails to lodge an application with the Tribunal within 28 days he will be in immediate breach of the Act and no period of grace shall apply. These amendments also apply to any excess interest when acquired in this manner since 19 July 1984, when I announced the Government's intention to close the loophole. Tribunal Inquiries I turn now to proposed amendments relating to recommendations of the Administrative Review Council contained in its report on Australian Broadcasting Tribunal procedures. That report was submitted in February 1981 to the Attorney- General in the previous Government. In its report, the Council recommended amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act and the introduction of associated regulations to establish uniform procedures for the conduct of inquiries by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. On 10 September 1984 I announced that, subject to some minor modifications, the Government accepted the Council's recommendations. The present Bill covers only two of the Administrative Review Council's recommendations which are considered vital to the efficient operation of the Tribunal and which are severable from the other matters. These measures relate to the constitution of divisions of the Tribunal, and provision for extension of a licence until the Tribunal has completed an inquiry. In the short time available since the Government's decision, it has not been possible to prepare all of the necessary amendments. It is expected that the drafting of legislation for the remaining matters will be completed in time for the 1985 autumn parliamentary sittings. Constitution of Divisions for the Conduct of Inquiries by Tribunal Members The Broadcasting and Television Act, at section 156C, empowers the Tribunal to constitute divisions consisting of one or more members or associate members for the purpose of holding an inquiry, except for inquiries into renewal of a metropolitan commercial radio or television station licence or into the suspension or revocation of such a licence, which must be conducted by a majority of Tribunal members. In 1982 the maximum membership of the Tribunal was increased from five to eight members. Having regard to the significant increase in the Tribunal's workload in recent years, the increase was vital to the effective functioning of the Tribunal. However, the benefits of the increase in membership have been significantly reduced by the requirement that a majority of Tribunal members must sit on all metropolitan commercial licence renewal inquiries. There are presently seven members on the Tribunal, requiring at least four members to sit on metropolitan renewal inquiries. This would increase to five if the Tribunal were at full strength. The Administrative Review Council recognised the clear need for the Act to be amended in a manner which allowed for efficient allocation of Tribunal resources . It recommended that the Chairman of the Tribunal be empowered to determine the number of members who would constitute a division for the purpose of an inquiry. While accepting the need for flexibility in this area, the Government considers that statutory safeguards are desirable to ensure that licensing decisions affecting substantial commercial interests are made by more than one Tribunal member. It has been decided, therefore, to retain a requirement that a minimum of three members must sit on inquiries in relation to a metropolitan commercial licence renewal, or a suspension or revocation of a licence. Apart from this qualification, the Bill provides that the Chairman shall determine how many members are to comprise a Tribunal division in each case. The Bill provides also that in special circumstances the Chairman of the Tribunal may add members to a division or replace a member of a division after the commencement of a hearing. An example or circumstances which might warrant the addition of a member to a division would be a case where a single member is appointed to a particular inquiry, and substantive issues are raised after the hearing commences, such as a serious breach of a licence condition. If the membership of a division is increased then the hearing will recommence unless all parties to the inquiry otherwise agree. A member of a division cannot be replaced after the commencement of a hearing unless the member has ceased to be a member, or has ceased to be available, for example, due to illness. In accordance with a recommendation of the Administrative Review Council the Bill provides that, in most circumstances, only members of a division may participate in the decisions, reports or recommendations in relation to the relevant inquiry. This ensures that members who did not participate in the relevant inquiry and who may be unfamiliar with all of the relevant material, are not able to override the views of the members of the division. The only exceptions to this rule will be in the case of an inquiry held pursuant to a ministerial direction under section 18 (2) of the Act, or inquiries in relation to the determination of program or advertising standards under section 99 and section 100 of the Act. In these cases the Chairman of the Tribunal may direct that the full Tribunal shall make the decisions, reports or recommendations if he considers it desirable to do so. This may be on the basis that it involves major policy issues in which all members of the Tribunal have an interest. Short Term Extension of Licences Pending Completion of a Renewal Inquiry Section 86 of the Broadcasting and Television Act requires applications for licence renewals to be lodged with the Tribunal not less than 20 weeks before the expiration of the licence. In most cases this provides adequate time for the Tribunal to complete an inquiry and to make a decision. However, in some cases, renewal inquiries raise complex and important issues which cannot be considered fully by the Tribunal before the licence expires. Also, in some cases, it may be necessary for the Tribunal to refer a question of law to the Federal Court of Australia, or a legal action may be launched by a party to the inquiry. In order to remove the pressure on the Tribunal to renew the licence before satisfactory completion of its deliberations the Administrative Review Council recommended that the Tribunal should have power to extend a licence until it had made a decision on the inquiry. The Bill implements the Council recommendation by providing that a licence is automatically extended until the Tribunal takes a decision on whether or not to renew the licence. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(4.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I foreshadowed this Bill in my second reading speech on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1984. The purpose of the Bill is to require that the gross earnings of a person or organisation holding a licence for a commercial radio station and the related supplementary radio service be aggregated for the purposes of calculating the licence fee payable each year. The proposed amendments also cover the situation where a supplementary licence is held by a consortium of companies. In these cases the licence fee payable by each member of the consortium will be based on the aggregation of gross earnings of the member's commercial radio station and its share of the gross earnings of the supplementary service. Each member's share of the gross earnings of the supplementary service will be determined by reference to the proportionate share of the profits of the supplementary service to which the member is entitled. The existing provisions of the Act which provide that the licence fees payable each year are based on the gross earnings in the immediately preceding year shall continue to apply. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(5.00) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I foreshadowed this Bill in my second reading speech on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1984. The purpose of the Bill is to require that the gross earnings of a person or organisation holding a licence for a commercial television station and the related supplementary television service be aggregated for the purposes of calculating the licence fee payable each year. The proposed amendments also cover the situation where a supplementary licence is held by a consortium of companies. In these cases the licence fee payable by each member of the consortium will be based on the aggregation of gross earnings of the member's commercial television station and its share of the gross earnings of the supplementary service. Each member's share of the gross earnings of the supplementary service will be determined by reference to the proportionate share of the profits of the supplementary service to which the member is entitled. The existing provisions of the Act which provide that the licence fees payable each year are based on the gross earnings in the immediately preceding year shall continue to apply. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.01) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Townsville Airport, Queensland, terminal area development. The work generally comprises provision of a common user domestic passenger terminal, apron and taxiway works, car-parking and other services to overcome congestion at peak periods, alleviate aircraft parking problems and improve car- parking and traffic flow. The proposed facilities are designed to satisfy current and forecast requirements into the 1990s. The main elements of the proposed work are: A new air-conditioned common user domestic passenger terminal building integrated with the existing international terminal building. Demolition of the existing domestic terminal building. Strengthening, rehabilitation and extension of aircraft movement area pavements and the domestic aircraft apron. Widening of apron approach taxiways and fillets to accommodate wide-bodied aircraft. Support facilities and services including modification of the internal airport road system, additional car-parking, a new central emergency power-house and alterations and extensions to drainage, power supply, fire and other services. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $14.3m at September 1984 prices. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(5.03) —During a visit to Townsville on 24 February 1983 the then Leader of the Opposition promised the people of Townsville that a Hawke Government would, during its first term, institute proceedings and take the necessary action to provide a new domestic terminal and associated facilities at Townsville Airport. The present Townsville terminal was constructed shortly after World War II. It has served the Townsville community since then. The present facilities are inadequate. They are barely able to cope with the tremendous expansion of air traffic that has developed in north Queensland over the last 10 years. But what is of significance is that no action had been taken by the previous Government, in all its years prior to 1983, to deal with the need to provide a new domestic air terminal in Townsville. Certainly the previous Minister for Aviation, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife), had visited Townsville prior to the last Federal election and had provided a sketch plan of a proposed new terminal, but no action was taken. I commend the Hawke Government on its decisiveness and on the urgent way in which it has decided to provide this much needed facility. In the 1984-85 Budget an allocation of $300,000 was provided for these works. It is anticipated that tenders will be called in April 1985. The Hawke Government has taken merely 16 months to reach the stage at which this House has made this referral to the Public Works Committee on the Townsville Airport terminal area redevelopment. Hopefully, the new domestic air terminal will be completed by 1987. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(5.07) —The Opposition welcomes this reference. I join with the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) in saying how very pleased I am that the Government is proceeding with this project, which I had the privilege of announcing when I was Minister for Aviation. It is true that the project has had a fairly long gestation period. However, I think that the honourable member might have been just a little harsh on the previous Government when he said that nothing had been done. But I understand his excitement at the fact that the project is at last proceeding, and I am delighted that some of the planning action took place when I was Minister for Aviation. We welcome the Minister's reference today. As Vice-Chairman of the Public Works Committee, I can indicate that the Committee will deal with this matter expeditiously. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.08) —I move: That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of a submarine warfare systems centre, HMAS Watson, South Head, New South Wales. The proposal referred to the Committee is for the construction of a new building at HMAS Watson for the submarine warfare systems centre which provides operator training for the combat system of the Navy's Oberon class submarine force. HMAS Watson is located on South Head, Sydney, and is a training establishment providing advanced courses in tactics, navigation, anti-submarine warfare and training on the fleet's weapon systems. Functions to be accommodated in the new facility are tactical development, training, including simulators, computer facilities, technical support and administration. The proposal involves demolition of an existing structure and construction of a three-level building partly set into the site to minimise its height above ground level and impact on the skyline of South Head. The building will be of concrete construction with external finishes designed to match the colour and texture of the natural rock prominent in this area. The Committee has reported favourably on the proposal and has recommended construction of the work in the reference. The Committee has noted the concerns expressed by local citizens' groups, in particular the Vaucluse Progress Association, and the Sydney Harbour and Foreshores Committee about the likely impact of the proposed building on the adjacent historic cottage. The Committee considered alternative designs prepared by my Department but agreed that the additional costs involved were not warranted. The Committee has asked that careful consideration be given to landscaping and that a landscape plan of management be developed. These matters relate to the very prominent location of HMAS Watson itself as well as to the siting of the proposed building and will receive close attention during the detailed design phase now to follow. Establishment of a formal landscape management plan along the lines envisaged by the Committee will also be considered during this period in consultation with a consultant landscape architect who has assisted in the past on projects in this sensitive area. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $3.42m at July 1984 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(5.12) —The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). As a member of the Public Works Committee I took the opportunity to visit HMAS Watson and discussed with the naval authorities and other defence personnel the needs in this area. I was pleased to receive an undertaking from the Minister about landscaping. It was a matter on which members of the Public Works Committee commented. The proposal relates to a beautiful part of Sydney and it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to do the best it can, both from a defence point of view and also from the point of view of the foreshore and the needs of residents of the area. The Opposition supports the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.13) —I move: That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of Australian Embassy Complex at Beijing, People's Republic of China. The proposal referred to the Committee is for the construction of a permanent embassy complex to replace the present inadequate leased accommodation. The embassy is to be constructed on a site in the San Li Tun diplomatic quarter which is about five kilometres from the city centre. The main elements of the proposal are: A four-level chancery building; a three-level head of mission residence; terrace housing for staff; recreation facilities; and ancillary facilities, including a health centre and amenities for locally engaged staff. In reporting favourably on the work the Committee concluded that action should be taken now to design the building so that an additional floor can be added to the chancery portion of the structure to provide for additional office accommodation should this prove necessary in the future. Such provision would cost in the order of $250,000, which is not a substantial increase on the total estimated cost of $33.8m. After considering the implications the Overseas Property Office of the Department of Administrative Services agrees with the Committee's recommendation and will be seeking agreement to this increase in the scope of the work. The Committee also concluded that further consideration should be given to the involvement of an Australian construction management organisation in the project. This is a matter which will normally be considered during the detailed design phase. I assure the House that the aim will be for maximum Australian involvement in all appropriate aspects of the project, including supply of materials that are not available locally, special equipment, and supervision. If there is a realistic opportunity for an Australian construction management organisation to play a role in the project, it will most certainly be explored. The Committee has recommended construction of the proposed work at the limit of cost estimate of $33.8m at April 1984 prices. This figure does not include Chinese Government fees and allowances for cost escalation during the construction period. These additional costs are estimated at $3.6m. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. As I mentioned at the end of Question Time, tomorrow I leave to lead a trade mission to East Asia and South East Asia. My first stop will be Beijing and I look forward to visiting the site mentioned in the motion. My trade mission involves not only the great construction industry of this country, which is responsible for about 10 per cent of our gross national product, but also our consultancy industry-architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and others. The Hawke Labor Government believes that we need to put our action where our rhetoric is in terms of integrating our economy with the fast growing areas of East Asia and South East Asia. As a government we are seeking to open doors for the great private sector which requested this trade mission. I am proud to be leading the mission into China. We shall be visiting not only Beijing and Shanghai but also some near north-eastern areas of China. We will then move into Thailand, into west and east Malaysia, into Brunei, Singapore and also Indonesia. This mission is a combination of people from the private sector and people from government and it will collect information about the aspirations of the local people for economic development. We shall be looking at how our expertise in technology and other professional areas can help the local people to achieve their aspirations. It is most timely that I am able to move this motion relating to the Beijing Embassy as I look forward to visiting the site very soon. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(5.18) —The Opposition supports the motion which has been moved by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford). This project has been carefully examined by the Public Works Committee and both the Opposition and the Committee accept the urgent need for the project to proceed. I am pleased that the Minister has been able to move this motion today prior to his visit to Beijing. I am sure I speak on behalf of all the members of the Public Works Committee in saying that I hope that the visit will be pleasant and enjoyable. Indeed, we are sorry we are not accompanying the Minister. I was pleased to hear him say that the recommendations of the Public Works Committee had been noted, and in some instances those recommendations have been approved. It was my experience as a Minister that the Public Works Committee was a valuable tool, if I may so describe it, to any Minister worth his salt. I am pleased that the present Minister for Housing and Construction is prepared to listen to those recommendations and in many instances to endorse them. The motion has the Opposition's wholehearted support. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.19) —I support the comments of the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife). Having visited Beijing, I agree with everything the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) and the shadow Minister have said. I would like to make the point to the Minister on the eve of his trip that I feel it important for Australia to own its properties in overseas posts, not only the chancery buildings but also buildings for ambassadors' residences. It is an important consideration. It is not a practice that is carried out in all posts, and I commend the Minister to take this proposal to his Cabinet colleagues. There are places where these things do not happen and they certainly need to happen when values are rising. I regard such properties as an asset to Australia . Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —by leave- (5.20)-I move: That, in accordance with the provision of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of facilities for the Australian Frigate Project, Williamstown Dockyard, Victoria-Phase B. The proposed works are for the provision of further shipbuilding facilities at Williamstown Dockyard necessary for the construction of two vessels under the Australian frigate project and to improve the general efficiency of the dockyard . These works comprise phase B of the shipbuilding facilities project and were foreshadowed in the presentation of phase A of the project to the Committee in February 1984. Phase A was approved by Parliament on 5 April 1984. The shipbuilding facilities project as a whole constitutes the third stage of development of the dockyard for its current role and supplements facilities provided over the last nine years as part of stages 1 and 2 of the dockyard modernisation project. The works proposed in this submission-this would be well known to the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Scholes), who is in the House listening to this debate-comprise a support service centre, an occupational health centre, a guided missile launcher system assembly building, the upgrading of existing workshops and canteen, shipbuilding platens II, a mobile plant facility, an administration building annexe, car parking, shallow pits in Alfred Graving Dock, security measures, site works and engineering services, and a training centre. The estimated cost of the proposed works is $13m at September 1984 prices. I table plans of the proposed works and, in commending the motion to the House, say how pleased the honourable member for Gellibrand, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), is that this project is going ahead. He is not able to be in the House and talk to this matter today, but I can say that it is another example of the Hawke Labor Government getting on and improving defence and other facilities in this community. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(5.23) —The Opposition also supports this motion. Phase A has recently been dealt with, as the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) has indicated, by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and, of course, by the House. It is now necessary for the second phase to follow on speedily. Members of the Public Works Committee look forward to receiving this reference and dealing with it in an expeditious way. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —by leave-(5.24)-I move: That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of Commonwealth and Family Courts, Perth, Western Australia. The proposal is for the construction of a building to accommodate Commonwealth courts and tribunals presently located in unsuitable leased premises. The site of the proposed works is on Commonwealth-owned land at the corner of Victoria Avenue and Terrace Road, adjacent to the Perth Concert Hall and the existing Commonwealth Government Centre. The building will comprise nine upper levels and a basement. It has been designed to complement other significant buildings in this important precinct in the city of Perth and will accommodate the Federal Court of Australia, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Family Court of Western Australia, the Director of Legal Services, the Official Receiver, the Commonwealth Reporting Service and management support groups. The Public Works Committee has reported that there is a need to replace leased accommodation and that the design of the proposed building is satisfactory. In reporting favourably on the proposed work, the Committee welcomed the provision of a child-minding centre in the new building and sought assurance that its design and operation will accord with State regulations. The Government notes the Committee's request. The Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Housing and Construction will consult with State authorities about the child- minding facilities. The Committee will be informed of action proposed. The Committee has recommended construction of the work in the reference at an estimated cost of $28.5m in December 1983 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, and I know that in particular it is supported by the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth), who unfortunately was unable to be in the House at the short notice on which I brought on this motion, detailed planning can proceed in accordance with the Committee's recommendation. I thank the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fife) for allowing me to bring on these two motions by leave to facilitate the workings of the House. I commend the motion to the House. Mr FIFE(Farrer)(5.26) —The Opposition also supports this motion. As Deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I presided over the hearing in Perth and I am very familiar with this project. There certainly is an urgent need for it. I agree with the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) and also with my colleagues on the Committee that this accommodation should be provided, firstly, because the existing accommodation is unsuitable and, secondly, because I believe that in this instance, where courts are involved, the accommodation ought to be owned by the Commonwealth. It is an excellent site. Whilst the Minister, I think, referred to the design as being adequate, in my view and in the view of my colleagues on the Public Works Committee it is an outstanding design and concept. I am delighted that such an excellent building, which will be a landmark in Perth, is to be erected on this site. Referring to the child-minding facilities, the Minister has pointed out that the appropriate department, the Attorney-General's Department, will look into this matter and that the Committee ultimately will be advised of the decision. I reinforce the Committee's recommendation. Some people who are listening to this debate or who read the Hansard record afterwards might wonder why it is necessary for child-minding facilities to be provided in a building of this nature. The Family Court of Australia is to be housed in this building, thus there is a very real and urgent need for those facilities. I indicate my own very strong personal support, as well as that of the Public Works Committee, for the provision of this facility. We support the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILL: SOCIAL SECURITY AND REPATRIATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984] Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 , as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the two measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(5.27) —We are discussing the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill ( No. 2) 1984, which were introduced by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) when the House was last sitting. The two Bills are omnibus measures. Some of the measures flow from the Budget. The Opposition has no quarrel with the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill. We support that Bill and the measures contained in it. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill has nothing in it that we wish to oppose, but it touches on two areas-nursing home benefits and the 35-day rule for hospital patients-in a way that leaves the main problems in these areas virtually untouched. Therefore, as an amendment to the motion for the second reading of that Bill 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 is of the opinion that the Bill does not deal adequately with the serious problems faced by the long term sick and elderly caused by the Medicare 35 day rule, and calls on the Government to withdraw the 35 day rule until proper arrangements have been made to care for patients affected by the rule. Before I go on to the main issues, I ask the Minister to clarify his intentions in regard to clause 9 of the health Bill, which inserts a new section 3C. The Bill uses the term 'health service' rather than 'medical service' in giving the Minister power to determine that a service is eligible for medical benefits where the service is not listed in the medical benefits schedule. Is it the Minister's intention to use the power to include health services not previously eligible, for example chiropractic services? I would welcome clarification on that point during his reply. I turn now to our main concerns with the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. Clause 12 makes allowance for the payment of nursing home benefits where a patient is temporarily absent and for the bed to be available for respite care. In other words, if somebody is away for a few days it is possible to use that bed to relieve the pressure on a family caring for somebody who is infirm. That person can occupy the bed in the interim. He goes back when the original patient returns. This measure is good as far as it goes but it highlights a general nursing home problem which has been getting very much worse since this Government took office in March 1983. The Government says that it favours a move towards domiciliary care and, as part of that program, it froze nursing home bed approvals for 15 months. After that it introduced new guidelines for the approval of nursing home beds but those guidelines are so restrictive and depend so much on the proposed move towards domiciliary care that they amount to a virtual freeze continuing on nursing home bed approvals. As part of this admirable intention to try to assist people to stay at home and be in the right kind of care, proposals have been advanced to improve assessments of the sick and elderly so that they can be put into the right kind of accommodation or assisted to remain at home. Eighteen months down the line those assessment arrangements are very much still in embryo. Therefore, they are not really available to the whole of the country. Certain teams are testing these things out in parts of the country but there is not in place a proper geriatric assessment system. In the Budget the Government indicated that it would bring in a new home and community care program as part of its intention to favour home care. The program was for $300m to be spent over three years. One noted that at the end of 18 months of talking about this the Government gave only $10m of new money in the 1984-85 Budget year for the home and community care program. Fundamentally, this Government and this Minister have imposed a fearful freeze on nursing home accommodation without having introduced the necessary additional measures to make it easier for people to go into other types of accommodation or to remain at home. The cart is definitely before the horse. Mr White —They have nowhere to go. Mr CARLTON —As my friend the honourable member for McPherson rightly says, they have nowhere to go. The really cruel aspect of this is that there is additional pressure on nursing home accommodation caused by the 35-day rule and the procedures for section 3B certificates which are referred to in this Bill. The Bill makes a trifling amendment to the section 3B arrangements. We agree with the change. It is to make section 3B certificates available 14 days before the 35-day period is up, as opposed to the previous seven days. That is okay but it is a minor change. I will put this into perspective by explaining to the House exactly what a section 3B certificate is and what the 35-day rule is. Section 3B is a section of the Health Insurance Act. It relates to the certificate that a doctor has to sign for a patient to continue receiving full acute care benefits in a private or public hospital. If a person with an acute illness has been in hospital for 35 days a doctor must sign a section 3B certificate to certify that that person requires continuing acute care; otherwise many dreadful things happen to that person. Under the arrangements that were in place before Medicare came in on 1 February 1984 and the arrangements operating under the previous Government, a section 3B certificate could be issued if a patient was in need of one of four things. He could have been in need of acute care, professional attention for an acute phase of his condition, active rehabilitation or continued management for medical reasons as an in-patient. A doctor had four reasons for signing a section 3B certificate. In addition, the certificate did not have to be signed until the sixtieth day. On 1 February 1984, the Medicare day, the only ground on which a section 3B certificate could be issued was that the patient was in need of acute care. That wipes out the other three-professional attention for an acute phase of a patient's condition, active rehabilitation or continued management for medical reasons as an in-patient. How does this affect patients? First of all, it has a very severe effect on psychiatric patients. They may require professional care for an acute phase of their condition, such as a chronic schizophrenic requiring hospitalisation when the chronic illness temporarily worsens, leading to the need for professional attention in a psychiatric hospital. Psychiatric patients needing rehabilitation , such as those who are no longer acutely ill but who require retraining or resocialisation before they are capable of re-entering the community, are also excluded from coverage under the new section 3B certificates. By the deletion of continued management from the criteria a psychiatric patient unable to cope in the community cannot turn to psychiatric hospitals to manage behavioural or other problems. It may be extremely difficult for him to manage outside a hospital; yet he is precluded from hospital treatment because he does not necessarily qualify as being in need of acute care. The abovementioned limitations upon the certification of patients under the new section 3B legislation effectively discount psychiatric disorders from being genuine illnesses for the purposes of defining long-stay patients. The same picture is evident for medical patients-patients not in need of surgery yet in need of professional attention for an acute phase of a more chronic illness, active physical rehabilitation or continued management for any medical reason. They are excluded from being bona fide hospital patients and are classified as nursing home patients irrespective of their condition. This clearly indicates that the Minister for Health sees psychiatric and medical hospitals and their long-stay patients in an entirely different setting to surgical facilities and their patients. That is a distinction which not only is difficult to understand but also is clearly discriminatory and totally unfair to medical or psychiatric hospitals. Another major area of concern is the treatment of the dying. A patient may not be classified as needing continuing acute care but he may be extremely sick or in a terminal condition. Section 3B certificates cannot be signed for such people if they have passed through what is termed the acute phase. I am not making this up. I am getting many letters, as is the Minister. He knows this is happening. He has correspondence on it. A neighbour of mine was in this predicament. Her husband was in a private hospital locally. He was told by the hospital that the 35 days was nearly up and that he was no longer classified by the hospital as requiring acute care. His wife was absolutely desperate as to where her husband should go because he was gravely ill. However, he did not meet the requirements for a section 3B certificate. My office rang every nursing home in the vicinity and beyond without any success because there are enormous queues for nursing homes. They are not in a position to take terminally ill patients in those conditions, given their present demands. I managed eventually to persuade a war veterans' home to take this person. He died three weeks later. All I can say is that when we see the distress of a person who has a relative in that condition, with all the normal distress of a situation where the patient is dying but who by these procedures is put to that difficulty, I think it is absolutely intolerable. I will make it more clear as I go on why I think this is one of the most outrageous measures I have seen in my life. There are major difficulties for all hospitals in the wording of the section 3B certificates. Certification cannot be made retrospectively and certificates must be postdated from nought to seven days-in this Bill it will be 14 days-before they come into effect. Problems arise when the doctor or hospital is unsure whether a patient genuinely needs a section 3B certificate or continued hospital treatment. It is often difficult to substantiate objectively a claim that a patient is in need of acute care. If the patient's doctor is unavailable during this period-he may be away on holiday-the hospital is be placed in the difficult position of not having the attending doctor available to complete a section 3B certificate. The other problem, of course, is that after 1 February, when Medicare came in, the penalties were increased on doctors signing certificates incorrectly. Making a false statement makes a doctor liable for a fine of $10,000 or five years-- Mr Donald Cameron —Ten thousand dollars! Mr CARLTON —Ten thousand dollars. The honourable member for Moreton would know also that five years in prison is the other penalty for a doctor if the certificate is falsely signed. Doctors are certainly being intimidated by this qualification. They feel they are taking too great a risk to complete section 3B certificates for any patient if there is any doubt at all in regard to the acute nature of the patient's condition. The other aspect of this legislation is that a section 3B certificate must not be made out retrospectively. In other words, if a person misses day 35 then that person has no redress. The form has to be filled in before the 35 days are up. People are now being given 14 days before that has to be done. There is a reason for that which I shall mention shortly. The next problem is that the health funds are given 60 days in which to object to a section 3B certificate. If an objection is raised, either by a health fund or by a delegate of the permanent head of the Department of Health, the certificate goes to an acute care advisory committee, which consists of a representative of the Commonwealth Department of Health as chairman, a representative from the State authorities, a representative from the Australian Medical Association and a representative from the health funds. The balance of power there is not exactly in favour of the doctor or the patient. All members of these acute care advisory committees must be medical practitioners. The reason given by the Minister for extending the period for signing before the 35 days is up is to allow disputed certificates to go to an acute care advisory committee. But that does not meet the problem at all because the funds have up to 60 days to lodge an objection. So we can get a situation-incidentally , I will give a case shortly on this-where a certificate is disputed after 60 days, then it might be another two weeks before the acute care advisory committee can deal with the matter and then that acute care advisory committee can turn it down. Alternatively, it can make a recommendation to the permanent head or his delegate to accept but then the permanent head or his delegate can turn it down. That is a real difficulty. Honourable members can imagine the difficulties both for patients and for hospitals when there is this kind of delay. Another problem with the questioning of section 3B certificates by this process is that it undermines the authority of medical practitioners. It means that claims officers working for a health fund may decide that a section 3B certificate is invalid for any reason and refer the matter to one of these committees without even giving the medical practitioner or the hospital involved the courtesy of explaining the individual patient's condition in more detail. The implication there is that not only are medical practitioners fraudulent but also they are careless in their issuing of section 3B certificates. It also suggests that claims officers or officers of the Department might know more about the condition of the patient than the attending medical practitioner. A further problem is that no guidelines have been issued by the Department of Health as to the definition of acute care. We find only the words 'requiring acute care'. It is now eight months since 1 February when this measure came in and we still do not have a definition of acute care for the doctors to follow. So the doctors are required to put on the line the possibility of being fined $5 ,000 or going to gaol for six months when the Department, after eight months, still has not given them guidelines to describe what 'acute care' means. What happens when a patient does not qualify for a section 3B certificate? At that point the patient is classified as a nursing home patient. If the patient is in a public hospital that patient is required to pay 87.5 per cent of the age pension plus the supplementary allowance. So it is actually $12.40 a day. If an age pensioner claims free hospital treatment in a public hospital under Medicare and, at the end of 35 days, cannot get a section 3B certificate, having been classified for acute care, and cannot find accommodation in a nursing home and is too sick to go home, that person is then charged $12.40 a day-$86.80 per week -for free medical care under Medicare. How many people know that? The more we look at this wretched scheme that this Minister has brought in the more we find that it is absolutely fraudulent. How many pensioners in Australia know that if they go to a public hospital they can be there after 35 days with nowhere to go, too sick to go home, and charged $12.40 a day for their bed? After 35 days they may well still have commitments at home. It is not as if they are suddenly transformed into a permanent nursing home type patient where it is proper to take 87.5 per cent of their pension as part payment for a nursing home bed. In this case they may only be there for, say, another month or two, but over that month or two they will be having to pay $86.80 a week in addition to all their other commitments under the free Medicare scheme. I think that is disgraceful. If they are in a private hospital they pay the $12.40 plus the drop in the fund benefit. If one does not get a section 3B certificate the fund benefit drops to about $68 a day from whatever it was before, depending on the category of hospital. So these people usually will be paying at least $50 a day in addition, depending on the category of hospital, if they are in a private hospital. A lot of pensioners have taken out private insurance so that they can get into a hospital. In most capital cities of Australia people are in a queue and if they are pensioners they cannot get in. If the hospital thinks that a person might be terminally ill it is jolly hard indeed to get into one of those hospitals. So that is what happens to a person if that person does not get a section 3B certificate. Also a more restrictive approach was taken by the health funds after Medicare was brought in because they had $80m taken out of their reinsurance trust fund which was there to help look after the chronic cases. Therefore, they have been putting limitations on the number of days that a person's private insurance stays at a certain level. Let us look at what happens in practice with a lot of these things. I have a number of examples. First of all I will quote from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's World Today interview with Sheila Truswell, who is a social worker at the Royal North Shore Hospital of Sydney. She was asked: Where do the problems start? Is it in the reclassification stage? She answered: There are several difficulties about it. The first is that there is no legal definition of what acute care is. So, the doctors have to fill in this certificate without clear guidelines of what they are supposed to be saying. There are penalties attached to this which are $10,000 fine or 5 years in prison . So, you can imagine that some doctors are pretty reluctant to put their names to a piece of paper which carries these sorts of penalties when there are no clear, or legal definitions as to what they are writing about. However, if the patient is having acute care, and there is no doubt about it, like somebody in the spinal injuries unit or somebody having treatment for renal failure, there is no problem. That patient is definitely still requiring acute care and the certificate is no problem. But for the people who have been ill in the acute hospital and who need to go out, and possibly are not able to look after themselves at home, the problem is where do they go. The health funds do not cover them in the private hospitals unless they have taken out insurance and Medicare certainly does not cover people in private hospitals. It is only for people in public hospitals. A lot of these people have dropped their private hospital insurance because this Minister for Health has suggested that, under Medicare, they should do so because they will have a bed available in a public hospital. Those beds are simply not there. Let me quote another answer given by Miss Truswell. She said: It is very difficult for us, who are working within the system, to get exact information. It requires a great deal of researching, phoning up and trying to get the exact information. For people in the general public, it is almost impossible. There is confusion and anxiety about being ill in the first place, let alone all the bureaucratic difficulties that surround their discharge from hospital after 35 days. I will quote now from a copy of a letter sent to the Minister, who is at the table, in February of this year. I have much later examples. I picked this one out. It was written by somebody in Sydney. I will not identify the person. It states: I am writing to you-- this is to the Minister opposite-- regarding my mother, aged 80, to advise you of the situation I am in due to ' Medicare'. In October last year my mother was admitted to-- I will not mention the name of the hospital, but it was a private hospital in Sydney-- . . . into a six bedded ward after having had a stroke. In the first two weeks in hospital she suffered a further two strokes which has now left her paralysed down the right side, her speech is impaired and she is in a confused state of mind and is also in constant pain. She is incontinent and consequently catheterised. She also gets urinary tract infections which causes diarrhoea and she is immobile. She is in need of constant continual nursing, having to be bathed, fed, dressed and constantly turned to avoid bedsores. She was a rotund lady in October but is now frail and thin. As she has lost so much weight she can no longer wear her dentures and the paralysis makes it difficult for her to swallow and she is only able to have pureed food. The nursing care and attention at the Scottish Hospital is wonderful. My mother is a pensioner but is still able to pay into the highest scale of the Medical Benefits Fund. Up until Medicare-1st February-the hospital accommodation has been fully insured-NOW due to lack of Government Funds to the hospitals, the closing of hospital and placing hospitals into categories for Insurance it has made it impossible for the ordinary citizen to have the privilege of being ill. The Scottish Hospital, Category 3, has to now close its lower level for survival of the hospital due to lack of Government Funds. This is where the long term patients were. My mother now has to be moved upstairs and go into a private room, costing $145.00 per day. 3B Certificates which were issued before can no longer be issued unless it's ''Acute Care'' as opposed to before Medicare of '' continued Management for Medical Reasons''. If these 3B Certificates cannot be signed by the doctor the hospital fees will cost out of pocket $77 per day or $ 539 per week-Please Sir, where am I to find that sort of money? No one can afford that kind of money. During all this time I have been trying desperately to find a Nursing Home. I have her name down at seven places, one of which said I would have to wait at least twelve months and another two were not interested in taking my name as the lists were too long. This situation for the patients who need ''extensive'' care in nursing is unbelievable. What is happening to the Country? At this rate we can only go backwards. Sir, please help me-advise me what to do with my mother-where am I to place her ? Please can you find a bed in a nursing home for her or could you please tell me where I can find $539 per week to keep her in hospital? I am getting quite desperate and sick myself worrying about it. I have a number of these letters. I have another letter concerning an 89-year- old man in Melbourne who has a heart condition and lung cancer. He is frail, unable to stand or even sit out of bed. He has been enrolled in a fund for 17 years but because of the drop in the re-insurance payments and the difficulties of section 3B certificates the son has simply got to find somewhere for his father to go. His daughter stated: In the past five weeks I have driven many kilometres visiting nursing homes and spent many hours ringing up in an effort to find a bed for my father. Out of 20 or so nursing homes contacted only five have even been willing to place his name on an urgent waiting list-a male bed is even harder to find than a female one. One home to whom I had applied in November 1983 for a place for my father in case of emergency, informed me that he was now fourteenth on an urgent list and that it could be two years before a bed was available at their rate of vacancy. Mr Donald Cameron —How long? Mr CARLTON —Two years. She continues: Others gave me eighteen months as a waiting time. Every home has told me that their lists are either lengthy or closed with many in my situation. . . . . . . The trauma of being continually knocked-back has to be experienced, exacerbating as it does the stress involved in having a seriously ill, loved family member. The hurt of having to continually ask for help, ultimately begging and competing with others in similar dire distress is demoralising and soul destroying. It is not as if this has not been known for a long time. On 23 March the Brighton Committee on aged care in Melbourne wrote to me and I am sure also wrote to the Minister pointing out these things and saying that something really has to be done about it. The letter states: The Committee is very concerned that there appears to be no acknowledgement that this problem exists or that any attempt has been made to find a satisfactory solution. I have been raising the matter in the House and around the country over the eight months since Medicare was brought in. The Minister makes attacks on private hospitals. He made another attack today, in Question Time, on a nursing home proprietor but he does nothing to deal with the actual problem. I will quote another problem. This is due to the fact that certificates can be revoked retrospectively. Into my office only last week came a person whose father died on 4 July 1984 after being ill in hospital over a number of months. The illness began just before Medicare came in. A section 3B certificate was issued on 1 March and 31 March and then continuously up to the time that the patient died on 4 July. On 27 August-the patient having died on 4 July-the widow received a letter from the fund saying that the first two certificates put in on 1 March and 31 March had been revoked. That meant that there was a gap of $2,069 .37 between the bill from the hospital and what was paid back by way of nursing home benefit only to the patient, but that only covered two months; there is still another four months to be dealt with. On the same average gap over the four months there will be a $6,000 bill for this widow and that of course is being applied retrospectively. The certificate is revoked retrospectively and so we have a person who is bereaved-- Dr Klugman —That is the funds. Mr CARLTON —I do not care whether it is the fund or anybody. It is the system. It did not happen before 1 February this year. It did not happen before Medicare and the rules that the funds are governed by were set by this Minister and this Government. I am just not accepting this any longer. This is absurd and it has been absurd for eight months. Everybody knows it is absurd; even the advisers know it is absurd. There have been discussions with private hospitals and all the bodies concerned. Welfare groups and community groups have written in about it but, because it only happens to a relatively limited number of people and is not affecting a broad number of votes, the Minister has done nothing about it. It is time it came out. We are not questioning the economics of this matter, it is obviously not a good thing to have people who do not need acute care occupying hospital beds at a higher cost. I have no quarrel with that. The economics of it are quite simple; we have heard the Minister explain them. I was aware of them when I was a Minister. I knew that this was happening, but there was absolutely no way that I would bring in a rule to throw the people out of these places or give them additional costs until I had worked out some way of dealing with them. If there is a freeze on nursing home beds-we know there is a shortage-we know there will be a problem in these cases. We know that the people concerned are at their weakest moment and yet the whole thing is brought in before this additional domiciliary care, before there is proper assessment, before the nursing home lists are reduced and before a jolly thing has been done to deal with the agony of these people. This Minister and this Government are absolutely and clearly responsible for this. It came in under Medicare. It is yet another one of the most fraudulent, cruel and nasty aspects of this wretched socialist health scheme. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is this amendment seconded? Mr Donald Cameron —I second the amend- ment. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(5.58) —The Health Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) which are being debated cognately contain many aspects. Unfortunately there is not time to deal with all of the aspects, many of which relate to the fine tuning of some details of previous legislation. Of course, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has continued his obsession with the 35-day rule about which we have been hearing in this House for some time. We have just had a treatise on that. That particular aspect has very little to do with the substance of these two Bills which we are debating today. It is worth while to point out that under the previous Government there was a 60-day rule. The evidence that we have suggests that those people who are in hospital after 35 days are still in hospital after 60 days. Of particular concern to those in my electorate with regard to this legislation is the care of those in hostels and nursing homes. In my electorate there are more than 25 hostels and nursing homes which provide excellent facilities and very good care for thousands of elderly and disabled people. The first amendments I would like to look at are those to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954. These amendments provide for a 10 per cent increase in hostel care subsidy and personal care subsidy. That will be implemented from 15 January 1985. Perhaps more important than that is the commencement of a respite care subsidy. This will assist those families and individuals who care for aged and disabled persons in their homes but who require a facility to allow for short breaks from the demands of caring for aged friends and relatives at home. Our approach in this regard has always been a concern for the long term future. Of course, our budgetary initiative of the home community care program is just one of those aspects. On coming to government we became aware of the fact that annual subsidies in the hostel area represent a budgetary item of something like $50m a year. Certainly we were concerned that money should be spent efficiently in these areas. Hostels should be occupied mainly by frail and disabled aged people, and those aged people who are able to spend time at home should be encouraged to do so and remain with their family and friends wherever possible. With this in mind new arrangements were implemented in January this year. Of course, there have been problems and I think the Government has not shied away from them. I have been involved in many discussions with nursing homes and particularly hostels in my electorate with regard to this aspect of the legislation. In fact the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has willingly discussed matters with these people. We have also set up a review committee which will examine the effects of the new arrangements and the adequacy of the services and standards in hostels. I believe this is a continuing process in our consultation with those hostel organisations that have been providing such excellent facilities. The concerns of these hostels include their staffing arrangements, the assessments and suitability of their facilities, adjustments to patient moieties and certainly scrutiny of their budgets and their allocations for particular items. I believe that the review, which will probably be completed by the end of this year, will shed some light on this very difficult area. The second aspect of this legislation is the amendment to the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act. Presently a subsidy is provided for approved organisations which provide meals on wheels. This legislative amendment will bring about nearly a 20 per cent increase in the payment for each meal to those groups able to provide the service within the new conditions outlined. Of course, the old subsidy will continue for those organisations not able to meet those conditions. I believe it is timely for us at this time, particularly for me, to congratulate such groups as the League for Home Help which provide hundreds and hundreds of meals for elderly people and other people at home and in need of this service. Such groups , I am sure, will be delighted with the amendments and the improved financial circumstances that they will bring about. I now turn to perhaps the most important aspect of this legislation, in my view ; that is, the amendments to the nursing home benefits provisions in the National Health Act. For too long nursing home patients have feared hospitalisation because of the possible financial burden. The medical indications were often compelling but very often these people were afraid of the financial implications of being hospitalised. There was also fear amongst these people of temporarily leaving the nursing home to stay with relatives or friends because of the financial implications and perhaps because of the possibility that their nursing home bed would not be available in the future. The amendments being made to this legislation will enable the Commonwealth nursing home benefits to be paid for patients temporarily absent from nursing homes. Not only will that initiative be welcomed by those who will be able to leave the nursing homes, but also we anticipate that it will facilitate the admission of respite care patients taking the place of those temporarily absent. Certainly that is something we would encourage. We hope that those being cared for and those doing the caring in those circumstances will avail themselves of these opportunities. Of course, the Government is aware that there is a significant saving to the taxpayers when people are supported and looked after by friends and relatives at home. No longer will patients have to pay the equivalent of the Commonwealth nursing home benefit when they are away from the nursing home for a short period . No longer will they fear temporary hospitalisation. They will now be able to look forward to staying with relatives and friends for periods during their time in the nursing homes. There will now be an increase in the availability of access to respite accommodation in nursing homes. All of those things, I am sure , will improve the circumstances of those people. Of course, a number of other measures are included in this legislation. Perhaps I should briefly mention one or two of them of interest to us. The first is the transfer of ownership which may be desirable for some recyclable aids. This means that such things as wheelchairs and other aids available to people will be able to be maintained and passed on by the States following the death of their owners. The amendments to the provisions in the National Health Act which enable the Commonwealth to supply hearing aids through the National Acoustic Laboratories will permit the Commonwealth to fund the maintenance of privately purchased hearing aids and associated equipment. This represents an improvement for those people involved. I am sure all honourable members are aware that the National Acoustic Laboratories are very much stretched in their facilities and ability to provide an adequate service. Certainly this amendment will be of assistance in that regard. Further aspects of this legislation deal with clarifying and streamlining the ' pay under' arrangements which ensure that medical benefits are paid where a service not listed but considered legitimate is carried out. I am sure that this is far from being a contentious amendment. I do not have time to pursue all the matters covered in this legislation, but I particularly support those aspects of it which will bring about improvements for those in nursing homes, those who have friends and relatives in nursing homes and those who are using or looking forward to using hostel accommodation in a respite way. This will improve the circumstances of the aged, frail, disabled and infirm in particular within my electorate, which has a high concentration of such people. I commend this legislation to the House. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(6.08) —Some aspects of the legislation currently before the House would be regarded as without political bite and uncontroversial . However, I wish to raise one or two points. It is a pity that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) is a member of the other chamber and has to be represented here by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). I refer to the decision of the Government to increase the subsidy on meals on wheels from 55c to 65c for a meal with vitamin C and to freeze the subsidy at 50c for those which do not provide vitamin C in accordance with the requirements. I notice that in the second reading speech the Minister referred to what is intended in the future. He said: The Bill will increase the rate of subsidy for each meal . . . where the approved organisation meets new conditions of service delivery as from 1 January 1985. There is nothing controversial yet. To continue: These conditions have not been finally determined, but will relate to the operation and management of approved organisations concerning service delivery. An example of such a condition is that service delivery would have to be made on at least five days in each week. The new conditions would be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. For the first time since 1970, when the Liberals introduced the concept of a subsidy, we are voting on legislation without knowing fully what the Government has in mind. Is the situation such that, if Christmas Day falls on a Monday and Boxing Day on the Tuesday and the local service does not provide five meals that week, the Government will gazette a decision to the effect that that group loses its eligibility for the higher subsidy for a full year? The Minister looks rather pensive at the moment. I make the point that I have been here long enough , on both sides of the House, to see things happen that are well intended but contain legislative traps. Once they are in the hands of the departments, which understandably are bound by the rules, they start implementing those rules and we sometimes see unjustified penalties being applied while the public servants simply say: 'We cannot do anything about that; that is the way it is'. I want a clear explanation of what the Government has in mind. I also express a concern about what seems to be growing control imposed on these meals-on-wheels organisations by this socialist Government. I make one or two points here. It is all very well, I agree, for governments to feel that they must have controls over the expenditure of public moneys. There is no escaping the fact that the subsidies paid out, which probably amount now to $7m or $8m, represent public money and that therefore there is a need for control. I wonder what many of the people who design these regulations really know about the real life away from Canberra, in areas where the meals-on-wheels organisations operate. I wonder what the Minister who is responsible for the introduction of these regulations and his colleague in the Senate really know. I wonder whether the Minister's Department, with the scores of people who engage in research, has ever done a profile on the meals-on-wheels organisation. Recently I commenced a profile on a number of such organisations in Queensland. Unfortunately, my results are not complete yet, but I can present to the House a profile of one group for which all the returns and questionnaires are back. This is a typical meals-on-wheels organisation. The women involved outnumber the men by more than 4 : 1, and that is understandable. Forty-five per cent of the people in this group are themselves over pension age. In another two weeks I could have given the House the results for several groups, but we have one which perhaps is typical of the others. These people have been delivering meals on wheels for an average of four to five years. One lady in this group is 76 years of age and she has been doing it for more than 25 years. On average they deliver about one and a half times a month. The average number of meals delivered per driver is 12 to 15. I believe that the Government has not understood an area of real need. I dearly hope that the Opposition parties, when we are re-elected to power following this ill conceived, hastily called, near future election will do something about it. Some of these meals-on-wheels organisations have introduced their own subsidy schemes whereby they assist people with a financial contribution to meet the car running costs. The Government does not give these people a single razoo; yet here it is tightening up controls, with more red tape from this end. These organisations, as well as having to attend to the Government's paper work, about which we are not even told, are out raising their own money to try to assist financially, not paid people, not members of Parliament, not public servants, but the people who give of their time year in and year out to help others. I remind the House that 45 per cent of this group are themselves of pension age . Twenty-four per cent of this group give back the petrol subsidy but three- quarters of them actually need the money. Only one-third of the group have spouses working full time. About 55 per cent fall into the description of people not being in the work force or not having a spouse in the work force. Of course, there will be some widows in that group. The remaining numbers are made up by people with a full time or part time job or with a spouse with a part time job. In delivering meals they travel an average of 15 to 20 kilometres a day in the metropolitan area. Two-thirds of them are members of a one-car family. A little under one-third belong to two-car families and, for some strange reason, some members of the group do not have a car at all. I have not quite worked out how they deliver meals on wheels, unless they borrow a car. The Government is saying to these organisations: 'Unless you bow down to these new regulations, these new requirements, you will receive a subsidy only at the old rate; you will not qualify for the new rate'. I think we in this place have an absolute cheek to say to people who give so much: 'You shall do this and you shall do that'. One response from a 72-year-old lady was: 'I have been doing it for 15 years and I will keep on doing it while my legs are strong enough to carry me up the stairs'. That indicates the good will that exists in the community. Yet the Government was hardly in office before it unleashed more regulations and controls, more impositions and paperwork. I wonder what motivates Labor politicians when they are in office. They are heartless. I hope that the presentation of this profile will give the Government a better understanding of the thousands of decent Australians involved in servicing the needs of the 50,000 recipients of this service. Honourable members should remember that it was a Liberal government which introduced the subsidy system. In the second half of my speech I wish to concentrate on the portfolio of the Minister for Health. We had an excellent, quiet presentation by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). That speech by a former Minister, now a shadow Minister, will make very interesting reading. I listened to that speech and I am quite sure that the shadow Minister will be listening to mine. As I have said previously, I believe that the Government is motivated, when it comes to health care, by a determination to destroy everything in the private sector. Last time I spoke on this subject I read an extract from that central Sydney newspaper, the Guardian, in which the present Minister was reported to have said : 'I have always said it will take two terms to get Medicare into place'. I believe that the second string to his bow, if his Party is successful in the next election, will be to destroy completely the private hospital sector. Honourable members have heard the attack today on private nursing homes. They are in front of the Minister's gun; they are for the high jump. Also, his long term aim is to have all doctors salaried. Mr White —Why do you think he hates them all? Mr DONALD CAMERON —I do not know. I go back to the fact that a previous speaker, the honourable member for Mackellar, referred to the system of section 3B certificates and the 35-day rule for hospital patients. The previous Government speaker, the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth), said that the shadow Minister for Health had raised this matter a number of times. The honourable member for Perth is a socialist. He could not be anything worse. He is probably also a member of the doctors reform group. He referred to the honourable member for Mackellar as having an obsession about the subject and how he has carried on over the months. I want to read to the Minister an article from a paper called the Sunday Mail. Probably he does not even read the Brisbane papers. On Sunday, 23 September 1984, an article appeared written by a woman called Sylvia. The headline is 'Throw the system out before it throws you out'. May I incorporate this article in Hansard? It would make very interesting reading but I think the new rules are against that? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —No, you may not. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I will therefore need to summarise the article. In summary, the article states that the Government has reached a stage when it has only a couple of alternatives it can take once a patient's 35 days in hospital are up. A patient could still be so sick, yet a doctor is frightened to sign a certificate to say that he or she should be kept in hospital. Honourable members should remember that the doctor faces a fine of $5,000 or six months behind bars if he incorrectly signs a certificate. How the Government could introduce legislation that discriminated against a man's freedom to that extent I will never know. People who commit murder are sentenced to a few years imprisonment, yet the Government will put a doctor, who may have made an honest mistake, behind bars for six months. As the journalist points out, if 35 days have passed and the doctor is not prepared to stick out his neck the patient has the alternative of either going into a nursing home or going home. Mr White —You can't get into those nursing homes. Mr DONALD CAMERON —As the honourable member for McPherson correctly points out, people cannot get into them. Why? Because this Government, with its obsession and its hate of the private sector, has put a freeze on the number of nursing home beds. There will be no extra nursing homes beds available for a long, long time. The Government ground that area to a halt. The Government is saying that there are already too many nursing home beds in Australia and that we should spend time just looking at the matter. Trying to get into a nursing home now is in itself an acute problem. If one cannot get into a nursing home, what does one do? One goes home to be cared for by one's family. Mr White —If you have one. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member for McPherson is almost anticipating my every word. What if a person lives alone? A person can be very sick and still not qualify for hospital care or entry to a nursing home. A person could be so ill that he cannot walk. He could have both legs in plaster and that will not be categorised as an acute illness. The Government has introduced a system under which, at the end of a 35-day period, a person must leave the hospital. He must go home. The article's headline states 'Throw the system out before it throws you out' and relates some of the experiences mentioned by the previous speaker from this side of the house, the honourable member for Mackellar. I say this to the Minister: I believe he is in real trouble already to make Medicare pay without increasing the levy, and he knows it. If he gets back after the next election there will be a big hike in the Medicare levy. There must be a hike. Mr Milton —You must be joking. Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member also is a socialist. He professes to be a member of one of the several groups that exist in the Australian Labor Party these days. If the Government cannot make Medicare pay without imposing restrictions on the aged it should give it away and abandon its socialism. Mr Milton —Ha, ha! Mr DONALD CAMERON —The honourable member laughs. The Government has introduced an assets test to screw money out of the aged and it is now throwing them out of the hospitals. I can tell the Government that in the community there is a growing concern about this issue, a growing fear of growing old because of the way in which this Government is treating the aged. We have already seen the development of long queues of people waiting for health care. Medicare is already cracking and the Government knows it. The classic words of Dr Chang from St Vincent's Hospital were that he came to a country that had the best health care system in the world. What has the Government given us? The ideals and hopes of the socialists have been implemented and we are seeing health care in this country grinding to a halt. I am the first to admit that the previous health care system had imperfections. But heavens, one does not throw out the baby with the bath water, and that is what the Government is doing. In the last minutes available to me I make a plea to the Minister. If his real ambition is to destroy the private health funds, let him continue to do nothing. The speech that he delivered in the last couple of days revealed how he was monitoring or examining groups such as American Express International Inc. Some groups are being very selective in offering hospital cover at lower rates. They are groups which have walked away from community ratings and are channelling their advertising towards the younger end of the market, the well end of the market. This situation has been going on for months. I raised the matter in the first session of Parliament this year. The Minister knows that this is slowly choking the private health sector. He wants that to happen, does he not? The Minister cannot wait for the private health funds to disappear to enable him to get a monopoly and introduce his salaried system for the medicos. That is his long term plan. The Minister stands before groups and says: 'I am monitoring this situation'. While the groups are being slowly strangled the Minister just says to himself: 'Give it more time. Let them choke themselves and then I will move in'. If the Minister is fair dinkum he will do something about the situation immediately. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Sitting suspended from 6.28 to 8 p.m. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(8.00) —In supporting the Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1984 and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, I have to make some comments about the contribution of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron). After all his years in this place, it is amazing that he has not realised that to describe honourable members on this side of the House as socialists is a compliment for us. It is not a description from which we shrink. It is impossible for Opposition members, including the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), to understand our philosophy. It is a philosophy of caring for the disadvantaged and the needy of our society. The honourable member for Moreton referred to an article published in the Brisbane Sunday Mail on 23 September 1984. Had he bothered to check the alleged facts in that article-written, incidentally, by a Sylvia da Costa-Roque-he would have found that the material was inconsistent and self-contradictory. But I should like to quote from a letter written by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to the editor of the Sunday Mail which covers the points very well. He said: Contrary to the sweeping and unfounding assertions made by Ms da Costa-Roque, patients are not thrown out of hospital after 35 days. If, after 35 days in hospital, a patient still needs acute care, a doctor merely has to fill out a 3B certificate and the patient remains an acute care patient for an additional 30 days. The letter continues: If the patient continues to require acute care, the doctor can fill out further 3B certificates as they are needed-for 365 days a year if necessary. If a 3B certificate is not filled out, the patient then becomes a nursing home-type patient, and remuneration for caring for that person is less. It is common sense that the provision of nursing home-type care would not and should not be as expensive as the provision of acute care. It is nonsense to suggest that if a person is classified as a nursing home-type patient the hospital will 'throw you out'. Indeed, I doubt that there are many involved in the delivery of health services who would be heartless enough to evict elderly people simply because the remuneration for nursing home-type patients is not as great as that for acute patients. In addition, occupancy rates in most Queensland hospitals are such that most hospitals would prefer to be caring for a nursing home-type patient rather than no patient at all. That says it all. Honourable members can judge for themselves the merit of the comments of the honourable member for Moreton, but at least it can now be seen why I laughed at some of his nonsensical assertions. I must say how pleased I was that the social security and welfare funding allocations in the Budget had risen by 9.8 per cent. With between 2.5 million and 3 million people living at or below the poverty line, I should like to have seen more done for the many Australians experiencing extreme hardship. But I also realise that the Commonwealth Government was restricted in the provision of funding because the upturn in the economy has not yet provided sufficient revenue to meet all the needs of the Australian people. Total Budget outlays for health expenditure have also increased by 13 per cent, mainly due to the introduction of Medicare, which comprises about a third of total health expenditure. I make the warning comment that as the Medicare levy will provide only about half of the cost of Medicare, there must be some attempt by the Government to control the burgeoning fees of doctors and medical professionals. Unless that is done, there will be very little opportunity for the Government to extend Medicare to the many other important health services, such as those provided by dentists and physiotherapists, to name two of the services which my constituents are urging me should be covered by Medicare. I was particularly pleased to note that the Health Legislation Amendment Bill includes provisions which will encourage nursing home proprietors to use the beds of temporarily absent patients for the provision of short term respite care for, in particular, frail aged people. There is no doubt that people who care for frail aged people need to have a break from the intensive care services which they constantly provide to their frail aged friends and relatives at home. I have a constituency problem, which I am presently investigating, which would no doubt be alleviated by this service. The particular case is complicated by the fact that, in caring for her husband, one of my constituents was able to avail herself of the services of the district nursing service. Her husband had suffered a severe stroke, involving mental and physical damage, and the assistance of a qualified nurse who visited monthly to advise her on the care that she was providing was, in my view, essential if she was to continue to care for her husband at home. However, my constituent had been told by the district nursing service that because of staff shortages, it was unable to provide the monthly service any longer. The anomaly in all this is that my constituent, in order to qualify for the domiciliary allowance of $3 per day must have a qualified nurse visit her husband each month. As a consequence of a Department of Health regulation, she had to pay a $10 fee so that a qualified nurse could be provided by a private nursing service. In my view, this rule was ridiculous, bearing in mind that my constituent has a certificate of competency which certifies that she is fully capable and competent to care for her husband. Here we have the old problem where the co- ordination of State and Federal health services seems to be completely lacking. It was particularly difficult in the case to which I have referred because the couple were also age pensioners. However, there was a happy sequel to the case, as the Minister for Health intervened when I drew his attention to the case and the requirement for the monthly visit of the qualified nurse was reduced to one visit every three months, with the domiciliary nursing care benefit being continued without any loss. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his most welcome assistance. I hope that he will also be successful in any influence he brings to bear in bringing about an increase in the staff levels for the district nursing service. I am not sure whether my constituent will take advantage of the new short term respite care provisions, but there is no doubt that for her and for many thousands of people in her position, short term respite care in a nursing home for their patients gives them the opportunity to relax and to renew their own strength and resources whilst knowing that the patient is continuing to receive expert care and attention. The provisions will also apply to repatriation patients and patients accommodated in deficit financed nursing homes. I heartily endorse the Minister' s comments, in his second reading speech, where he emphasised that the new measures offer the promise of improving the quality of life for aged and disabled people and of those caring for them. Whilst I also welcome the improvement in the nursing home benefits to be paid for patients temporarily absent from nursing homes, particularly as this will help to provide beds for respite care patients, I am rather concerned that the Government appears to be concentrating its efforts on improving institutionalised health care rather than on doing more for non-institutional, non-professional health care. I mentioned the fact that my constituent receives the domiciliary nursing care benefit of $ 42 a fortnight. That amount seemed very small in comparison with the amount saved by the taxpayer as a result of her husband being cared for at home. I urge the Government to consider providing an increase in the domiciliary nursing care benefit as a matter of priority, as in the long run the expansion of such services will mean a saving in costs and, I am convinced, an improvement in the quality of life for the people concerned. Once again, I am pleased to note that something has been done in this area. The Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill will increase the subsidy rates for hostel care and personal care to approved organisations providing hostel accommodation for aged and disabled persons. The Bill covers increases to the subsidies from $10 to $11 a week for persons provided with hostel care services and from $50 to $55 a week for persons provided with both hostel care and personal care services. These increases will also apply to respite care patients. However, I wish that the Government could have provided more funds for community care programs for aged and disabled people. There is a particular need for home help services for elderly pensioners, especially in the neglected area of after hours care. I was pleased to note that the Bill will increase the rate of subsidy payable to approved organisations providing meals under the meals on wheels program to 75c a meal, provided that the service is given for at least five days of each week. But much remains to be done, particularly in the provision of transport services and expansion of the existing meals on wheels program. The community groups representing the disadvantaged and the poverty stricken have expressed disappointment at the increases in the health and social welfare benefits provided in the Budget and the complementary Bills such as those now being debated. The problem is that the rundown of welfare services for the disadvantaged which had occurred over the seven years of the previous Liberal- National Party Government was so great that the real increases provided by the present Government seem meagre in comparison with the great gulf that continues to exist between the haves and have nots in our society. I commend the Government on the measures contained in the two Bills and feel sure that in our next three years of Government, following the impending Federal election, Labor will provide a system of social security that will meet all the commitments which our Federal policy platform and our election programs have promised to the disadvantaged in our society. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(8.13) —The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) began his speech by rightly admitting that the one per cent taxation levy which is supposed to pay for Medicare and all the other health benefits that are given away will go nowhere near meeting the bill for all those benefits and health care services. In fact, it provides for only about half the Medicare benefits, let alone all the other expenses associated with health. Having said that it only provides a limited amount of the total funds, the honourable member went on for 10 minutes to advocate more and more spending paid for by the Government in every field of health care across the board. The honourable member concluded by saying that if Labor were returned to Government it would provide more and more of these services. I ask: Who is to pay for those services and where is that money to come from to provide all the services he advocated so vigorously in the last 10 minutes of his speech? The honourable member should try to explain that to the electors of Australia. I wish to make some general remarks on the repatriation aspects of these two Bills. In talking of some of the provisions that are due to come into force at the beginning of next year, I compliment the Government, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) and the previous Minister, Senator Messner, for having undertaken a review, the results of which will come to fruition at the beginning of next year. What will come into place is a new determining system for war veterans. It is not a new entitlement system but a new determining system. For the first time in almost 60 years that system has been brought up to date. I acknowledge the work of both the present and previous Ministers in producing this legislation. The figures showing increasing waiting times in recent times for veterans in respect of their claims and appeals add up to an appalling story. Some figures taken out early this year with effect to March 1984 show that some 7,000 veterans-a figure of 6,900 up to March this year -were waiting for claims or appeals to be heard compared to a figure of 4,600 in the previous year. There was a massive increase of 2,300 cases or nearly 50 per cent in one year. One has only to look at the average waiting times suffered by some of those people who are still waiting to have their claims and appeals heard to see that the average waiting time across the board is around 259 days compared to 224 days 12 months ago. A person who is awaiting an appeal to a tribunal could wait for a period of not less than two years. Therefore, everybody will welcome a new determining system. Although there have been some criticisms from some ex-service organisations, I think they are in the minority and fail to understand the impact of this new legislation. There have been two separate reviews of the position. I refer to the Toose Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System in 1975, and the Administrative Review Council which produced its report recently. The Representative Council set up by Senator Messner advocated far-reaching reforms. The problem is that in the past primary decisions have been made on incomplete evidence, and have taken far too long. In fact, one veteran whose case was mentioned in the Senate by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs had to wait five years for a determination of his claim. That man made his claim first in September 1978, the Board heard the claim, as did the Repatriation Commission and the Repatriation Review Tribunal. The case contained no special problems, but it took five years to determine the matter in the veteran's favour. A case that has come to my attention in the last few weeks concerns a Vietnam veteran who took 12 months to get his ankle fixed so that he could continue with his present work. Australia has a good history of looking after its veterans. Therefore, it is sad to see the system falling into some decline. There has been a lack of recognition of the fact that the number of veterans' claims have been increasing because they are getting older. I was concerned to realise that the Government intended to take on an extra 5,000 public servants to conduct its assets test, but somehow could not find the staff and the money to look after veterans. I understand some of the concerns that have been expressed by one or two organisations about the new system which is coming into force. However, I do not think those concerns will prove to be justified. The Government has undertaken to review the repatriation system as it gets into gear. I respect the commitment to review the system as it gets under way. After all, if we have been putting up with a system in which primary claims have gone before some 18 boards across Australia, surely now with a total of 75 commissioners across Australia replacing those boards we must be in a better position to get the claims heard and disposed of. It is estimated that 70 per cent of the primary claims should be approved by those commissioners. In dealing with the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill, I wish to commend the introduction of the respite care subsidy. It will give those concerned a break and allow them to look after people and relatives in their own homes. Without such a break, the burden often becomes too great. That is a welcome step forward. In talking about social security, I turn to another matter; that is, the amount of fraud that has been perpetrated against the Department of Social Security. This comes to light quite starkly when one reads the report of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Robert Redlich. He looks at the Department of Social Security and at the amount of overpayment that has been made in the year 1983-84-$63m of detected overpayment in one department. God knows how much overpayment went undetected. Of that total amount of $63m, 72 per cent was because of the failure of clients to notify change of circumstances. I suspect that most of that fraud simply involves people who are working and receiving the unemployment benefit at the same time. Misrepresentation, dual negotiation of cheques by clients and simple theft of cheques accounted for the rest of the sum. In 1975-76, one in every 6,000 recipients of unemployment benefit was prosecuted for fraud. By 1980 the number had jumped to one in 700. I do not know what the figures are for this year. However, to use the vernacular, the fact is that the rip-offs against the Department of Social Security are reaching plague proportions. I know how widespread the problem is in my electorate. We cannot go on condoning this fraud against the Department, the Government and the taxpayer to the extraordinary extent of $63m in one year. The problem is how to combat it . Certainly, having more inspectors in the Department of Social Security would be effective. That, of course, means more public servants and more taxes. However, the fact is that most people who perpetrate fraud against the Department know that they have very little chance of ever being detected and, even if they are detected, very little chance of being prosecuted. As well as employing more inspectors in the Department of Social Security we must look at giving the Australian Federal Police sufficient powers to investigate and prosecute these matters. According to Mr Redlich, in the year that he was investigating, 13,000 files from one department alone were waiting investigation and prosecution. I believe that the time has come when we have to look seriously at issuing all Australians with some sort of personal identity card. That suggestion has been put forward many times. It has usually been rejected on the basis that no one wants to be numbered, to become a number in the community. I think that is a very strong argument and certainly one that I have agreed with in the past. There is also the argument that in the United States of America such a system has not been totally successful because it gives rise to another new industry; that is, forging personal identity cards. I accept that there will always be loopholes in that system. However, in terms of cutting down on social security fraud and in a whole range of other matters where identification is necessary, given the fact that all of us probably carry two or three cards of some description now, I think the time has come to look seriously at introducing some form of personal identification or at least some attempt to cut down on this massive fraud in our community. I turn now to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. I take up a matter which has been raised by other speakers tonight; that is, the 35-day rule for hospital patients. The honourable member for La Trobe came into the chamber after the dinner break to defend the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) concerning remarks that had been made previously in this debate. He said that any doctor can authorise a patient to be kept in a hospital after 35 days. That is absolutely true, but he will do it only if that patient requires acute care. The penalties against doctors who do not properly authorise patients to stay in hospital are very severe-six months gaol or a $5,000 fine. Thousands of people throughout Australia are not quite in the category of needing acute care but are certainly sick or disabled and are not in a position to go home. So it is said: 'Send them to a nursing home'. I would be very surprised if there were any areas of Australia where one could get a patient into a nursing home just like that. I can certainly tell honourable members that in my area nursing home waiting lists for each nursing home contain hundreds of names. What if the patient has no home to go to or does not have anyone capable of looking after him? Even if he owns his own home, what if he does not have a partner to look after him? Where do such patients go? All the bally-hoo about going into a nursing home does not cut any ice in the area from where I come or, I suspect, anywhere else in Australia. The Minister knows very well that people cannot get into nursing homes just like that. One of the reasons people cannot get in is that there have been no new nursing home approvals since March 1983. We have had the excuse that the system is to be reviewed. I very much hope that we will see the fruits of that review so that we can get some approvals and some nursing home beds into the community. I ask: Why did the Minister not keep the old system going while the review was under way? Why did he put a freeze on new nursing home beds which is penalising thousands of people throughout this country? No one objects to a review of the system. I hope that the results will be sensible and productive. But why did the Minister freeze new nursing home bed approvals for 18 months, making it so much more difficult for people who may not be coming out of hospital but who just want to get into nursing homes in the normal course of events? But those who are discharged under the 35-day rule have nowhere to go at all. I heard the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), say before the dinner break that he thought that this Government's approach to health care was the harshest approach to health care that he had ever seen. I certainly endorse those remarks. The hardship that approach is causing amongst thousands of people in Australia has to be seen to be believed. I can believe only that the Minister does not really understand the pressures and the hardships it is causing because if he did, even with all his hatred, his socialistic approach to medicine in this country, the Big Brother approach, the 'Government will look after you' attitude he could not really turn those people out into the cold, where so many of them are going. I presume that the reason the Government is so determined to get people out of hospitals is that the public hospital system simply cannot cope. Four hundred people, I think, are waiting to get into public hospitals in Ballarat. Something like 400 people are waiting for elective surgery in Gold Coast hospitals. Dr Adler, in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, said that patients are dying waiting to get in to hospitals. I notice that in today's Press Mr Mulock had the grace to admit not that people are dying but that the lists are getting longer and longer. He is not quite sure what he will do about it. In Victoria, according to one report, 30,000 people are waiting to get into hospital. They are being forced to sub-contract to private hospitals. In some ways that might be a good thing. At least the private hospital system is being utilised to some extent. There is a danger that if we put public patients in private hospitals, we will interfere in a private enterprise system and, what is more, cause terrible confusion when one patient is paying private health insurance to cover the cost of the hospital and the patient beside him is in there for nothing. That is not a situation we should be encouraging. Why is the Minister so determined to cut out private health care in this country and to spend millions on public hospitals when private hospitals are going broke all around the country and when beds are empty? I was in a private hospital the other day where 17 beds were occupied out of a total of 73. The Minister has the gall to say around the country and in the Parliament that the system is better for everyone. It is daily getting worse for everyone. We are following a system which the British have tried for years. They have found, to their distress, that the system is wanting. I say to the Minister: 'For goodness sake, give away this mad dream of socialised medicine in this country. If you want to give people decent health care and encourage them to look after themselves, put private enterprise back into the system.' Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(8.32) —In the last 20 minutes this House has been subjected to a further example of the Opposition's tactics and treatment of the very important issues of care of the aged and health in this country, which are dealt with in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. We have heard shallow comments directed only to scare the Australian population, to scare those people who are ill and aged. I think the tactics are to be deplored. It is important that the electorate listen to the constructive comments that have been made by various speakers on this side of the House and by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is in the House tonight. This Government's constructive approach to care of the aged is reflected in the legislation before us tonight. What we see is a new approach to care of the aged in Australia. Honourable members opposite sigh. They sigh because in the seven years they were in government they did not look forward at all to planning for care of the aged in this country. The recommendations in this legislation start us on the track to thinking constructively about the problem of care of the aged in Australia. There is no doubt that it is a problem because we are an aging population. Opposition members closed their eyes to the future when they were in government over a seven-year period. Mr Carlton —We did not kick them out after 35 days. Mrs KELLY —I am very disappointed with the interjection of the honourable member for Mackellar. It illustrates the scare tactics and the lack of constructive policies the Opposition is presenting, particularly on the future of the aged in this country. People over 65 years of age currently constitute about 10 per cent of the Australian population. By the year 2001 they will have increased to 11.8 per cent and by 2021 to 15.9 per cent. Those figures should be sufficient impetus for the Parliament to recognise that we have before us a real challenge in the equitable distribution of resources so that no sector of our community is seriously disadvantaged in comparison with other sectors. This is the real crux of the problem with which we as a community have to come to terms. How do we deal with care for the aged? Again, the Opposition has presented no constructive policy. If we consider the well documented fact that the participation rate for older ages has declined sharply in the last decade we might also consider that those aged between 55 and 64 years of age presently constitute 13.1 per cent of the population and by the year 2021 will constitute 18.7 per cent of the population. Let me tally these percentages for the convenience of honourable members, and for members of the Opposition particularly. The proportion of the population presently over 55 years of age is now 23 per cent. By 2021 it will be 34.6 per cent. Instead of giving in to panic and refusing to acknowledge the existence of such evidence, as the Opposition did in its seven years in government, this Government has sought to address the situation by acknowledging the problem. With the help of the aged community it is actively seeking to initiate some long term planning. Some of the amendments in this Bill are evidence of our attempt to streamline facilities and services already in place. The home and community care package announced in the Budget will extend home care services, especially in those States that agree to participate in the program. No doubt honourable members are aware of the complexity of services available to the aged at all levels of government. The Commonwealth Government provides, amongst other things, pharmaceutical, nursing home and domiciliary nursing care benefits, assistance to the States for home care services and senior citizens centres, and assistance to local government and non-government organisations for delivered meals, deficit financing for nursing homes, aged person's homes, hostels and personal care services. This finance is provided through the departments of Health, Social Security, Veterans' Affairs and Housing and Construction. The home and community care package announced in the Budget marks the beginning of these departments working together on age policy. I think the Ministers and departments involved deserve the support of all members in this task. I hope that over the next few years we will see a much better recognisation of the administrative structures to support care for the aged. I also hope that the State, local government and non-government organisations take the opportunity they have to make an input into those deliberations. My concern is that people involved get together before seeking finance for projects. This concern has been reinforced by a recent occurrence in my own electorate when two organisations sought funding for a similar handy help project. This is an example at the micro level of what is occurring in the wider realm of age care. We have to look at the whole administrative restructuring of care for the aged in this country. Because of such concerns I urge that an audit of services for the aged and the handicapped be conducted so that this Government has the basic information it needs to begin to evolve a long term policy for the aged in our community. The community cannot continue to ignore the problems it will face in years to come if we do not know what resources we have to care for the aged and to administer them effectively. Turning to specific measures in the Bill, I remind honourable members that very few aged persons are dependent on institutional care for their survival. Those aged persons to whom I have spoken do not want to be institutionalised. However, they want somewhere to go when those who care for them need a rest or are in a period of crisis in their lives. This Bill will help to cater for that need. Clause 12 provides for qualified or repatriation patients to be temporarily absent from nursing homes for up to 28 days per year. Where applicable, Commonwealth nursing home benefits will continue to be paid for absent patients. Under clauses 15 to 17 these temporarily vacant beds can be occupied by short term respite care patients. Together, these clauses should provide some peace of mind for many of the aged in our community. Not all the sick need to be put away. Certainly tuberculosis sufferers can exist in the community. All the handicapped are no longer hidden away, since we discovered that their handicaps did not necessarily mean that they had nothing to contribute to society. And not all the aged are sick. Indeed, those who are sick and institutionalised constitute only some three per cent to four per cent of the current aged population. The aged do not thank us for protraying them in the role of the sick. I am pleased that this Bill recognises this through the provision of respite care for those who are not necessarily sick, but whose carers need a break. This Bill recognises that through the provision of respite care in existing institutions, users may be able to stay out of those institutions and in their homes, except for those times of crisis when carers need a rest. And, very importantly, the new arrangements should ensure that neither the temporarily absent patient, nor the respite care patient suffer any disadvantage in respect to fees paid, compared with other patients in the nursing home. Thus the financial strain placed on patients and their families by having the nursing home patient hospitalised or visiting relatives away from the home, can be alleviated. For up to 28 days per year, patients who are absent will be required to pay no more than the difference between the full fee and the Commonwealth nursing home benefit. That is a very welcome improvement in care for the aged. I commend this Bill and also the new direction in health care which the Minister has outlined in this legislation tonight. I am also very pleased to note that repair and maintenance of hearing aids acquired by persons in accordance with section 9A of the National Health Act or otherwise will henceforth be available. One of my constituents, a pensioner with no other source of income, has very recently been to see me about such repairs to a hearing aid purchased before she became a pensioner. Repairs are very expensive and non-functioning hearing aids are pretty useless. I also note that the Bill provides for simplification of the administration of existing schemes for the provision of medical and surgical aids and appliances. The effect of this amendment will be to give responsibility and accountability to those bodies which administer the scheme, thus freeing the Commonwealth of the need for infrastructure. Under the amendments to the Tuberculosis Act, special tuberculosis allowances will be phased out. The whole aura of tuberculosis patients languishing in an isolated institution, gently coughing themselves to death in the manner of a Chopin, a Beethoven or a Lord Byron, has thankfully passed. Tuberculosis patients are no longer to be institutionalised or put away. They are now treated as part of our community. This whole concept of putting groups away, such as tuberculosis sufferers and the aged, I hope is well and truly at an end. The aged, the handicapped and the sick are part of the community and can both contribute to the society as well as utilise its resources. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(8.44) —I enter this debate as one who, like most honourable members in this Parliament, has a good deal of concern about the plight of the elderly in our community. As I move around my electorate I come across a number of situations which are always of concern to me. I guess like most of us in one way or another I have also had some family experience which I can draw upon which relates to what is going on in the electorate. In a sense, while I am very critical, as my colleagues have been, of some aspects of this legislation, there are some aspects on which I would like to wish the Government well. To the extent that I have some bouquets I will offer them early. I am certainly pleased with, and wish the Government well, on the development of its respite care arrangements. I have had a family experience. It was very clear that the inability to get relatives out of a nursing home for very short periods without incurring considerable financial penalty has often meant that people have had to remain in an institutional environment whereas a short break from a nursing home could have been of enormous help and assistance. I have come across numerous situations in my electorate where people find that they are only able to take a relative out for one day a year. That was the general experience in the past. To the extent that these respite care arrangements may facilitate people able to make better arrangements I think there is some possible advantage from the proposals that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has brought forward. Equally , it applies to those in nursing homes who sometimes find that they have to go to hospital for a short period. I have known of situations like that where a nursing home bed is no longer available because the bed has been filled when the patient comes out of hospital. If short term arrangements could be made to fill that bed so that that loss was not suffered it would be enormously beneficial. I and my colleagues recognise that. But that is a very small part of the legislation and that really needs to be understood. Some of my colleagues have raised the question of the availability of nursing home beds. I am aware of the argument that is offered from time to time about the extent to which we are alleged to have too many nursing home beds in our community in relation to other communities. It may well be that, because of our style of living and the way in which the breakdown of the family unit has occurred, people in our form of society are not able or inclined to look after elderly relatives in the home in the way in which they are in other societies. I very much doubt whether we will be able to change that significantly. In my electorate I find increasing demands for new nursing home accommodation. There is concern about the standard of many of the facilities that are available . At the moment there is tremendous uncertainty and accommodation that might otherwise be upgraded frequently is not upgraded. That only serves to highlight the problems that people face when they come out of a hospital and have to find nursing home accommodation. They find it extraordinarily difficult to do so. We seem to have some rigidity in this area. Rather than allowing some form of assessment by people, particularly institutions, who want to build nursing homes , we find that we are zoning them in such a way as to restrict the capacity of organisations that want to undertake new developments to get those developments under way. We do it on the basis that, very often, there are not sufficient elderly people living in a particular area. But so often some of the developments that are desired are developments which are to take place in conjunction with the provision of accommodation for the elderly. I want to mention in particular a development that the Wesley Central Mission wishes to undertake in my electorate on the site of the Dalmar Children's Home. This formerly was a home for young people but it can no longer be used in the same way. Like most of the children's homes as we know them, it is now becoming very much more integrated and part of the community. Older homes with lots of land and other things that are associated with them are no longer able to be used in that way. The Wesley Central Mission wants to build on the Dalmar Home site an aged persons' complex in recognition of the work of Sir Alan Walker, a very well known Australian. We expect that the Alan Walker village will be built on that site. It will have aged persons hostel accommodation and, when large numbers of people are involved on a site like that, obviously some nursing home care. An integrated unit is desirable. Yet that organisation, which will build a facility in that part of the community, is being hampered because of the rigidities of the zoning and because of the extent to which the Government, through the inquiries that it has wanted to undertake, has put a temporary stopper on any further applications being considered at this point. This is bringing about tremendous anguish and concern. I have been appraised of the concern of numerous organisations that are faced with the same problem, not only in my area but also in others. There is a great deal of uncertainty amongst the elderly. The honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) chastised us for raising some of these questions in this debate but I think the Government has brought much of the uncertainty upon itself. The assets test and what it is about, the anguish that that gives to people who are in hostel situations and nursing home situations, is enormously difficult. In recent visits that I have been making within my constituency I have found a great deal of concern and anguish and, not in any blatant political way but more in terms of informing people about the nature of the provisions of the assets test, I have been producing the background information that the Government has made available to try to bring about a level of realistic understanding of the extent to which the elderly are to be affected. I do not think it is a matter of complaining that there is a concern amongst the elderly because we in the Opposition raise these matters. The Government has brought about these changes and other changes which have created a situation of uncertainty. I was recently in some hostel accommodation where the problem of classification of patients not covered under this legislation but earlier legislation was raised. In that situation there is a great deal of uncertainty. I was not raising the problems; the problems were raised with me. People in hostels find that there are more checks and a greater number of medical examinations are being undertaken to check and recheck whether patients are being classified appropriately. This leads to a situation in which more comprehensive medical assessments are being made of people in hostels than there are of people in nursing homes. That in itself ought to be of very considerable concern. Is it any wonder that patients are worried? In this area we find numerous anomalies. I would like to recount one that I was apprised of only last week in relation to the provision of hostel accommodation. I came across a lass who was somewhat intellectually impaired. She had been brought up by her elderly mother, a widow, who had some assets which she had put aside very carefully to provide for her daughter, whom she knew would find it extraordinarily difficult in later life. She hoped her daughter, who was 53 or 54 years of age, might predecease her when she was in her seventies because she was worried that there would be nobody else left to care for her when she had gone. I made inquiries about the way in which this lass might be able to be provided for because she could not continue to live in a home. While she could dress and care for herself generally she was not fully able to prepare meals and so on. Some form of intermediate care would be appropriate. All too often in the past I have seen that people who are handicapped in this way and who do not have a loving parent or a family member to care for them have ended up in nursing home type accommodation. Nothing could be less appropriate for such an intellectually impaired person. Yet because she had not attained the age of 58 years there was no hostel accommodation for her. To date, I have not sorted that problem out, although I am endeavouring, through contacts with a range of welfare agencies, to make some provision for her particular needs. These things need to be understood by the Government. It is in this context that the 35-day rule is another matter which will add greatly to the uncertainty of those who are involved in finding accommodation for people who have been ill and may be in need of nursing home care and accommodation. The shortage of nursing home accommodation and accommodation in the community in which people live is a matter which causes tremendous anguish. When people are faced with a rigid 35-day rule in which a medical assessment needs to be made and in which if they cannot meet that medical assessment they have to leave or suffer some further penalty if they remain in a hospital the matter needs to be understood and recognised. If it is not modified in some way the problems which we have been addressing will be far more real to the honourable member for Canberra than she pretends at the moment through the comments that she made earlier suggesting that we were being in some way alarmist. I have before me a letter from a social worker who has written about her concern in relation to the 35-day rule. I would like to quote from it because I think it exemplifies part of the problem. The letter states: The Social Work Department is acutely aware of, and are very concerned about the problem of patients of the hospital awaiting long term nursing or institutional care, and the lack of resources available in the community to accommodate these patients. We understand the frustrations experienced by the hospital staff over patients who are inappropriately occupying beds here, and we are continuing to make every effort to do what we can to discharge these patients to suitable care. This is a problem experienced by all public hospitals. Last week we again contacted nursing homes, in an attempt to find accommodation for patients requiring long-term care. We telephoned 80 nursing homes, with unfortunately little outcome in bed terms. We will continue to actively pursue the availability of beds. The Department has a Weekend Service, where staff are available on call to be contacted should a nursing home bed become available at that time. We have also arranged to meet the Health Commission in October to discuss this matter, and what steps can be taken to improve the availability of accommodation for these patients. The critical shortage of nursing home vacancies has arisen as a result of a number of factors, including: 1. a Federal government moratorium on any increase in nursing home beds 2. the closure of some beds in the area servicing the hospital 3. inappropriate use of nursing home beds 4. the discharge of patients from private hospitals to nursing homes since the introduction of Medicare 5. State facilities at full capacity, and some are also closing beds 6. the increasing numbers of elderly people requiring long-term nursing care. These factors reflect very much the experience that I am having in my own electorate with the people who come to me worried and anguished about the way in which the Government is operating Medicare and this 35-day rule in particular and concerned about their capacity to find nursing home accommodation. I have before me other case studies which I think are important to understand the plight of those who are involved. The information I have before me concerns particular patients and it is information that I know has been before the Minister for Health. The letter states: May we cite but two examples to illustrate the situation concerning the 35 day rule and the experience of financial hardship associated with it. Recently one of our nursing home patients broke her leg and waited 3 days before a bed could be found in a public hospital. Ironically, she had top cover with HBA but could not accept a private hospital bed because she had already been hospitalised for 35 days earlier in the year and the prospect of $60 or more out-of-pocket expenses per day for an indefinite period could not be considered. The patient, her family and our nursing staff experienced much anguish over this matter. Dr Blewett —She broke her leg? Mr RUDDOCK —That was the case quoted in a letter that the Minister received. Another case was quoted in this form: A 58-year-old man came to our hospital with a history of carcinoma with metasteses in the bone. He received palliative treatment for intractable pain. His prognosis was poor. The family and patient experienced tremendous anguish during his hospitalisation regarding whether the 3B certificate would be accepted and what was going to happen after the health insurance company reduced benefits to the basic or nursing home level after 35, 70 or 75 days. The family had contributed to the health fund for 20 years and in their time of need they had little comfort in not being able to fall back on what they felt was their security for such a situation. These matters have been raised with the Minister in correspondence directly with him. They are concerns that people are having in the community, rightly or wrongly, because of the nature of the changes that the Minister is putting in place. I am not making these up; I am not suggesting to people they write in these terms to the Minister. People have raised problems that they are experiencing with these proposals. I have another case which has been raised in relation to these matters. The letter states: My mother who is 81 years of age suffered a stroke last October and was admitted to the . . . Rehabilitation Hospital for a period of some seven months. On her discharge she had improved sufficiently to enter a Special Accommodation Hospital with which she could financially cope. Unfortunately after a brief period she also had a fall which necessitated admittance to hospital and the subsequent advice that she was sufficiently disabled to the extent that a return to a Special Accommodation situation was untenable. The situation has now arisen that she is in a private hospital and the 35 day hospital allowance having expired is being charged to stay there at the rate of $72 per day. I have tried desperately to find nursing home accommodation for her to no avail . There is a waiting list in some cases of two or three years for any nursing home of even mediocre standards. Of course, that person makes the plea: Action is imperative by your Government to solve this problem of the disabled aged who have worked hard, paid their taxes and tried to ensure that the end of their days would not be plagued by the anxieties which have been created by the present system now in vogue. It is not that some requests have not been made to the Government. I understand that the Government has received a number of requests from the Australian Private Hospitals Association in an effort to improve this matter in particular. I would like to mention just some of them. One suggestion is that some provision needs to be made for patients approaching death. Reducing their benefits to the 'nursing home-type patient' rate results in a patient or a patient's family having to arrange alternative accommodation. A more humane approach to this problem would be to extend the 35-day limit for such patients. Another comment which I thought was a very positive contribution was in this form: It is very disappointing to note that the Commonwealth Department of Health has as yet been unable to develop suitable guidelines for the definition of 'acute care', although it is recognised that such guidelines will eventually be forthcoming. I think the Government has brought the uncertainty upon itself. It is a change that it has initiated. It is not a matter about which the Opposition is trying to be alarmist or difficult. It arises from our concern and care for the elderly , and from our own experience both in our electorates and with our families about the difficulties in which people are placed when illness intervenes. I think there is a need for a much more humane approach in this area than has been exemplified by the Government to date. I offer those comments in a constructive way along with the bouquets that I offered in my first comments about the initiative that the Government is pursuing in developing respite care. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(9.03) —It is a pleasure to follow that fiery address by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), preceded as it was by a somewhat more impassioned but less well researched speech by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). The approach of the Opposition to this question of the 35- day rule and the situation with respect to nursing homes is typical of the alarmist and, indeed, the somewhat less than frank way in which the matter has been treated generally. I remember one event which occurred in my electorate. One day two of my constituents rang me and said that their mother was subject to the 35-day rule and could I please do something about it. I did. I rang around and found a nursing home for the lady to move into. The lady was 99 years old at the time. I found a nursing home for her to move into, but in the meantime the Press had got on to it. To say that the lady was being shifted from a hospital to a nursing home would not have made nearly such good Press as to have just a picture, unexplained, of the lady being wheeled out of hospital on to the streets and the public being left to think that that was going to be end of the matter. In fact that was not the end of the matter. Mrs Barnes found accommodation in a nursing home and I was very glad to have assisted her in that respect. I look forward to attending her 100th birthday which will take place in a few days time. Happy birthday, Mrs Barnes, and I will certainly be at your birthday party at the weekend. Mr McGuaran-What is your point? Mr WELLS —The point is that the matter is being dealt with in an entirely alarmist way. People are not being wheeled out of hospitals and put on the streets or something like that. Rather, they are being provided for. We are told that there is some sort of freeze on nursing homes. What absolute rubbish! There is no freeze on nursing homes. Since March 1983, which is when the Opposition tells us that a freeze was brought in, there have been the following home beds-( Quorum formed) I thank the honourable member for Indi (Mr Ewen Cameron) for calling a quorum. I draw the attention of his constituents to the fact that the calling of a quorum is a device which oppositions can use in order to prevent somebody who is making points which might be damaging to their side from continuing to make those points. We will not be prevented from doing so. The point I was making was that the Opposition's claims about the 35-day rule are entirely incorrect. Also, its claims that there has been a freeze on nursing home beds are entirely incorrect. Since March 1983, which is the time the Opposition claims the freeze commenced, new beds have been on stream as follows: In New South Wales, 917; Victoria, 405; Queensland, 598; South Australia, 368; Western Australia, 30; Tasmania, 89; Northern Territory, 10; and the Australian Capital Territory, 35. Some freeze! The numbers of new beds still to come on stream as at 21 September 1984 are: New South Wales, 1,569; Victoria, 675; Queensland, 536; South Australia, 404; Western Australia, 40; and Tasmania, 92. That is some freeze that the Opposition tells us is occurring! Mr McGauran —How many approvals? Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Gippsland wants to know how many approvals there have been. The honourable member would have difficulty in understanding that the question really is how many beds will be made available. Approvals will determine how many beds will be available in 1985, 1986 and 1987. Graphs have been drawn by the department responsible. Everything will be all right. There will not be any fall in the number of nursing home beds; there will be a continuing rise. The honourable member for Gippsland, who parrots interjections which are suggested to him by his colleagues, does not need to worry about it at all. The matter is perfectly under control. There is no freeze on nursing home beds. There will not be a decline in the number of nursing home beds. I think that a little more needs to be said about the 35-day rule. What is the 35-day rule? The 35-day rule, as it is commonly called, requires that after 35 days in hospital, if a patient is to continue to attract medical benefits and Commonwealth subsidies which will be paid to the hospital it is necessary for the doctor to sign a statement to the effect that that patient requires continuing acute care. There is no rule to the effect that somebody has to leave a hospital after 35 days. It is misunderstood and deliberately misrepresented by the Opposition to be a rule that somebody has to leave a hospital after 35 days. There is no such rule. All that is required is that a doctor sign a certificate saying that continuing acute care is needed. Mr McGauran —But it is acute care. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Gippsland to stop interjecting. He might resume his proper place in the chamber. Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Gippsland is demonstrating his brainlessness by the futility of his interjections, Mr Deputy Speaker. The 35-day rule has not worked well to date because doctors have been reluctant to sign the document certifying that acute care continues to be necessary. There is a widely held misconception that the Government has prohibited patients from staying in hospital for longer than 35 days. This misconception has come about largely because of the reluctance of doctors to sign the necessary documentation. In fact, there is no limit on the number of days that a patient can stay in a hospital and continue to receive full benefits; it is just that the certificate is necessary. This Bill addresses that very problem, which relates basically to the reluctance of doctors to issue the certificates. The legislation allows certificates to be issued up to a fortnight before the expiration of the 35 days . This legislative measure is only part of the total review of the arrangements. The rest of the measures are to be proceeded with administratively. The form of the certificate is being redesigned to make it clear that the doctor's expression of a medical opinion will not involve the doctor in any penalties and that the penalties apply to the provision of false information relating to such things as dates and times, not at all to professional judgments. I think this was the source of doctors' reluctance to sign the documentation, the certificates extending care after the 35 days. I express the personal hope that when the guidelines are spelt out administratively, as they will be shortly, as to what constitutes acute care for the purposes of these arrangements, they will make it perfectly clear that acute care does not have the same meaning as intensive care, rather it is used in contrast with nursing-type care. Members of the Opposition have been playing on this use of words. They have spoken of acute care. Even in their interjections today, inane as they were, they have been saying 'But it is acute care', implying that we meant exactly the same thing as intensive care. It does not mean anything of the kind; it means a contrast with nursing home-type care. The purpose of the rule was to ensure that patients who were receiving nursing- type care were receiving it in appropriate circumstances so that accommodation adequate for surgical patients was not occupied to the detriment of people who needed it by people who could be assisted better in other accommodation. It was not intended to exclude from hospitals people who obviously needed to stay there . To summarise, the 35-day rule is not a rule whereby the Government says that people have to leave a hospital after 35 days; it is a rule whereby subsidies are payable to hospitals for 35 days initially and, provided that a doctor certifies that that level of care continues to be necessary, thereafter. The people who are removed from a hospital as a result of the operation of the 35- day rule are removed by the determination of the hospital, not the Government. The hospital can continue to carry the patient for as long as it is prepared to do so. But in some cases, such as that of a category C hospital, there may be no loss to the hospital whatever. If a person is moved from a hospital it is the determination of the hospital, not of the Government. On leaving hospital the patients go to a nursing home. Nursing home facilities are being provided. There is no freeze on nursing home facilities in this country, which is demonstrated by the figures that I read out. The misrepresentations into which the Opposition has been prepared to enter in this debate are really quite callous. It has been playing on fears and on simplifications. In fact, the Government has been doing a very good job with respect to the provision of aged care and what I have been referring to is just one part of it. I would have liked to go on to talk about domiciliary care and the efforts which the Government has been making to provide better assistance for people in their own homes. That, however, will be covered by other speakers in the debate. I conclude by commending the measure to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.15) —Mr Deputy Speaker, honourable members, and my fellow Australians, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill is without doubt the most cruel, the most vicious, the most pitiless legislation that I have seen in 16 years in parliaments, both State and Federal, and is yet another chapter in the continuing attack by the Hawke socialist Government on the aged, the elderly, the infirm and those in our community least able to defend themselves. Dr Blewett —He has clearly not read the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —In introducing the 35-day rule in this Bill, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), the most horrible little socialist this Parliament has ever seen, says to the elderly of Australia: 'You get fit in 35 days or you get out'. Dr Blewett —Rubbish. You have not read the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —I say to the Minister that I hope he is retained in his present position for a long time because he is costing the Hawke socialist Government and the Australian Labor Party thousands of votes day after day as his maltreatment of the elderly of Australia is being exposed. The Minister says that I have not read the Bill. I say to the Minister that he is on very shaky ground in making that assertion because in relation to another Bill-and I will deal with it here and now-the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill, it is quite clear to everybody in this Parliament and everybody in Australia including first-year law students that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and the Minister for Health have not read the Bill. If ever I have seen sloppy drafting it is in this Bill, which sets out conditions for the calculation of the value of property for an assets test property which includes gold fillings. Dr Blewett —I take a point of order. I think it is quite clear even to the honourable member's own side and certainly to everybody on this side of the House that he has not read the Bill. Discussion of the assets test Bill has nothing to do with the Bill before us tonight. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister has been caught out and he will be indicted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Minister has pointed out that the assets test Bill is not under discussion. It is all right to refer to it in passing but I ask the honourable member to come to the measure under discussion. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Once again we see that the Minister cannot take it. He is the one who stood in this Parliament a moment ago and said I had not read the instant Bill. That was an untruth, but we are used to untruths from this Minister. I say in response that he and Senator Grimes have not read the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Bill because if they had they would find that proposed new section 6AA which sets out property to be calculated in the assets test excludes 11 sections of property but does not exclude the gold fillings in pensioners' teeth. Government members interjecting- Mr HODGMAN —Honourable members opposite can carry on about this as much as they like but they belong to a government whose drafting of legislation is so appalling. As one of Australia's leading dental surgeons has pointed out, people can have as much as $1,500 worth of gold in their teeth, and I ask the Minister whether he really intends to include gold fillings in the assets test. If so, will it still apply when a person is dead and buried eight feet under ground? I come back to the basics of this Bill. This Government has said to the people of Australia: 'You will have to get ready in 35 days to vacate a hospital bed'. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells), who has now fled the chamber-- Mr Wells —No, he has not. Mr HODGMAN —Oh, he is here. Dear, oh dear; Oscar is still with us! The honourable member for Petrie just committed a very gross misrepresentation on the Parliament and the people. He cited figures showing that additional beds have come on stream in nursing homes since the Hawke socialist Government came to power. He tried to convey to the people of Australia that this was as a result of the actions of the Minister for Health, who is at the table. The plain truth is that not a single new nursing home has been approved since March last year when the Hawke socialist Government came to power. The truth further is that the Government has not approved a single additional bed since March last year, and therefore-- Mr Milton —That is a total lie and that is not true. Come on then, substantiate it. Mr HODGMAN —The unfortunate man opposite does not realise what has happened in his electorate of La Trobe. His ignorance is exceeded only by his arrogance. The additional number of nursing home beds was approved by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) when he was Minister for Health. I make a short point, and I want everybody in Australia to hear it. I challenge the Minister to prove me wrong on this matter when he replies. He has not approved a single new bed in a nursing home in Australia since March last year and he has not approved a single new nursing home. Does he deny what I am saying? I will leave it to the jury of the people of Australia. They are waking up to him day by day. This Government set off on a magnificent course of attacking the elderly, the aged and the superannuitants of Australia. Within days of coming to power the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) not to take a cent out of the pensioners' cheques was in absolute tatters. We had the reintroduction of the income test for the over 70-year-olds. As I said at the time in the Parliament, why do the Prime Minister and this Minister not pick on someone their own age? People who had planned for their retirement were told that they would not now receive the pension they thought they would get. The Government then moved quickly. It introduced a 30 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation payments, to which can be added the one per cent Medicare levy. Mr Bilney —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —By gosh, the honourable member for Kingston will get a lot of votes from the over 70-year-olds in his electorate. I wish him every success. I move further down the track. The promise to lift the tax threshold was dishonoured. We have the Medicare fiddle, where the consumer price index is rigged. As a result the pensioners of Australia have been robbed of over $250m in pension increases under the Hawke socialist Government. Mr Milton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I know that you are very lenient about these things, but the honourable member has strayed wide of the subject matter of these Bills. He is now talking about the Budget in general, and that has nothing to do with the Health Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —The honourable member for Denison is required to address his remarks to the Bills. However, at the same time, in this sort of debate he is also permitted to make passing reference to matters of relevance. I will be listening carefully. I ask the honourable member for Denison to become relevant as quickly as he possibly can. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will become not only relevant, but also deadly. This Government needs to be exposed because this legislation-- Mr Wells —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Would you inquire of the honourable member for Denison the technical name of the Bills to which he is referring? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Honestly, if that man is a graduate from a university I think we ought to look at our funding of tertiary education. I think he was once a lecturer; I just cannot believe it. There is a continuing pattern. I have mentioned the reintroduction of the income test on the poor old over 70-year- olds, the superannuation tax slug, the breach of the promise to lift the tax threshold, the Medicare levy fiddle, and I now come to the Hawke assets test. I simply say no more than that this Minister and his colleague (Senator Grimes) apparently do not realise the way in which they have drawn up the Act. Any first year law student in Australia can confirm that the gold fillings in the pensioners' teeth are included in the assets test. I now turn to the Bills. We have a situation in which the Health Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) are a continuation of this line of attack. As I mentioned a moment ago, under this mean, miserable, dishonest Government and the Department headed by this horrible little socialist, we have had a complete freeze on nursing home bed approvals and nursing home approvals since March last year. Why? Money was allocated to improve assessments for nursing home bed approvals. Some $10m was allocated to the development of community care programs such as Meals on Wheels, et cetera. Why has so little money been allocated for the old citizens of Australia, for the elderly, our senior citizens? At the same time, under the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, we will now have a situation in which elderly people will be bulleted out of a hospital bed after 35 days. I ask the Minister bluntly whether when he talks about section 3B certificates he really thinks that medical practitioners in this country will not feel intimidated when he warns them that if they issue a section 3B certificate which he does not happen to agree with, they will be liable to a $10,000 fine or five years in prison. Even today in the medicine column of the Hobart Mercury written by a medical correspondent headed 'Medicare: some of the after-effects' we find this indictment of what the Minister has done: There are other inequalities. Although Medicare contributes nothing to the bills of patients in private hospitals, from February 1 it instituted the ''35 day rule''. I want everybody who lives in a Labor electorate to listen very carefully to this because they will have a chance to vote against Labor members who tonight will force this legislation through this Parliament against the wishes of the Opposition. Mr Bilney —Ha, ha! Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Kingston can laugh, but I tell him that grey power will rise up and devour him. The article continues: This made it illegal for insurers to pay out insurance for more than 35 consecutive days in a private hospital unless the doctor applies for the need of continuing acute care. In some circumstances the time may be increased to a total of 60 days a year. Not, as the honourable member for Petrie told the House, on and on forever. The article then incorrectly says: In a public hospital there is no limit to length of stay. The first the patient may learn of the 35 day rule, is when a hospital bill is returned unpaid by the insurers. Sometimes the patient has been in another hospital under another doctor, and it is a complete surprise when the account is not honoured. Listen to this, pensioners of Australia: Costs of thousands of dollars have been involved. Mr Milton —That is absolute nonsense. Mr HODGMAN —The heartlessness of the honourable member for La Trobe will be remembered by every pensioner in his electorate. It is not true that in public hospital it does not cost anything after 35 days. It does; it costs $12.40 a day for every day after the 35 days. That works out at $86.80 a week. So this is the 'free' Medicare the Minister has told the people of Australia it is. The Minister said: 'Congratulations. Welcome to the fairest health care system in the world'. The Minister claims it is free, yet, pensioners of 60, 70 and 80 years of age from the 36th day onwards-I ask the Minister to deny it if I am wrong-will have to pay $12.40 a day, $86.80 a week. I will give some examples. The honourable member for La Trobe scorned me and sneered at me. Let me just give him some straightforward case examples of the sort of thing the Government is doing and what is happening to people as a result of this disgraceful legislation. I want to tell the people of Australia that under this Government's rotten Medicare system an elderly widow has been presented with a bill for $6,000 to pay for her late husband's medical treatment six weeks after he died because he was not sick enough at the time to qualify for a 3B certificate. That is a disgrace. I have another example of a widow of 78 who has received a bill for $2 ,200 as a result of Medicare. It seems that according to this Government the bereavement, the loss of a husband, is not enough. It has to punish these people further. In one case, as I said, a bill of $6,000 was sent to a widow. Yet our Minister says: 'Welcome to Medicare. Congratulations on joining the fairest health system in the world'. We have another situation. The Minister tells people that after 35 days they can get out of the hospital; that it is all right , they can go to a nursing home. Mr Deputy Speaker, how many nursing homes do you know in Australia where you can just go straight in, where there is not a waiting list of 18 months or two years? If a person cannot go to a nursing home, this rotten, mean and pitiless Government says he or she can go home. Tell that to the 74-year-old amputee who has lost both legs from diabetes. Sure it does not require acute treatment; but that old man has been bundled out of a hospital under the Minister's 35-day rule. Is the Minister proud of this? Is this the fair deal that he promised to the pensioners of Australia? The Minister is a great one for smirking. He regards this thing as an absolute socialist achievement of great priority. I am asking him to deny what I am putting to him bluntly: That he has disgracefully misled this Parliament and has shamefully misled and betrayed the elderly of Australia. By heavens, grey power will come up and will devour him. As my friend the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) probably knows-of the few on the Government side of the House-as a result of two accidents, one of which was a motor accident and another was an accident at the age of 17, I have spent over 12 months of my life in hospital. The one thing that I know probably more than any member of this House-- Mr Scott —You could not have qualified for a brain scan. Mr HODGMAN —That is a smart comment. I like that. It will appear in Hansard. The honourable member said that I would qualify for a brain scan. Mr Scott —I said that you did not. Mr HODGMAN —I will tell you something, sonny: It is not much fun at the age of eight to be run over by a truck, and then to read in the newspapers years afterwards that one was not expected to live; but I have lived, and I am here. I will tell honourable members one thing bluntly: One cannot predict in advance when a person will be fit to leave a hospital. I was in Men's Surgical West of the Royal Hobart Hospital for most of 1956. It was commonplace for the doctor to say to the patient who had suffered an amputation or who had been seriously injured: 'You will be out in two weeks'. But what did we find? The two weeks became three; it became four, for amputations in particular. The Minister has this rule of 35 days. As was reported in the Queensland Press by one of Queensland's leading journalists: 'Kick the Hawke socialist Government out before they kick you out'. That is the message that he has given to the pensioners of Queensland, and I repeat it to the pensioners of Australia. What sort of a world have we come to when the Minister is prepared to stand proudly in this Parliament and proclaim this great new socialist era, this legislation? The plain fact is that the Minister, through the honourable member for Petrie, is trying to pass the blame to the funds and to the private hospitals. That will not work. The Minister took $80m off the funds. He has created a situation in which he knows very well that the funds cannot do what he claims they can do. The Minister is determined to destroy the private funds of Australia, and he is determined to destroy the private hospitals. Mr Hand —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —There are voices saying: 'Hear, hear'. They are the voices of the socialist Left. I have been pretty tame on this Government for the last 18 months. Honourable members opposite are not just the Hawke socialist Government; they are the Hawke socialist Marxist Government. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) is one who would proudly wear the tag. They are the ones who have just called out 'Hear, hear'. They want to see the end of the private funds and the private hospitals. It is like feeding time at the zoo here tonight. The socialist Left corner has become a cross between Kindergarten of the Air and The Muppet Show. It would be funny if it were not so serious. These are the people who have peddled the story around Australia that Medicare is good for you. On the question of Medicare, in my humble opinion the Minister has acted shamefully in approving Medicare funds for advertisements which appeared on television in Tasmania last Sunday night. They portrayed a person coming into a house containing a lot of school blocks. We see this great convoluted advertisement of how the blocks all come together to create Medicare. It finishes with the words 'authorised by'. So we have Medicare, using taxpayers' money, blatantly engaged in election propaganda-money taken from the people of Australia. I have to say that Medicare may well prove to be the Achilles' heel of this over-confident and arrogant Government which thinks that it can race into an early election and steal three years of extra office from the people of Australia. I think honourable members opposite will find that pensioners from Broome to Perth, from Darwin to Hobart, will be carrying a catchcry forward which the honourable member for Mackellar and all of us who work in this field know so well. The slogan 'Put the Labor Party last' is out amongst the elderly of Australia. That is precisely what they will do to honourable members opposite . Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(9.35) —The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) has turned in a performance that we have come to expect from him. He did everything but froth at the mouth. His eyes were rolling back. It is a pity he was not on television so that the people in the Denison electorate could see him. Really they should have a good look at themselves before they send a member like that back here again. The tactics that he employs are well known to us all now. He has the worst nightmare he can about a piece of legislation and then presents that as a fact. The honourable member talked about the gold fillings in pensioners' teeth. There is a little story that I think the people of Australia should know about. Not long after the assets test legislation was drafted the honourable member for Denison ran into the office of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and asked: 'Is gold taken into account as far as assets are concerned?' Of course, the people in the Minister's office thought that the honourable member was talking about gold bars and they said: 'Yes, it is'. So 30 minutes later the honourable member was on the air saying that the gold fillings in pensioners' teeth would be taken into account. That just illustrates the sorts of things that I had in mind when I was talking about the nightmares that he has which he then presents as fact. That story is true. The people of Australia should just know what a shonky character the honourable member is. Mr Barry Jones —He should check that out with Ian Sinclair. Mr GEAR —That is right. The right honourable member for New England and the honourable member for Denison are on a par in respect of truthfulness. I would like to be a little more constructive about the Health Legislation Amendment Bill and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). However, before I do I would like to say that the honourable member for Denison talked about the assets test and presented a clipping from the Hobart Mercury. I would like to refer to an article on page 13 of today's Age by Claude Forell. The article, which is about the assets test, opens up like this: The hysterical froth of fear and loathing whipped up against the Federal Government's assets test on pensions has been wondrous to behold. The campaign- and listen to this- has been waged not so much by those with a genuine concern for the poor and needy but the politicians eager to garner votes . . . Does not that fit the honourable member for Denison to a tee? Later in the same article Claude Forell had this to say: By promising to abolish the assets test and return to a negligible tax on superannuation lump sums- which the honourable member for Denison spoke of- the Opposition seems to be espousing a policy of: 'Those who have, shall be given more; those have not, shall be given less'. But we would expect that from conservatives because for years and years they have looked after the people with all the money at the expense of those who have none. Mr Barry Jones —The Gospel of St Michael. Mr GEAR —That is dead right, as the Minister for Science and Technology points out. Claude Forell goes on to say at the conclusion of his article: Any politician or critic who pretends that we can have a bigger cake or more slices with less dough, is a liar, and anyone who believes him is a fool. So much for what the honourable member for Denison had to say. As I said, I would like to talk a little more constructively about some of the clauses in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, particularly in respect of clause 12 which has been covered by other speakers in this debate. I would like to refresh the memory of the House by stating that this clause seeks to allow patients of nursing homes to be away from a nursing home for 28 days. Until now many pensioners have been financial prisoners in these institutions because they could not afford to get out of them. At least the Government has taken that into consideration. When this Bill is passed patients will be able to leave a nursing home for 28 days and the nursing home will still be able to receive the financial benefit from the Government. As a result, nursing homes will have more flexibility in providing respite care. (Quorum formed) Whenever the truth starts to hurt, Opposition members call a quorum because they cannot take it. Before the quorum was called, I was talking about the flexibility provided by clause 12 of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, which provides for respite care to enable senior citizens who reside with their families to be put into nursing homes for short terms. The provision will allow patients in nursing homes to go out with their families on holiday or to go into hospitals for operations. These people will not now have to worry about their accommodation not being available when they return. There is another group, which has not been mentioned by previous speakers, that will benefit from this provision. I refer in particular to a group in Western Australia comprising people who suffer from Huntingdon's disease. Let me tell those who do not know about Huntingdon's disease that it is chronic, progressive and terminal. The Huntingdon's Disease Association in Western Australia is run by a gentleman called Hans Sinclair. He has done a lot of work with that Association, founded the Majorie Guthrie Centre in Western Australia, and organised a camp to enable people to be taken from the home out on holiday. Up to the present they could not do that because they were allowed out for only 24 hours at a time. This Bill will allow such people to go out for 28 days at a time. That break will be most invalu- able in enabling these people to get out of the institution and into an environment which up until now under previous legislation has been denied to them. Hans Sinclair, who has done so much work for the Marjorie Guthrie Centre, has been nominated for a BHP award of excellence. It would be right and proper if that gentleman were to receive the award. Another aspect of the legislation relates to hearing aids. There is one gentleman in my electorate who will not benefit from this legislation. However, one hopes that this Bill will be a step in the right direction in respect of wireless hearing aids. The costs of repairing hearing aids are quite high for their wearers and many of these people had to buy these hearing aids themselves. The Department could not afford to buy this equipment. Other aspects of the Bill cover the Meals on Wheels service. The fee for the service is to be increased by 10 per cent. Many people in my electorate benefit from the Meals on Wheels service. It allows them to stay in their homes for longer periods than if the service did not exist. I am sure that the 10 per cent increase in the fees paid to the organisations which provide Meals on Wheels services is money well spent by this Parliament. These points to which I have drawn attention give the lie to Opposition assertions that the present Government is acting against the interests of pensioners and is trying to make their lives a lot harder. If anybody looks at the history of governments, he will find that the Australian Labor Party in particular has consistently looked after pensioners and the disadvantaged in society. The honourable member for Denison or any member on the other side of the House who says that grey power will be against the Hawke Labor Government in the forthcoming election is living in a fool's paradise. I can tell the honourable member for Denison that people will not have to suck their pencils for long in the polling booths. They will vote straight away for the Labor Party because that is the party which has consistently looked after the disadvantaged in society. These Bills will continue this Government's concern for the well being of our senior citizens and the disadvantaged in society who deserve a lot better than they have received under the conservative governments of the past. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes. I have been misrepresented by the present honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear), who made a very slighting reference about my constituents. I ask him to apologise to the Tasmanian Pensioners Union, Kingston Branch, of which I am the honorary legal adviser, and to all the other pensioners in Australia whom he insulted during his disgraceful speech. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! That is not a personal explanation. Mr Gear —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not apologise to anyone. I stand by my statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(9.47) —Before turning to the major issue of this debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill, which was obviously the section 3B certificate, I thank all of those members on both sides of the House who have participated in the debate, particularly those who have bothered to read the Bill. I also acknowledge that both the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) recognised that this Bill made a significant contribution to aged care programs in this country. Of course, if the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) had read the Bill he would have recognised that, too. But I recognise those two members of the Opposition who clearly acknowledged the progress in aged care which is made in this Bill. Unfortunately, one cannot quite say the same for the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). All we could get out of him was a rather grudging response about the proposals contained in the Bill. I simply want to stress three aspects of our aged care program which he referred to, as I say, in rather grudging terms. This Bill does provide a patient with the ability to leave a nursing home for up to 28 days-rather than the present 12 which the previous Government bequeathed us-to stay with his relatives of friends or to enter hospital. Patients no longer have to pay excessive bed retention day fees because the Commonwealth will continue to pay the nursing home benefit for those 28 days. In addition, it will enable the nursing homes to provide respite care so that carers looking after their aged parents or relatives at home will be able for a short period to place their relatives in a nursing home while they get a break. Both of those proposals have been made in report after report presented to the previous Government. Year after year it did nothing about those proposals. Within its first 18 months this Government has moved to take action in that field. The honourable member for Mackellar had the hide to say that after 18 months we have an aged assessment program which is merely in embryo. Again, report after report, year after year, told the previous Government of the need to have aged assessment programs and it did nothing. It is true that our program, on which last year and in this full financial year we will spend $6m, is still only in embryo. But at least we have started that program. Although the previous Government was told of the need for such a program, it did nothing. The honourable member for Mackellar said that our home and community care program did not contribute very much in terms of money. I admit that the additional $10m for home care for the aged is only a small contribution. But it should be acknowledged that it is a rolling contribution and will increase over the next three years. Again, we have put $10m into a program which report after report, year after year, told the previous Government was needed, and it did nothing. Yet it then gives this grudging response to a government which in 18 months has taken this action. I raise one final point, the definitional point raised by the honourable member for Mackellar about why we used health services. As he probably recognises, that is simply because more than just medical services are covered in the medical benefits schedule. We wanted that flexibility. Certainly there was no intention of smuggling in any other extension of Medicare benefits through that system. Let us turn to the one issue which the Opposition has raised, the 3B certificate. The Opposition began the whole debate on this issue with a contextual dishonesty. It is true that when the honourable member for Mackellar first spoke he said that there had been a moratorium on nursing home bed approvals. But as he went on, of course, he dropped that qualification and talked of 'the fearful freeze on nursing home accommodation'. All the other parrots in the Opposition simply followed him. Let me say that there has been no freeze on the provision of nursing home beds in this country. Since the Hawke Government came to power, 2,452 new nursing home beds have gone in on the ground on stream. Another 3,316 beds have been approved and are ready to go on stream. Unlike the previous Government, we have said to all those organisations that we are not prepared to stand and wait six or seven years, as the previous Government did in some cases, for those approvals to turn up on the ground. All of the organisations which have approvals have been warned that once they have those approvals, and there are already 3,316 waiting, it is necessary to go ahead and provide those beds. The pause on new approvals, of course, is now over. We have already identified some of the major areas of need. Advertisements will be appearing in the Press in the next few weeks asking the community to suggest the best nursing home provision for their area. That is a much fairer way of going about the matter than simply allowing the first entrepreneur to get in without considering what are the appropriate needs of the community. Why did we do this? The answer to the honourable member for Denison is that once one builds a nursing home it is on the ground for 50 years. Therefore, it is tremendously important that the right and appropriate nursing home or aged care facility be selected. That is what we have done as a result of the pause. The pause on approvals is now over. We will be advertising those regions in Australia which need additional aged care facilities so that the community can make recommendations and proposals and so that we can choose the best proposal which will be on the ground, as I say, for 50 years. That is a responsible approach to this issue. The contextual dishonesty is the refusal to recognise all of the new beds that are to come on this year-2,500-those and 3,000 that have been approved and are coming on in the immediate future. We turn to the next issue. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron ) asked: 'What dreadful socialist could have invented the 3B rule and the harsh $10,000 penalty for doctors who abuse these certificates?' The government that invented the 3B rule was, in fact, the Fraser Government. It introduced the principle of the 3B rule. The government which introduced the $10,000 fine was the Fraser Government. Let us be quite clear about the kind of hypocrisy we have listened to tonight. Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister is deliberately misleading the House. He knows that the provision in his Bill- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! Mr Hodgman —Can I be heard on the point of order without this rabble over here- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I doubt it very much. The honourable member is entering into argument. There is no point of order. Mr Hodgman —The point of order is that the Minister is telling lies, and he knows it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will withdraw that remark. Mr Hodgman —Even if it is true, sir, I withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will withdraw without qualification. Mr Hodgman —I withdraw. Dr BLEWETT —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have such an opinion of this honourable member that I could not care what he said about me. Let me repeat that the principle of the 3B certificate was introduced- Mr Hodgman —You are lying and I am leaving. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will withdraw that remark. Mr Hodgman —That is the second lie he has told in two minutes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw that remark. Mr Hodgman —Out of respect to you, sir, I do withdraw. Mr Milton —You are drunk again. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. That drug addicted member over there has just accused me of being drunk. I have not had a drop of alcohol today and I demand a withdrawal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to withdraw the inference. Mr Milton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not refer to any particular person. I just said: 'You are drunk again'. If the honourable member wishes to take that description-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please withdraw. Mr Milton —I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Denison reflected upon another member by saying he was drug addicted. I think that should be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member for Denison to withdraw. Mr Hodgman —I do withdraw. Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise another point of order. I think the honourable member should withdraw completely rather than half-heartedly. Mr Hodgman —I have withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understood him to withdraw without qualification. Dr BLEWETT —The principle of the 3B certificate was introduced by the Fraser Government. The $10,000 penalty was also a product of the Fraser Government, despite the allegations that have been made here. Under the previous Government a scheme was introduced whereby a patient was classified as a nursing home type patient after 60 days if an acute care certificate was not introduced. Therefore we have not introduced a new provision, we have merely changed the timing of that classification. Mr Carlton —And the criteria. Dr BLEWETT —I will come to the criteria in a moment. Under the previous Government the period was eight and a half weeks. Under this Government it is five weeks before that certificate is required. The reason for the choice of five weeks was that that period was five times the average stay in a hospital, and we also identified that most patients who were in a hospital for 35 days were still there after 60 days. When the former Government introduced these proposals several years ago it had exactly the same teething problems as we had with them when we reduced the time limit. However, we were a responsible Opposition and we accepted that the decisions the then Government had made in relation to the 60-day rule were appropriate to control the costs of health care in this society. We did not endeavour, although we had similar cases, to exploit it in the way that this Opposition has done. What we are doing is exactly the same as what the previous Government did. That was to match the Commonwealth and fund benefits to the cost of care provided rather than matching benefits to the charges raised. That was the previous Government's principle. We accepted that principle. We recognised that it had done that and we did not endeavour to exploit it in the cheap way that it has done here tonight. The honourable member for Mackellar said that after 35 days 'quite dreadful things happen'. Let me look at what these dreadful things are. First of all, if after 35 days patients secure a 3B certificate-that is, they are in need of continuing acute care-they continue to receive full cover. In fact nearly every private insurance fund in this country has maintained the supplementary cover- that is, the cover on the higher table-that existed before Medicare. For instance, Medibank Private maintains its 75-day cover. Nearly every other major fund maintains its 60-day cover on its higher table and complete year cover for acute care on its lower table. It is true that there are two funds in Victoria which have deliberately tried to exploit the situation and have introduced 35- day rules on their supplementary cover, but all others have maintained their positions exactly as they were before Medicare. So if patients secure an acute care certificate, a 3B certificate, they are treated in exactly the same way as they would have been treated before the introduction of Medicare. If a patient in a public hospital is classified as a nursing home type patient, that patient is required to make a patient contribution. Despite everything that the honourable member for Denison said, that contribution that the patient is required to make in a public hospital is identical to the contribution the patient is required to make from the first day in a nursing home. This is a basic principle of equality. If a patient is classified as a nursing home patient on the thirty-sixth day in a public hospital he is required to pay exactly the same contribution as a person is required to pay from the very first day on which he goes into a nursing home. Public hospitals at least have not been putting patients out into the street. Finally we come to the private hospital situation. In a private hospital it is true that if a person is classified as a nursing home type patient after 35 days a reduced benefit is paid. But this reduced benefit in total is at least twice what is paid for the same type of patient in the best quality nursing home. The honourable member for Mackellar talked about an old lady who needed to be turned in her bed because of bed sores, who needed close nursing care. In a good nursing home exactly the same type of care is provided at one-third of the cost that the honourable member said she was charged. There is a reduction in what private hospitals are paid because they do not need to provide the same level of services as they do for acute care patients. But they still get twice what is paid for the same type of patient in a nursing home. I have been accused of attacking private hospitals. Most private hospitals have accepted the new rules and are prepared not to charge their patients more than double what would be paid in a nursing home. It is true that a few of them have turned patients out or made it difficult for patients to stay. In some cases they have simply charged their continuing high level charges for acute care when they have nursing home type patients. Not a single Opposition member was prepared to advance one word of criticism about this kind of rapacity amongst a few private hospitals. That is what it can be described as. According to the Opposition, all blame belongs to the Government. We have not heard a single word about those kinds of practices by private hospitals. I emphasised in my second reading speech that we are amending the 35-day rule because there are some operational aspects with which we are dissatisfied. As I said in my second reading speech, in this measure we are legislating to extend the maximum period before a section 3B certificate comes into effect, from 7 to 14 days. This will allow a longer period for review of 3B certificates prior to their coming into effect. That is only the legislative side of it. We are taking a number of administrative steps to improve the operation of the 35-day rule. The first concerns guidelines for acute care. There were no guidelines because in discussions with the Australian Medical Association it argued strongly that it was a matter for the professional decision of the doctor. It argued that all we needed to use were the words 'acute care'. There was no intention of using those words to narrow what was covered. The whole thesis in relation to acute care was that it was a term that doctors felt happier to operate with rather than operating under specific guidelines. That was the intention of doing it in that way. It was agreed with the AMA that we would not write in regulations or guidelines on acute care. It has become clear that doctors are not prepared to operate in that way and there is a necessity to provide doctors with guidelines. On Monday next my Department will be meeting to conclude those guidelines which will then be circulated to all doctors. I emphasise again that these are simply guidelines for doctors. The responsibility to assess the patient is still the doctor's responsibility. The guidelines will help but we respect the integrity of the profession to make decisions about acute care. Again, we have talked about doctors being fined for not classifying correctly. There is no intention, either under the previous Government's legislation or under ours, that doctors would be fined if they make a judgment which their peers did not agree with. The fines are there and Opposition members know why they are there because they put them in their legislation in case there was deliberate fraud or deliberate misuse of these acute care certificates. No one is suggesting that any doctor who makes a professional judgment about acute care , which might be then overturned by a committee of his peers, is in any danger of those fines. Furthermore, we aim to streamline the administration of the 3B certificates. We have had discussions between the Department, the health insurance funds, the private hospitals and other interested parties to refine and streamline the procedure by which the 3B certificates are processed. Let me say that all of those groups-the funds and the private hospitals-support the basic notion of the 3B certificate, but we all agree that we must try to streamline the procedure. Among the new arrangements under these administrative changes are the following: Hospitals will forward the 3B certificates to the health insurance funds immediately they are written so that the delay element is removed. Funds will advise hospitals within two to three working days of any certificates that they are referring to an acute care advisory committee. The great bulk of these certificates are never referred but to ensure that we deal with the problem of a long delay raised by the honourable member for Mackellar we will have them back within two to three days if they are being challenged. Again, funds will continue to pay fund benefits at the lower long stay rate in respect of any certificate that is referred to an acute care committee. This will avoid situations where all benefits cease in disputed cases. The final issue that we are looking at is retrospectivity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Carlton's amendment) stand part of the question- The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Baldwin, P. J. Keating, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J.Beddall, D. P. Kent, L.Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. Maher, M. J.Campbell, G. Mayer, H.Charles, D. E. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Everingham, D. N. Reeves, J. E.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jones, Barry Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M.Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Fry, K. L. Katter, R. C.Hayden, W. G. Edwards, HarryHumphreys, B. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Blanchard, C. A. Newman, K. E.Jacobi, R. Millar, P. C.Theophanous, A. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Dr Blewett) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.18) —I speak on the third reading of the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) to remind the House that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) failed to respond to two specific matters raised in relation to this and the Health Legislation Amendment Bill. The Minister was challenged to name one new nursing home anywhere in Australia approved since he became Minister. He has failed to do that. He was also challenged before, and I challenge him again, to table in this Parliament any legal advice he can to the effect that gold fillings are not included in the Hawke assets test under the provisions of section 6AA of the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures and Assets Test) Act. Mr Hand —This is disgusting. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is disgusting, as the honourable member for Melbourne says, but it is fact. I will let the Minister into a secret. I have opinions from two Queen's Counsel which I will table before this Parliament rises. The Minister, along with the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes ), will be shown to have misled this Parliament. Every honourable member opposite has voted for a piece of legislation under which gold dental fillings are included in the Hawke assets test. The question of great interest to the pensioners of Australia now becomes whether the Government will pull out grandpa 's gold fillings before he is buried. The Government will hear a lot more about this. Government members are quite right; it is disgusting and it is exactly the same principles under which they are going to drag amputees out of hospital beds 35 days after their admission. The Minister has a lot to answer for. His Government will be defeated on this and other issues. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(10.22) —in reply-I simply ask that the House treat all of these questions with the contempt they deserve. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984 CUSTOMS TARIFF (COAL EXPORT DUTY) AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 and the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1984 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(10.24) —The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3), the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill cover a number of machinery matters that are consequent to the Budget. The Opposition will be proposing two amendments. One amendment, relating to the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1984, will be moved in my name. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) will be moving an amendment relating to the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2). The three Bills cover a fair range of topics and implement the Government's decision in relation to excise charged on beer with an alcohol content above 1.5 per cent and 3.8 per cent and the definition relating to the sales tax applicable to light beer. The Government's move to take away an excise on light beer is welcomed by the community as a whole, but the residual effect is that sales tax has been imposed. Mr Young —Not at Breakfast Creek. Mr MOORE —No, I am quite sure it would not be. The honourable member would know that well. Not much light beer would be sold there but those who do partake of light beer have been given a reduction in excise. There is a 68c per litre excise on high level alcohol beer. Mr Hand —I am listening to you, Johnny. Mr MOORE —I am sure the honourable member is listening. It is very difficult, I must admit. Left wing celebrations are taking place. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The level of conversation is far too high. I cannot hear and I am sure honourable members want the honourable member to be heard. Mr Hand —He has a soft head. Mr MOORE —A soft voice, but not a soft head. The changes that are made also flow on to areas relating to developing country preferences such as fire crackers. That is an interesting item for those in the Opposition. Developing country preference ought to concern the nation. In lots of areas where developing country preference has been afforded it has certainly not been realistically applied. In many cases those countries which produce goods and are recipients of a developing country preference have a very high degree of sophistication within their manufacturing processes. The hot stamping machine item will be dealt with in an amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Mitchell. He will go into that classification problem in some detail. A number of other administrative alterations will come into force through this Bill as a result of Government decisions in the Budget. The next Bill in this package is the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. It is not opposed by the Opposition. It brings into effect some excise tariff changes, particularly in relation to new oil. It will be recalled that all oil discovered since 1975 was not subject to the Government excise charge, in other words, the new oil levy. This Bill brings about a change in that and imposes a rate of excise on oil from the new fields. It also reflects a reduction in excise on liquefied petroleum gas. One of the more remarkable features of the Bill, as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) will recognise, is the provision for removal of the capacity to distil gin from only grape, grain or fruit spirits. I am sure that the Minister will pay particular attention to that. On top of that there will be changes to the excise on LPG, tobacco and aviation gasolene, which of course will affect only the major producers in Queensland who are very heavily reliant on light aircraft which once again will be affected by increases in the excise on aviation fuel. The Opposition does not oppose those items because they are Budget measures. The other Bill we are considering is the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill. I will be moving an amendment to the motion for the second reading of that Bill to substitute words in the following terms: Whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that, while the Government's decision to remove the duty on blended coal is to be welcomed, the severe economic circumstances affecting the coal industry and the discriminatory nature of the remaining levy, warrant an immediate and total removal of this duty, as proposed by the policy of the Liberal National Coalition. This Bill takes away from the Moura and South Blackwater mines the excise duties applicable to export coal. This export duty was introduced many years ago by the former Labor Government. It was really applied on a gross tonnage basis which bore no relationship whatsoever to the economic viability of any mine. This move recognises that both the Moura mine and the South Blackwater mine have difficulties in their blending operations. Coal from open cut operations is blended with coal from pit operations to reach a suitable grade to meet their contract commitments. In doing this the mines are mixing high cost and low cost coals. As a consequence, the Government has moved to remove the tonnage rating from those two mines. It is the Opposition's declared policy that this type of tax affects the coal mining industry adversely only at a time when it can ill afford it. Those who have some interest in coal mining areas will know that there is very severe competition. In Queensland the open cut fields operated now by BHP-Utah and the other coal mines have a unique advantage. Mr Braithwaite —The great Bowen Basin mines. Mr MOORE —The great Bowen Basin mines are in an area which is represented very well by the honourable member for Dawson. The other coal mines throughout Australia which have had to use a pit operation have been very severely affected by competition. The competition has forced down world prices. While tonnages have been maintained to meet the market that has been vastly expanded on the supply side by new markets in Brazil, South Africa and other areas, it has been necessary for Australian producers to offer some form of price reduction. Those honourable members who follow the coal marketing area, as I know the honourable member for Dawson does, would have read in this morning's newspapers a forecast made by the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry that the total tonnages that will be bought by the South East Asian countries in the next 10 years is likely to rise towards 30 billion tonnes a year. That is an enormous increase. If that is the case the future of the coal mining industry in Australia will be substantially better than it looks at the moment. Because of that I welcome this move to remove the tax on the mines at Moura and South Blackwater. It simply does not go far enough. A charge per tonne which is totally unrelated to the profit- ability of the mine has a very adverse effect on the operations of many coal mines, particularly those which operate at a marginal cost level. As a consequence of that the Opposition, in government, will remove the tax on all coal mining activities. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(10.33) —The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) has just indicated the nature of the amendment that the Opposition intends to move to one of the three Bills which are before us. Part of the amendment refers to what the Opposition calls the severe economic circumstances affecting the coal industry-I would agree with that observation-and the discriminatory nature of the remaining levy which it suggests warrant an immediate and total removal of this duty, as proposed by the policy of the Liberal-National Party coalition. The honourable member for Ryan, in the concluding remarks of his contribution, said that the Opposition, in government, would remove the last of these levies on coal. It is interesting to examine the legitimacy of claims of that kind that have been made by the Opposition on this occasion, because this is not the first time they have been made. In 1975, when the levy was introduced, it was $6 a tonne for the high quality coking coal and $2 for the low quality coking coal. As the honourable member for Ryan indicated quite correctly, it was introduced by the former Labor Government . It had the commendable objective at that time of ensuring by imposing that levy at the national government level that this national resource which was selling at very high prices overseas would in some way provide a significant return to the Australian people. On that occasion the present Opposition indicated its opposition to the proposed levy. At that time the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann), who was the Opposition's spokesman on customs and excise, said: We believe that this tax is the most retrograde tax perhaps in the whole of the Budget. That was said in 1975 when the levy was introduced. The honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe), who has significant coal mining activities in his electorate in the Hunter Valley, interjected and said: It is stopping development in the industry too. He was referring to the coal mining industry. In 1975 the honourable member for Fisher also said: 'I feel that the Government should remove this tax forthwith'. Mr Braithwaite —Hear, hear! Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Dawson interjects 'Hear, hear'. He represents a very significant area of coal mining in Australia. I would like to think that the undertaking given by honourable members opposite would be one that they would be likely to honour. This Government, quite clearly, is also moving in that direction. It is for obvious reasons that it is moving in that direction. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown), who introduced this legislation, made it clear that the Government accepted levies of this kind as second best to the type of arrangement that we would prefer to make. I refer, of course, to a resource rent tax which now in a compromised fashion as part of the legislation is being introduced in relation to new oil in Bass Strait. The statements I have just quoted were made by members of the Opposition in 1975 when the levy was first introduced. The Opposition which indicated concern about the levy in 1975, as honourable members well remember, became the Government, in late 1975. In 1976 the Liberal-National Party coalition, as the Government, gave an undertaking-the same sort of undertaking that we heard from the honourable member for Ryan tonight-that it would eliminate the coal export levy over a period of three years. It gave an unqualified commitment that the levy would be removed over three years. Did it honour that promise to any greater extent than it honoured any of the other promises that it made to the Australian people or to Australian industry? Mr John Brown —No. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The Minister answers quite correctly when he says 'no, it did nothing of the kind'. That was the first occasion on which an undertaking or a promise of that kind was made and dishonoured. In 1978-79, at the time of the Budget, an announcement was made by the coalition Government that the levies would be abolished from 30 June 1979. We can ask ourselves again whether the coalition on that occasion honoured that undertaking to a greater extent than it honoured any other undertaking that it gave to the Australian people or to Australian industry. I see the Minister again indicating quite correctly that it did no such thing. Are we expected to accept tonight on its face value an undertaking that has been given by the honourable member for Ryan that if honourable members opposite ever come back into government in Australia they will remove the last vestige of this levy? There is no reason at all for us to be under any such misapprehension . Of course, as on those previous occasions, if they ever came back into government they would do no such thing. Honourable members opposite are very strong on rhetoric. They are very strong on undertakings, they are very strong on promises and they are powerful on dishonouring promises and repudiating the undertakings that they have given. I indicated that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism in his capacity as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he moved these items of legislation in the first place, and particularly in connection with the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill, said: The Government considers that the most desirable course is to incorporate the coal export duty into a Commonwealth-State resource rent tax package. As I said, the legislation to which the Minister was referring then was the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1984. That concept is also important in relation to one of the other two amendment Bills that we are considering tonight, namely, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2), because the honourable member for Ryan indicated quite correctly that in that Bill we were concerned about applying, certainly in a concessional way, the crude oil levy to new oil being produced, particularly the off-shore oil in Bass Strait. I think the Fortescue field is now producing something like ten per cent of our total oil production in Australia and if we were not to impose a levy of that kind, it would represent a loss to Commonwealth revenue of something like $300m every year. I know that the honourable member for Ryan indicated that the Opposition would not be opposing that Bill. I am disappointed that he qualified his support by saying that the Opposition is supporting this legislation only because it is a Budget Bill. There was no qualification from the honourable member for Ryan, of course, in connection with the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill concerning the undertaking that he gave to remove the last vestiges of these coal export levies if his Party ever again became the Government. If inappropriate, distortive levies, charges, rates and taxes of that kind are ever likely to be removed, they will be removed only by a government which has shown itself to be concerned about the efficiency of the whole tax structure in Australia and the equity with which it is applied. The only political party in Australia, be it in government or in opposition, which has shown genuine concern about the questions of efficiency and equity in the tax system has been the Australian Labor Party. If indiscriminate charges of that kind are to be removed and if greater coherence is to be introduced into the taxation system, it will be done only by Labor governments. I am pleased to note that there is increasing awareness within the Australian community and within Australian industry, particularly the mining industry, of the very good sense in the concept of a resource rent tax. That concept is achieving increasingly greater and greater support. I am extremely disappointed that while the coalition was in government it did not show sufficient understanding or initiative to realise that the most sensible thing for the national Government in Australia to do was to ensure that no vacuum was created in the tax area of resource development which could be filled by the States with their hotch potch of special rates, special freight charges, special taxes and special fees. They have been introduced in order to fill the vacuum that was left by a Federal Government-the previous coalition Government-which showed itself to be completely unconcerned about these questions. There is no doubt that as a result of the approach which the Hawke Labor Government is taking to questions of taxation on resource production in Australia a greater degree of coherence and cohesion, efficiency and equity will be built into the total taxation system. It has been mentioned that the only type of coal on which this levy is still paid is the high quality coking coals being produced from certain open cut mines. In fact the position at present is that the duty is currently being paid only on the production from eight mines in Queensland. Presumably some of those mines, perhaps all of them- Mr Braithwaite —Two of those mines. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Two of those mines are in the electorate of Dawson. As I have said, I hope that eventually we will be able to eliminate levies of this kind which are indiscriminate and which are imposed on the basis of production without any consideration at all being given to the profitability, the efficiency or the cost structure of the various coal producers, and that we will be able to put in their place a taxation system which is more sensible than the taxation system we inherited. This legislation provides an exemption from the payment of export duty on high quality coking coal that is produced from certain open-cut mines, particularly in Queensland, if specified quantities of underground coal from those mines is included in production for export. The specified quantity that needs to be included from those underground mines is at least 15 per cent. It has been mentioned that the reason for this is the higher cost of producing underground coal which is of a better quality than open-cut coal and the need to ensure that the higher cost, better quality, underground coal is blended with the lesser quality open-cut coal in order to satisfy the contractual obligations of the coal producers in selling coal of adequate quality to overseas buyers. I would like to make a number of extremely important observations in connection with this legislation, but I am aware of the very significant time constraints under which we are all operating. I know that a number of other honourable members want to make a contribution to this debate. Unlike the contribution by the honourable member who is attempting to interject, hopefully they will be intelligent contributions to the debate tonight. I close by expressing this hope and making this request of the Government: That it continues to pursue the possibility of replacing all of these inappropriate taxes with a coherent, discretionary, resource rent tax so that a more coherent taxation system can be established to adequately attend to the taxation needs of Australia and the Australian community, particularly in the area of resource development. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.48) —I wish to address my remarks to the details of the speech made by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) in regard to Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 7 to 9. The Minister, in his speech in relation to the proposals, listed six administrative changes to the Customs Tariff Act, the fourth of which is: An amendment to specifically provide for hot stamping machines in tariff item 84.35 in Schedule 3. This change follows a ruling of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The rates of duty which applied to these machines under their previous classification are transferred to the item in which the Tribunal has ruled the goods are classified. This action restores the levels of assistance determined by the Government for these goods; I am most concerned about the processes that have occurred in this instance. I believe that the alterations to the Customs Tariff Act sought to be enacted by amendment No. 58 in Schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3)-that is, the alteration to tariff item 84.35 which applies to printing machinery-is contrary to law and should be removed from the Bill. This amendment refers to hot stamping machines and I express concern because of the principles that apply in this case. It is an insignificant amendment in many ways in the great business done by this House, but the principles that have been adopted are of importance for the administration of government. Hot stamping machines, which are also known in the printing industry as transfer printing machines and foil printing machines, are used for printing on a variety of surfaces including plastic, paper, board, wood and leather. Until 1981 these goods were imported under item 84.35 in the Customs tariff at a 2 per cent ad valorem duty. The House may be aware that item 84.35 applies to 'Other printing machinery; machines for uses ancillary to printing'. That was the item under which this machinery was imported. In 1981 a decision was made that this equipment should be reclassified as coming under item 84.59. It is an administrative approach, a reclassification of items which is perfectly appropriate to the Australian Customs Service. In this instance the item was moved to 84.59, which refers to 'Machines and mechanical appliances having individual functions not falling within any other item in this chapter'. The effect of reclassification was to increase the duty on these goods from 2 per cent to 20 per cent. By this process of reclassification an illegal duty, I believe, was erected against these items. The process that occurred after 1981 was that the importers took two references to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal challenging the decision of the Australian Customs Service. In February 1984 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal found that the subject goods are printing machines of the kind described under item 84.35 and, as such, are liable to customs duties at a rate of 2 per cent. In fact, what the AAT said was that the Australian Customs Service had made an inaccurate reclassification and it indicated that these items should be classified as ancillary printing equipment. Of particular importance in the decision of the Tribunal-it being common ground between the parties to the dispute that the subject goods utilise stamping foils as the medium through which their printing function is carried out-was the finding that the Customs Tariff Act 1982 itself impliedly recognises hot stamping machines as printing machines by virtue of note 6 to chapter 32 in Schedule 3, which provides: Stamping foils means goods of a kind used for printing. Therefore, there was agreement on a description, but the classification was under dispute. That had the effect from February 1984 of lowering the duty on this equipment to 2 per cent. The Australian Customs Service has not appealed against the AAT decision on classification. The decision of the Tribunal should have been taken to put an end to the dispute. It must be also recognised that the effect of the Tribunal's decision was to require that all hot stamping machines imported into Australia during the whole of the 14 years period between their first importation into Australia in 1970 and the date of the Tribunal's decision be accepted both in fact and in law as goods which fell within the terms of 84.35 only and which did not fall within any other item at any time during that period. However, on and from 1 July 1984 a new classification process was adopted. That is the one which we are enacting into law tonight. The process adopted by the Australian Customs Service is that 84.35, a proper description of these goods, has itself been split. I refer honourable members to page 11 of the Schedule attached to the Bill on which appear the words 'Omit 84. 35, substitute'. Two sections of 84.35 are substituted, one attracting a 20 per cent duty, one attracting a 2 per cent duty. So what has occurred is that the Australian Customs Service has levied a duty within the right classification which is inappropriate and, I believe, illegal. There is no validity to change the level of duty without the proper procedures of the Parliament and the law of Australia being observed. I quote a short section from the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, because it is appropriate that the House understands what the legal obligations are. Under section 23 (3): The Minister shall not take any action in respect of any of the matters specified in sub-section (4)- That is the following sub-section- being action that is related to the provision of assistance to a particular industry . . . unless he has received a report of the Commission in relation to that matter. Sub-section (4) states that the matters referred to in sub-section (3) are, inter alia, whether duties should be imposed on goods of a particular description imported into Australia, whether duties imposed on goods of a particular description imported into Australia should be removed or the rates of those duties should be increased or reduced. There we have it; There is no power for the Minister to change duty levied without a proper IAC reference and a hearing. In this item, the level of duty has been changed by administrative process, of which I believe the Minister is unaware. I believe that the Minister is in the process of signing something into law completely unaware of the changes that have been brought about to the level of duty and that no proper hearings have been conducted by the Industries Assistance Commission. There was a hearing into this item in 1974, during the term of the Whitlam Government. There was a recommendation by the IAC that minimum duty apply to these goods, and that decision was accepted by the government of the day. I understand that the Department has claimed that it could also refer to a decision of a report of 12 December 1978, report No. 191 of the IAC, which deals with miscellaneous industrial machinery. The only problem is that the terms of reference did not include item 84.35. The structure of item 84.59 to the date of reference to the Commission contains no mention of hot stamping machines. The evidence as summarised in the report contains no reference to hot stamping machines. I understand that no submissions were made and that no evidence was given at that hearing in regard to hot stamping machines. The explanation for the Department's decision may be drawn from a report in the National Times of 7 September 1984. I quote an extract: The Director of Legislation for the Customs Service, Keith Daniel, told The National Times that the miscellaneous industries report has never previously been used to justify a tariff change of this kind. He was unable to provide any other examples of a six-year-old report having been used by a minister to justify a tariff amendment. He said it would surprise him if Customs officials were not even conscious of hot stamping presses in 1978. He added, ''Although the question was never raised during the 1978 IAC inquiry, if it had been, the Australian Customs Service would have told the IAC that hot stamping presses should be classified as miscellaneous machinery in 84.59.'' Asked whether there was documentation of this, he said, ''No, but it would have been in the mind of the assistant-secretary of import operations at the time.'' He was unsure who the assistant-secretary was then. It seems to me that the whole thing is a terrible mess and a real administrative bungle, where the Department, despite an IAC hearing in 1974, and one that did not mention the goods in 1978, and despite an AAT hearing in favour of the importers in 1984, has pursued an illegal process to raise a duty that is not justifiable. I think the House is also aware that in order to make a decision of this type to increase duty on any goods a Minister must have in his own hand referred the particular item by description to the IAC for inquiry and he must have received a report. As the explanatory memorandum circulated by the Minister states in relation to clause 7, the amendment makes specific provision in item 84.35 for hot stamping machines which are a type of printing machine. It is said that this action will restore the level of assistance determined by the Government for these goods. With the utmost respect for the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services, who is at the table, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) in the other place, I believe that statement is false and utterly without foundation. I recognise, however, that in making that statement about clause 7 the Minister was relying on misleading advice. The truth of the matter is that there is no decision of this Government or any other government, for that matter, which has determined that a duty of 20 per cent should apply to imported hot stamping machines. On the contrary, it was decided in 1974 by the Whitlam Government that no assistance at all should be given to the production in Australia of printing machinery. In fact, the managing director of the only local manufacturer of hot stamping machines said recently in sworn evidence during a hearing of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerning the tariff classifications on these goods that his firm had been competing in the Australian market for many years without tariff assistance of any kind. The Government has no power to alter matters of this type, and I have dealt with the details of that process. I do not believe that the Parliament can permit an amendment of the law in a manner which is contrary to the law. I do not think we should underestimate the seriousness of this matter. It appears that the Australian Customs Service in framing its advice to the Minister either has not recognised that wrong and misleading advice is void, irrespective of whether it is conveyed in the knowledge that it is wrong and misleading, or, if it has recognised that fact, it has been recklessly indifferent to its effect and consequences. Any advice thus conveyed to the Minister leading him to form the belief that he was acting in accordance with the legal obligations imposed on the Government by section 23 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act would have been false and misleading and thus void in law. I seek to table a statutory declaration from Mr Ian Richard Rodda, tariff consultant, of 45 Stirling Avenue, North Rocks, New South Wales. Leave granted. Mr CADMAN —I move as an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3): 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, this House notes with concern the decision made by the Australian Customs Service in reclassifying the duty on hot-stamping machines without following the proper procedures'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is the amendment seconded? Mr Braithwaite —I second the amendment and reserve my right to reply. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(11.05) —In this cognate debate, I shall restrict my remarks to the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill. I am pleased even at this late hour to speak on this Bill, pleased because its purpose is to enact Customs tariff alterations that exempt certain quality coal from coal export duty. This high quality coal is from Queensland. One thing I am not in this House is parochial, but there is high quality coking coal in my electorate and in the neighbouring electorate of Hughes, ably represented by my colleague the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), and miners from underground mines are being retrenched. They are being retrenched because in the years before the Australian Labor Party gained office, the Liberal-Country Party coalition believed its own rhetoric about a resource boom. It permitted mines to be developed without any strategy or plans and today mining, especially underground mining in the southern fields of New South Wales, is paying the price of this country having no national energy plan. It is recognised that the coal mining industry, in common with other industries , is continually undergoing change. At least two factors make the coal mining industry more susceptible to change than other industries. One is the export nature of the industry, which makes it subject to fluctuations in world conditions and to the market pressures from other exporting countries. The other is the extractive nature of the coal mining industry which means that each mine has a finite economic life. It is a pity that the coal producers of Queensland and the Queensland Government do not adopt a less parochial attitude to coal exports. (Quorum formed) The Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act was introduced in 1975 because the government of the day wished to channel to the community a proportion of the windfall profits then being made by coal export producers. The duty arrangements have been varied on a number of occasions to the extent that the only coal now dutiable is high quality coking coal mined from depths no greater than 60 metres in open cut mines in production before 1 July 1980. In practice, duty is currently paid only on production from eight mines in Queensland. The Government considers that the most desirable course is to incorporate the coal export duty into a Commonwealth-State resource rent tax package. However, we recognise that this may not be practicable in the immediate future. In an international market characterised by a substantial oversupply of coking coal the intense competition for available markets will continue for some time to come. Producers have been forced to accept price reductions and a substantial upturn is unlikely in the immediate future. Although the market for hard coking coal is depressed, the possibilities for the expansion of markets for Australian energy type coals are real. Against this background in 1983 the Government received representations from CSR Ltd and Thiess Dampier Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd for relief from export duty on production from the Moura and South Blackwater mines located in the Bowen Basin in Queensland. Both mines must blend significant quantities of higher quality coal from their underground operations with coal from their open-cuts in order to obtain product of a quality suitable to meet export contract specifications. The addition of a higher cost underground product to their open-cut coal increased costs to the point where the imposition of the export duty on the open -cut coal in the exported product was having a significant impact on the rate of return to the producers. In order to assist the viability of these operations, the Government has decided to exempt from duty open-cut production in a situation where mines are and have been dependent on significant underground operations to maintain coal quality. The Government considers that the maintenance of underground operations in the Bowen Basin will retain skills which will ultimately be of benefit to the industry as a whole in that region. This also demonstrates the Government's concern to assist employment security in the industry in the present difficult international marketing environment. I urge the Government to go much further. It is essential that Australia have a national energy plan. There are those who argue for even more deregulation in the mining industry, but I am not one of those. Australia's coal resources can be guaranteed only by government intervention in the industry. Most of Australia's coal reserves are underground. It is all very well to develop open-cut mines but the peak of production from open-cut will be passed in 10 to 15 years. For that reason it is essential that underground mining be preserved in this country and that the skills built up over many years be preserved. It should always be remembered that more high grade coal has been lost in this country than has ever been mined. It has been lost through greed and poor mining techniques. Today the result is apparent, with water filled pits , cave-ins and underground fires. Mr Ronald Edwards —Bad safety records. Mr HOLLIS —Indeed, bad safety records contribute, as the honourable member for Stirling reminds me. We must preserve this great national resource that we have in this country. We must have a national energy plan. We must plan the rational development of the coal industry. There should be no argument between open-cut and underground mining. Each has its place. There would be no argument if the previous Government had not believed its own rhetoric. It is estimated that cost of the exemption covered by the Act will mean an annual loss to the revenue of less than $10m. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(11.13) —I welcome the opportunity to speak during this cognate debate. I will concentrate mainly on the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill because it is particularly relevant to a major part of my electorate. We have been discussing the levy of $3.50 per tonne on most of the coal that is exported from the Bowen Basin. Mr Leo McLeay —What about Tasmania? Why do you hate Tasmania? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I hate the honourable member a lot more at this time of night. The Bowen Basin possibly has the best grade of coal that is exported from Australia at the moment. It is mined under the most modern and efficient procedures adopted anywhere in the world. In fact, the procedures have developed to such an extent, I believe, that we are world leaders in the open-cut mining of coal. This expertise has been sold in turn to South Africa and many other places which unfortunately, over more recent years, have developed as our major competitors in world markets. But I still believe that this is the most efficient coal mining area anywhere in the world. As has already been stated, this Bill was originally introduced in 1975 by the Labor Government through its Minister, the Hon. Rex Connor, as what I regard as part of his private war against foreign capital, in particular Utah capital. Mr Leo McLeay —A great Australian. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I would say that Utah is now a great Australian company, and I would agree with the honourable member in that regard. Mr Leo McLeay —Rex Connor was a great Australian. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I did not mention anything about Rex Connor. BHP-Utah is the great Australian company at the moment. While the Minister for Minerals and Energy at the time was waging war on one company his shotgun approach collected many of the other mines throughout Australia and brought many to their knees, particularly in New South Wales. Associated with the levy for coking coal was also a levy for steaming coal. It was particularly evident that when the levy was first charged it bit very deeply into companies other than Utah. In fact, because of the nature of the levy one must regard it as probably something that could perhaps be unconstitutional in that it is a levy or a tax on a particular sector of the community and not the whole of the community. I believe that under the Constitution that should not be. This levy has been progressively reduced from the $6 originally charged by the Federal coalition to $4.50 and subsequently to $3.50. I am very aware of the observations made by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) in this debate. I can recall vigorously campaigning in 1975 for the cancellation of the total levy. I can say that if any of it was retained it was despite my objection because it affected my electorate. It affected the companies that were operating in that area. In its turn it has affected the viability of the industry. What we have now and what we will have after this Bill is passed is a single company tax . As I say, perhaps we should be looking at its probable unconstitutionality. What interests me about this matter is the second reading speech in which the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr John Brown) said: The Government considers that the most desirable course is to incorporate the coal export duty into a Commonwealth/State resource rent tax package. However, we recognise that this may not be practicable in the immediate future. Of course it is not practicable. The Minister would realise, as would anyone else, that this is a matter of negotiation with the States. The States have priority in this regard as far as their sovereign rights are concerned. So it is a pipedream. It is a typical Labor Party political nonsense to suggest that we should have an on-shore, rental resource based tax. I have gone through the statistics of which only a couple of years are available to me. The most recent statistics are those for 1982-83. The Bill is directed, as has been indicated, to relieve CSR Ltd and Thiess Dampier Mitsui in their Moura and South Blackwater mines respectively. In 1981-82 the balance between underground and open cut mining throughout Australia particularly in black coal was very delicate. Underground mining, for instance, produced 49.6 million tonnes, and open cut mines, 49.9 million tonnes. In 1982-83 things swung in favour of open cut mining to the extent of 50 million tonnes underground and 57 million tonnes open cut. In 1983-84, the year for which I do not have figures , obviously the gap would have widened with the influence on the Bowen Basin alone of Glenden, Blair Athol and Riverside coming on stream in that year. This Bill is an encouragement for mines to go underground. I have discussed this with miners in the area because obviously, in due course, unless technology increases and improves to deepen the cut, we will be left with very vast and very valuable deposits in a higher priced underground situation. Of course, if the world at that time wants coal desperately, it will pay the price for it. I see some sense in comparable movements in open cut mining. Perhaps we should also be looking at those mines on which reserves are struck for underground coal . We should not suggest that this is not being done. In fact, there is another mine, Peak Downs, that has an associated underground capacity of some 300,000 tonnes per year. Peak Downs underground coal, of course, is blended with 4 million tonnes of coal from the open cut mine. The underground coal is slightly less than 10 per cent of the open cut coal. Perhaps I should suggest at this stage that if the Government is to give encouragement, the figure of 15 per cent may be a little artificial in view of the vast amounts of coal taken from open cut mines and we should be looking at the situation at Harrow Creek and German Creek, although I know that while underground mining is operating there it is still to operate properly and no levy is being charged. I want to tell the people of Australia that underground mining is going on in these vast mines that have been ridiculed from time to time in New South Wales and described as taking wealth away from New South Wales . I appreciate that position. I think we should not write off underground mines as necessarily being uneconomic and costly. In fact, in some cases, I understand , underground mining is quite profitable, depending on the age of the mine and whether the infrastructure has been written off and there is no debt on which interest has been paid. So there are things that we should look at concerning the total industry and not just the industry in New South Wales and Queensland. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) suggested that it was our Federal Government that gave the flourish to the Queensland situation by taking up the resources boom. He would know as well as I do that that resources boom in Queensland as far as coal is concerned was undertaken purely by the State. Because of the State's vast resources the companies were encouraged to build the infrastructure and we were there to assist wherever we could. Unfortunately, we did not assist enough because I believe, as I believed in 1975, that the levy in unconstitutional, it is a Utah tax and it should not be there. The tripe talked about spreading the benefit to the rest of Australia overlooks the fact that this is a private enterprise operation, that if we are to encourage people to undertake this type of operation and to take such a gamble, we should not be wiping things off as easily as that. At the moment eight mines are subject to the tax. This number will be reduced to six when the two mines go off. The six mines are Goonyella, Peak Downs, Saraji, Norwich, Blackwater and Gregory, all but the last two being in the electorate of Dawson and all producing 17.5 million tonnes annually for the export market. Certainly as the other two go out we will see the shrinking of the levy to a one company basis, which highlights the inequity of the levy. I am genuine in that belief. I have mentioned how the current exemption ignores the attempt of Harrow Creek, which is producing 300,000 tonnes of coal for the export market. The additional cost to the mines that I have mentioned is only part of the on- cost that mining throughout Australia, whether it is in New South Wales, Queensland or any other State, bears in relationship to government charges. That has to be taken into account along with the royalties from one State to another, the rail freight charges, the port dues and the upfront capital that the open cut mines have to involve themselves in just to get into a viable situation. In other words they have to provide capital of hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases just to get the infrastructure which they pay for eventually in any case as the loan is repaid. All of this makes the opening of any new mine in Australia very dicey. As we have already said, the competition on the world market is such that we would not want to have any more mines at the moment. We have seen in the Bowen Basin, after a decade of very heavy and good development, an entire phasing out of that type of development with the opening of the Blair Athol, Riverside, Glenden and Collinsville mines and the rail and port infrastructure being put in place. We should never look down on the companies that have taken this risk because the replacement value of those six mines I have mentioned, and the other mines in the Bowen Basin of Collinsville, Glenden, Riverside, German Creek, Oakey Creek and Blair Athol is, at a replacement value of $500m each, a $6 billion investment by itself. Mr John Brown —Three billion. Mr BRAITHWAITE —No, I was including the other six that were already in place. Six and six make 12 in case the Minister did not know. I will forgive him because he has only eight fingers and two thumbs. In addition we have the towns of Tieri, Middlemount, Dysart, Moranbah, Glenden and Collinsville, or the additions to Collinsville. Mr Ian Robinson —You missed one. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Which one? I do not think I did. When we take into account the port facilities at Hay Point, Dalrymple Bay and Abbott Point we could conceivably come to an estimate of private capital involved in the whole venture of about $8 billion. The pity is that that venture has now stopped because other reserves on the field cannot be developed given the cost situation. I believe that this is one area in which the Commonwealth Government could play its part by eliminating the levy altogether. But all the States must come to the party also in respect of their costs and taxes. It requires a three-way flow from both levels of government, the private companies and unions whose members are employed. I will deal with some of the statistics. I have mentioned the difference between underground and open cut mining. Black coal has tremendous importance for Australia. In 1980-81 production was 96 million tonnes. In 1981-82 it was 99 million tonnes. In 1982-83 it was 107 million tonnes. This shows an increase in tonnages which, I think, would have been matched in 1983-84. I understand that in 1984-85 we are putting still more coal on to the export market. It is a very valuable commodity. We can break up those production figures between New South Wales and Queensland. In 1982-83 both States showed an increase in black coal production. New South Wales produced $66m worth and Queensland produced $35m. New South Wales uses predominantly underground mining while Queensland uses open cut mining. Some might feel that because of the criticism that Queensland mines attract it is the major producer but it is not. It is the most efficient producer of the least costly coal and, I suggest, the best coal. In 1981-82 export coal earned Australia $2,290m. In 1982-83 it earned $3.073m. It makes a tremendous contribution not only to Australia's taxation revenues but also to its exports and overseas reserves. As I said, it is a significant export industry. It has heavy capital costs, heavy on-going costs and heavy taxation commitments. We are deeply in competition with those nations that we might have favoured in the past with our expertise. South Africa and Canada are examples. I turn my attention to Canada because I was there in June. That country poses a significant threat to Australia's ability to compete in traditional markets such as Japan. Canada is so much closer. It regards itself as being part of the Pacific rim. Australia must be competitive in every way in its marketing. Canada has higher costs because its mines are situated in less favourable climatic regions. They have longer hauls with their coal-about 800 or 900 kilometres-but they do get some assistance from their provincial and Federal governments in the way of infrastructure costs which do not have to be paid off as quickly as our own; so they do have an advantage. They are very competitive and they have the export capacity. For example, when I was there I was able to obtain figures that indicated that Vancouver Harbour has the capacity to export 9 million tonnes of coal. Roberts Bank has a capacity of 12.5 million tonnes, Prince Rupert, which was opened at the time we were there, has a capacity of 12 million tonnes, giving a total capacity of 33.5 million tonnes. In addition, Roberts Bank has under construction another 9.5 million tonnes of capacity giving a total capacity of 43 million tonnes, with the additional potential for 22 million tonnes whenever British Columbia wants to capture it. So Australia is under very close threat as far as production is concerned. Of course, the South African situation also needs to be considered. What we cannot afford to do in these situations is impose additional burdens on the companies concerned. I note that there is continual agitation within the Labor Party to set up this coal marketing authority-- Mr Cadman —But they will not touch the unions. Mr BRAITHWAITE —They will not touch the unions and that is the great pity; but that is another problem. It is obvious that some Government supporters feel that way because the comment came from an honourable member who happens to be sitting on the Government side at the moment. A coal marketing authority does not take into account the great difficulties and the great varieties of coal grades. I am referring not only to New South Wales coal but also to Queensland coal. A lot of those coals have to be graded and blended, normally by the companies. How can one marketing authority grade the coal and get a consistent coal product to put into a market which varies within itself? When the Commonwealth Government has so many controls over the exporting of the product and everything else, I do not know why we have to go to a marketing authority. I recall very vividly the Utah-BHP deal that was mentioned here in May. There was much frustration because the companies had to keep coming back to the Government all the time. After six months of negotiation BHP had to make a contract on Utah's terms. That was the best the company could do and that was because of the control that a marketing authority, such as the one honourable members have mentioned, imposes. It would be an absolute tragedy if that authority should eventuate. There are ways in which the Commonwealth can assist our Australian industry. I know there are problems and I have mentioned them. There are the different problems of closed books to unionists. In Queensland we have to wait for somebody to be retired or for a retrenchment somewhere in New South Wales in order to make up the books. It is not quite as bad as that now, but it severely curbed production at a time when we were competing with these other markets. There are problems within the industry. Some people believe that we are at the bottom of the trough now and that things will improve. But when we come back into the market in full force we will not have the competitive edge because our miners and our whole industry, while it is unit efficient in employment in the open cut area, is still a very high cost industry. Unfortunately, governments, both State and Federal, impose additional costs at times when the industry must be more competitive to meet the competition that it is facing from Canada and other places. I agree with the amendment that is to be moved, but we call on the Government to remove the levy altogether-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(11.34) —At this late hour I do not propose to take up much time of the House, except to indicate that the Government will of course refuse to accept the two amendments including the one by the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) dealing with the levy on coal. I noted with satisfaction the eloquent manner in which my colleague the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) spelled out the rather sordid history of the present Opposition in relation to this levy in the 1975 period. It cried despair in respect of the coal industry because of this levy and promised to remove it. Having achieved government in 1975 and maintained it until 1983, with myriad opportunities to perform that promise in fact nothing occurred. We make no apologies whatever for the decision we have made to remove that levy with regard to blended coals, particularly coal mined in some of those less than profitable underground mines, but to retain it for the more profitable open cut mines. The Government can in no way be criticised for that. In fact, abolishing the coal export duty would have been consistent with the Government's overall approach to rationalising taxes that apply to the coal industry, particularly if we could have replaced it, as the honourable member for Hunter said, with a resources rent tax. Of course, what is required in order for that to happen is some co-operation and will from the State governments, which is not forthcoming. Under those circumstances, therefore, the Government was persuaded that the duty was having a particularly adverse effect on mines dependent on underground operations to maintain coal quality. The Government does not consider that the same difficulties apply to the other mines to which the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) referred. We consider therefore that the levy should remain on those mines. Under those circumstances we have no intention of accepting the amendment. I find it rather a cynical exercise that an Opposition which, when in government, had all the opportunities in the world to do what it claimed it would do in 1975 and then did nothing about it, should slip in here in the second last week of this Parliament- Mr McGauran —The second last week? Mr JOHN BROWN —Well, Opposition members can all get set if they want to think otherwise. The Opposition has tried to give us an amendment which is in line with its newly stated policy. The policy will have about as much chance of implementation as the stated promises of the previous Government in 1975 had of implementation. The Government refuses to accept that amendment. I refer to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman ), the terms of which include: . . . this House notes with concern the decision made by the Australian Customs Service in reclassifying the duty on hot-stamping machines without following the proper procedures. The amendment falls to the ground in terms of its definition because there has never been an attempt to reclassify the duty. The goods have never been reclassified. The classification ruled by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is always accepted by Customs. What has been done, solely to maintain an assistance which a local manufacturer believed he had, is to insert the previously existing rates under the old classifications in the new classifications as determined by the AAT. In terms of the language used in the amendment, it falls to the ground. The practice which this Government has followed in this case is one that has been carried out by governments of both political persuasions over a long time, in all cases to maintain the assistance that was suggested by Industries Assistance Commission reports. The honourable member for Mitchell claimed that the Government had been acting illegally in taking this decision. If it had, I can tell honourable members that governments over a long period, using that as a ground rule, have been acting illegally also. I do not think that is the case. The honourable member of Mitchell made a strong case about the relevant IAC report. He claimed in fact that Customs has misinterpreted it. I am afraid he is absolutely incorrect. The IAC miscellaneous industrial machinery report of 1978 has been determined by Customs to cover stamping machines. Mr Cadman —Six years retrospectively. Mr JOHN BROWN —Neither of the reports to which the honourable member referred, the reports of 1974 and 1978, refers specifically to hot stamping machines. It is the role of Customs to determine the scope of IAC references. The importers' representatives maintain that the only relevant report covering hot stamping machines was the 1974 report on textile and apparel machinery, et cetera. Customs maintains that it would always have used the relevant classification of 84.59, which is the classification that has been used in this case. For several years the local manufacturer believed that it had tariff assistance. In fact it was stated at those inquiries that it made investments on that premise. I believe that no member of this House would want an Australian manufacturer who has obviously done a good job in producing these machines to be put out of business by some attempt to remove whatever assistance had been granted him because of an IAC report. These amendments cannot be accepted by the Government; neither the amendment about the abolition of coal levies nor the amendment relating to the duty on stamping machines. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Cadman's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr A. C. Rocher) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCross, M. D. Morris, PeterCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morrison, W. L.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Reeves, J. E.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Tickner, R. E.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Young, M. J.Howe, B. L. Adermann, A. E. Hawker, D. P. M.Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Blunt, C. W. Howard, J. W.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Porter, J. R.Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Groom, R. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D. Fry, K. L. Katter, R. C.Hayden, W. G. Edwards, HarryHumphreys, B. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Blanchard, C. A. Newman, K. E.Jacobi, R. Millar, P. C.Theophanous, A. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(11.54) —I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill: 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 is of the opinion that, while the Government's decision to remove the duty on blended coal is to be welcomed, the severe economic circumstances affecting the coal industry and the discriminatory nature of the remaining levy, warrant an immediate and total removal of this duty, as proposed by the policy of the Liberal/National Coalition'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr MacKellar —I second the amendment. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. [COGNATE BILL: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (FURTHER PAYMENT) BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill and the International Development Association (Further Payment) Bill 1984 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these two measures? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(11.56) —The International Development Association is a concessional lending subsidiary of the World Bank, one of the great institutions set up by the Bretton Woods Agreement for the reconstruction of the world economic system. Whereas the World Bank finances its activities for borrowing and lending on a commercial basis, the International Development Association is funded by grants from Governments and lends at a concessional rate. The Reagan Administration has not met the United States target to the present round replenishment. This commitment was made by President Carter. As we all know, the United States has had a considerable Budget deficit and there are pressures to reduce it. The United States deficit is arguably one of the main causes of the high bank interest rate. Ironically that deficit is one cause of crises in a number of key Third World countries which have borrowed heavily from the United States banking system. The International Development Association is a World Bank agency. It is relevant therefore to consider the recent views of the Bank's Vice President for Economics and Research, Anne Kruger. She quite rightly emphasised the significance of developing countries facing up to structural problems in their economies. The international debt problem-and make no mistake, it is a problem- is centred on the servicing of private bank loans. The anti-inflationary strategy in the post-war period produced high interest rates. In these circumstances Mrs Kruger said: Even if all developing countries have their economic houses in order, the consequences of the oil price increase, low commodity prices, shrinking export markets and greatly increased interest rates would have required severe adjustment measures. The resources of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have to absorb greater pressures as these adjustment processes are put in place. It is a crucial time to the viability of these institutions. The issues are now of pressing concern. I note that the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Lawson , has stated that the IMF will commence major discussions on the international monetary system, external indebtedness and the role of the multilateral institutions. This is a valuable development in the dialogue between the developing and industrial countries. This initiative should enhance the prospect of success for efforts to increase international economic growth in the context of a process of economic restructuring in countries most troubled with debt servicing. The Director-General of the World Bank, Mr A. W. Clausen, is said to have threatened his resignation over the issue of funding the International Development Association. Mr Clausen, who visited Australia in May this year, was appointed to the Bank as a nominee of the Reagan Administration. He has obviously formed very favourable impressions of the work of the World Bank and its affiliates. Mr Clausen, in his speech to the National Press Club, made a special appeal for Australia to support the funding of IDA. Some 90 per cent of IDA resources go to nations where per capita income is less than $400 a year. Clearly these very poor countries, if they are to develop, can do so only by borrowing on a concessional basis. It would not be wholly fair to give the impression that concessional lending is the only avenue of assistance. Grant aid, which characterises Australian financial assistance, is also favoured by the Reagan Administration. The Jackson Committee to Review the Australian overseas aid program has this to say: Loans, no matter how concessional, introduce a cost to the borrowing country. For poor countries even small costs can become an intolerable burden in times of internal or external difficulties, leading to arrears and rescheduling difficulties. The United States seems to be favouring a path preferred by the Jackson inquiry- bilateral grant aid. Bilateral assistance has more scope as an option for a large country like the United States. It is less than a full option for Australia. The Jackson report recognises Australia's continued involvement in multilateral aid programs. In that context it prefers Australia to give priority to multilateral banking institutions. I quote from paragraph 4.26: Australia's contributions to the international financial institutions should continue to have first priority because of these institutions' proven effectiveness. Contributions should not only reflect at least Australia's GNP share, but also broader political and strategic interests. The International Development Association and the Asian Development Bank respectively deserve special support because they contribute to the development of the poorest countries of the world in a significant way. In giving support for these funds, the principle of burden sharing should be interpreted generously. In view of the Jackson Committee finding and the established history of Australia's role within this institution, I support this measure. Thursday, 4 October 1984 Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(12.01 a.m.) —I thank the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) for his support. I wish to place on record that since the second reading speech was made in the House the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) have had a discussion as a result of which there will be a further contribution, a voluntary one, over and above the amount already agreed to. The amount is still to be decided, but it will be in addition to the amount that has already been agreed to. Mr MacKellar —Do you know how much? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, it has not been determined. It is a voluntary contribution by Australia. The President of the World Bank, in his concluding remarks at the end of the joint session, said this: We are deeply grateful to the Government of Australia for its generous response to the overwhelming problems faced by the poorest countries, especially in the sub-Sahara and Africa. Australia's announced intention to make a voluntary and unilateral special contribution to IDA over and above the amounts already pledged to the seventh IDA replenishment is a very heartwarming gesture. It would be most gratifying if other donor nations would now consider emulating this action. Mr MacKellar —When are you going to announce that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will have to see the Treasurer about that. I thought I should put it on the record for the information of honourable members. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr West) read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL 1984 AIR NAVIGATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1984] Debate resumed from 5 September, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Mr Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1984 and the Air Navigation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.05 a.m.) —It is always a delight to speak in this House at this hour of the night. Mr West —You like it? Mr SPENDER —Oh, I like it greatly. This is the second night that it has happened . It is a living example of this Government's dedication to serious debate. While in opposition the Australian Labor Party was constantly and vociferously critical, and rightly so, of late night sittings. But now that it is in government, and now that it is rushing to judgment by the electorate, it is willing to turn its principles on their head for the purpose of forcing legislation through. We have before us tonight three Bills, the Air Navigation ( Charges) Amendment Bill, the Air Navigation Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill. I will deal briefly with each of those Bills at this stage. Certain amendments will be moved in the Committee stage, some of which will be agreed to by the Government and some of which have not been agreed to by the Government. The Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1984 is brought before this House for the purposes of guaranteeing borrowings to finance two B767-200 extended range aircraft. The limit of the guarantee is $200m. This is part of Qantas's major fleet modernisation program. Certainly, it is the largest fleet modernisation program engaged in by any Australian company and I think it is the largest single overseas purchase of aircraft by any Australian company. The whole question of Qantas's capacity to meet the guarantees, to meet the interest which will be due by it and to meet the principal amount it borrows, will depend very greatly on its profitability. Back in December 1983 I asked the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) a question about the proposal by Qantas to borrow a great deal of money. I said: Will the Minister give an undertaking to this House that the proposed purchase by Qantas of new planes for the sum of $860m will be made without recourse to the Australian Government for taxpayers' funds? The Minister, after somewhat insincere protestations about his nervousness or about his having waited for some considerable time for a question from me, said: The request by Qantas Airways Ltd for approval for its purchase of additional aircraft was presented to the Government on the basis that the purchase could be effected within the framework of Qantas's anticipated earnings over, I think, the next 10 years and also within the framework of funds that would be available to the airline and which would come from sources other than an additional capital injection. He went on to say: I do not want to give quite the unqualified statement that the honourable member's question seemed to require of me in relation to a future capital injection into Qantas. But the figures on which the assessments were made were, if you like, not over optimistic. If anything, they were on the pessimistic side when looking at Qantas's trading possibilities. He also said: I do not anticipate that a capital injection will be required in relation to Qantas's purchases. The Government decision was taken on the assumption that that would not be necessary. The view that I put to the House is, bluntly-I accept that the Minister has been given certain projections and I accept that they have been made in good faith by Qantas; indeed, I have seen the same projections myself-that it is quite impossible to say what will happen in 10 years, five years, three years or two years time in a market such as the international aviation market. One need only go back and look at the history of that market over the last four or five years. Therefore, to base the guarantee and the support for Qantas's purchase on forward projections of that kind is a very speculative exercise indeed. However, I wish Qantas well, as I am sure every member of the Opposition does. We support the proposal for the guarantee, stating as we do the qualification that it is for the Government and Qantas to justify in the future the accuracy of the projections on which the guarantee effectively is founded. Whilst we support Qantas as Australia's overseas flag carrier, we must not be taken to be giving in advance any kind of encouragement to the proposition that further capital should be coming from the Australian people should Qantas find that its forward projections are not in fact as accurate as it hoped or should unforeseen circumstances arise which make the international market a very much tougher proposition than Qantas expected. The next Bill I wish to refer to is the Bill to amend the Air Navigation Act of 1920. The purposes of this Bill, the Air Navigation Amendment Bill (No. 2), as stated in the explanatory memorandum are twofold. The Bill proposes: . . . to give the Commonwealth power to suspend or cancel international airline licences issued to foreign carriers where: (1) The safety of air navigation in relation to Australia is likely to be affected by the likely failure of a foreign airline or an aircraft operated by that airline to comply with the Air Navigation Act, Regulations or the terms of its licence or where the relevant overseas aeronautical authority has not made adequate provision to ensure compliance by that airline and its aircraft with international standards, practices and procedures. (2) It is considered necessary or desirable to do so- that is, to suspend or cancel an international airline licence issued to a foreign carrier- to preserve or promote fair competition in international air transport services. The first of the two purposes of the Bill is sensible. The airline industry is constantly expanding, developing and changing, and we think it is a useful and sensible provision to be available to a government when it sees or judges that a safety problem will arise so that it can act in anticipation of that problem. The second of the purposes-that is, 'to preserve or promote fair competition in international air transport services'-is expressed in very general terms. The Bill itself simply says this: (d) in the opinion of the Minister it is necessary or desirable to do so- that is, to suspend or cancel a licence- for the purpose of preserving or promoting fair competition in international air transport services. That does not tell one very much about what the Government has in mind. If one looks at the second reading speech one sees that the Minister for Aviation, after referring to the provision for cancellation and suspension of a licence in the interests of fair competition, says: At the moment the Government does not have the capability to cancel or suspend a licence where an overseas government decides to withdraw the licence of or reduce the activity of an Australian carrier. If these circumstances eventuated it would be important to be able to respond to the situation. In looking to the explanatory memorandum, the same concept is repeated. In relation to the power which is envisaged, the memorandum states: Such action would be taken in the context where adverse actions are taken by overseas Governments and Authorities which impair the ability of Australian carriers to provide international air services on a fair and competitive basis. There are, I believe, in other countries and in the United States -I instance the United States-wider provisions which enable the Government to take action against a foreign airline of a kind which is not open to the Australian Government. On the basis that the purpose of the provision is that which has been outlined very briefly in the second reading speech and very briefly in the explanatory memorandum, we support the proposal. I point out that it is not in terms directed towards actions of foreign governments or foreign authorities; it is expressed in very wide terms and a widely expressed discretion can be misused . However, the Minister has said effectively in his second reading speech and by the explanatory memorandum that the real purpose of the provision is to protect Australia's interests against decisions by foreign governments or authorities. We want to protect Australia's interests in those circumstances although I would have thought that the provision could have been much more tightly expressed. In particular I point out that we understand that it is not directed to, or to be used for, the imposing of the Government's views on what is fair in terms of market competition, for example, price competition on the Pacific routes, nor is it to be used to deal with such cases as the capability of Air India to carry international passengers within Australia. It is proposed before the Parliament to meet a particular identifiable problem. The provision should have been expressed in more precise terms. However, I accept what the Minister has said in the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech. The measure is directed to a particular kind of problem and is to be used only for the purposes of dealing with that problem. On that basis and on that basis alone we support the proposal in the Bill to amend the Air Navigation Act. I come to the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill the purpose of which is threefold. Firstly, it enhances the Government's ability to collect air navigation charges by putting in place a debt recovery process based on the creation of a statutory lien over aircraft on which air navigation charges remain outstanding. Secondly, it provides for the introduction of separate airport and airway charges and, thirdly, it brings the Act's payment and penalty provisions more into line with commercially accepted practices and implements new measures of a machinery nature. In general terms the Opposition supports the Bill and the concepts behind it but has certain specific amendments to move. They have been discussed with the Minister. Some of them will be accepted by the Government and some will not. Very briefly, the amendments deal firstly with the increase in the interest charges and the compounding of interest charges. We think that what is proposed is too high. It is one thing to be zealous about the revenue but I think one has to deal fairly with carriers and with those who are in the industry. Secondly, the statutory lien which is proposed under this Bill would operate to defeat existing creditors. For example, where a company has a plane as its sole asset, where that plane has been repaired and a large bill is owing to a fairly modest organisation, before that bill is paid the statutory lien comes into effect. As the Bill is now expressed, that statutory lien would have priority over any money which was due to the repairer. That does not seem to us to be fair. We believe that the Commonwealth should not be overzealous about exercising its legislative powers so as to get priorities in circumstances where others who have dealt bona fide and who are owed money are displaced so that the revenue can benefit. Thirdly, we propose certain amendments to the provision which deals with seizing an aircraft which is the subject of a statutory lien after a certain period has expired. When a seizure process is taken, we propose that there should be more specific provisions in the Bill to deal with the question of notification. Fourthly, we propose a specific measure relating to the issuing of certificates by the Department of Aviation so that persons who deal in good faith with an aircraft, such as owners and who get a certificate from the Department to the effect that there are no outstanding moneys due for air navigation charges and penalties, cannot then be faced with a statutory lien; that is, the Department cannot turn around and say: 'Look, we are very sorry. We made an error.' It is rather akin to the provisions which exist in relation to the sale of registered land. That amendment is proposed by the Opposition in the interests of clarity and fairness to those who deal with aircraft. Lastly, there is a rather delightful provision which somehow crept in. It reads : A person who, while a statutory lien is in effect in respect of an aircraft, detaches any part or equipment from the aircraft without the prior approval of an authorised officer is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years, or both . That would mean in the terms in which it is expressed that a person without notice of a lien, without knowing of its existence and who for the purposes of repairing and aircraft engine took it away to his workshop, would on the face of things be guilty of an offence. It is true, I suppose, that the Department would say he would not be prosecuted in those circumstances, but one cannot depend on departmental guidelines for the purposes of overcoming obvious deficiencies in a Bill. That kind of measure should not have been proposed to this House in the first place. It also has a somewhat ironic consequence in that for the purposes of meeting obligations under the air navigation regulations, that is acts done under those regulations, one might find oneself in precisely the same position because one might have moved part of the aircraft for the sake of repairing it. You would be damned if you did and damned if you did not. Anyone who did not comply with the air navigation regulations might render himself liable to a penalty. If he did he might render himself liable to two years imprisonment and a fine of $5,000. Obviously, that is not intended and the provision should not be in the Bill. The House will be going into Committee to consider those amendments. I do not wish to say anything further about them now. The Government's acceptance of certain of them is sensible. The Minister, as always, has been very frank and open in his dealings with me, as has his Department. However, what we have tonight are the hallmarks of rushed legislation, which has been introduced without sufficient thought being given to it. If sufficient thought had been given to it my proposed amendments, which the Government accepts, would never have been necessary. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(12.26 a.m.) —In this debate I shall confine my remarks to the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill. This Bill authorises the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee borrowings raised by Qantas Airways Ltd to finance the purchase by the company of two Boeing 767-200 extended range aircraft and related spare parts and equipment. Sub-clause (2) of clause 4 sets down a loan guarantee limit of $US200m or its equivalent in other currencies. Clause 5 provides for a number of conditions to be complied with prior to the Treasurer giving a guarantee of the kind referred to in sub-clause (2) of clause 4. In November last year the Federal Government approved a fleet modernisation program put forward by Qantas. It was a further mark of the Hawke Government's confidence in Qantas that approval was given for this major re-equipment program , totalling $860m. The cost of this program is to be funded from the company's internal sources but with guarantees by the Hawke Government of some of the associated borrowings by Qantas. The Qantas modernisation program will see the retirement of six of the company's older B747-200 aircraft and their replacement by nine new Boeing aircraft-that is, three new B747-300 stretched upper deck aircraft and six B767-200 extended range aircraft. The company expects to take delivery of the first two B767-200 extended range aircraft in July 1985 and to introduce them into service as soon as possible thereafter. The remaining four aircraft on order will be delivered progressively by March 1986. The story of the Qantas order for $860m-worth of new Boeings began in 1979 when the Boeing Airplane Company recognised that Qantas would ultimately look to Boeing's new generation twin-engined aircraft for routes where 400-passenger Jumbos were too big for either frequent or profitable services. At about this time Qantas's financial fortunes, along with those of most other international airlines, had not been good. for many international and domestic airlines it was the worst economic crisis in their history. Qantas's operating loss of $47.6m in 1982-83 was the largest on record and brought the accumulative total of operating losses over the four years to 31 March 1983 to around $123m. Against this background Qantas decided on a fleet modernisation program. The campaign by the Boeing Airplane Company for this order was successful. In September 1983 it was announced that Boeing had won the order. At about that time the Qantas Chairman, Mr J. B. Leslie, said: It is a very attractive deal. We believe that this is the best time ever to get deals from the airframe and the engine manufacturers, because they have had such a tough time. We think the signs are that the world economy will pick up and aviation with it, and if we deferred action much longer, we would not have been able to get such a deal. Significantly, Qantas was able to secure from the Boeing Airplane Company a buy- back option of the six old B747s Qantas intends to dispose of. If Qantas cannot sell these 12-year-old Jumbos on the open market as it takes delivery of the new aircraft over the next three years, it can ask the Boeing Airplane Company to take them. Business Editor, Terry McCrann, in an article published in the Age newspaper on 8 September 1983 said: The deal puts a floor price of something like $US120 million on these aircraft- whereas at the moment Qantas would be lucky to get $US8 million for each one in the open market-or barely more than their scrap value. However, in March 1984 Qantas announced an unaudited profit of $57.98 million for the year 1983-84 from airline operations. Qantas had correctly calculated that the recession would have ended in time for the new equipment to add to its efficiency and profitability. For travellers the Boeing 767ER aircraft promises an exciting potential expansion of the Qantas network. This aircraft embodies technological improvements which Qantas knows that it could not afford to be without. The aircraft will accommodate 18 business class passengers and 193 economy passengers flying between the international airport of Townsville and Japan or Honolulu. Above all, the Boeing 767ER aircraft will give Qantas the flexibility to provide improved services to smaller gateway points on the more thinly trafficked regional routes. The smaller size of this aircraft will enable Qantas to provide better frequencies of service than it can with the current fleet of the larger Boeing 747 aircraft. It will enable the establishment of regular flights between Townsville and Noumea and Townsville and Fiji. It will enable the expansion of flights between Townsville and Singapore and Townsville and Auckland. North Queensland exporters of fresh fruit and vegetables to South East Asia should soon be able to avail themselves of the large cargo capacity of this aircraft, which can also carry up to six tonnes of cargo in standard containers or on pallets. Qantas continues to face a very challenging trading environment. At present there are signs of improvement in travel demand and economies on the international-Australasian routes after many years of recession. However, the return to profitable flying by Qantas has been in spite of the market for international travel, not because of it. In 1979 Qantas needed to fill 70 per cent of total system seats to break even, that is, the percentage of seats which must be sold on average per flight in order to recover costs. It now needs to fill perhaps 58 per cent of the seats to break even. The Qantas Board of Directors, led by the able Jim Leslie, has undertaken vigorous and sustained efforts to contain costs and increase productivity within the company. Another less publicised contribution to profit- ability has come from aggressive marketing. In June this year it was announced that a national advertising campaign was to begin this month to motivate more Australians to travel overseas. The national advertising and merchandising manager for Qantas said that about 50 per cent of Australians had never travelled overseas and another 26 per cent had made only one trip. The $3m holiday travel campaign is to be aimed at encouraging these people to 'escape from the daily routine'. The campaign represents a massive investment by a newly confident Qantas in a reviving travel market. In addition, since Qantas has offered comparable incentives to travel agents to offer air travel with Qantas, the company has started to recapture a higher share of the tourist market. The combined efforts of Qantas and Australia's very effective State and Commonwealth tourism organisations have resulted in a big increase in inwards tourism to Australia. Some years ago only 30 per cent of the total traffic carried by Qantas originated overseas while today approximately 50 per cent of Qantas traffic comes from outside Australia, and this percentage continues to grow. The survival of an airline in today's fiercely competitive environment depends very much on having the most cost-effective and latest technology aircraft available. Australia has in Qantas an airline of which it can be justly proud. The Qantas fleet modernisation decision demonstrates confidence in Australia's future and its desire to improve international accessibility to our vast national tourist attractions with the most modern cost-efficient and suitable equipment available. The decision reaffirms the determination of Qantas to provide safe, efficient and regular air services at the lowest possible price. The Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, has provided new guidelines for the future oversight of Qantas which will further enhance the company's ability to perform as a commercially successful international carrier and to meet the needs not only of Australians who wish to travel abroad but also of the Australian tourism industry. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(12.34 a.m.) —At the outset of my contribution to the debate on the Qantas Airways Ltd (Loans Guarantee) Bill 1984, the Air Navigation ( Charges) Amendment Bill 1984 and the Air Navigation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 I would like to respond to some of the comments that were made by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), who has just resumed his seat. I thought that the honourable member showed great enthusiasm in saying that the 767 aircraft which are the subject of the Qantas Airways (Loan Guarantee) Bill would be operating in and out of Townsville. I notice that the honourable member has left the chamber. Perhaps he does not want to hear what I have to say. However, I want the people of Townsville to be clear about this. I understand that it is Government policy that Qantas will use Cairns. Qantas has advertised some very successful cheap fares from the west coast of the USA to Cairns. Those flights, which have been booked out, do not land at Townsville. Perhaps the honourable member for Herbert went a little too far when he said that Townsville is going to be the centre of things as far as Qantas operations in North Queensland are concerned. I hope that the people of Townsville will realise that that is not so . I wish to comment on the legislation relating to Qantas Airways. The new Boeing 767 extended range aircraft will give Qantas greater flexibility and, one hopes, improved operating capacity and economies on the less heavily trafficked routes in and around the Pacific and Asian region of Australia. I refer particularly to the Asian and South East Asian regions because they have enormous potential. I think that Qantas should have made this decision 10 years ago. In fact, Qantas has been caught short because its larger long range aircraft had the capacity to overfly the nearer regions. However, it was considered uneconomic to fly to them and Qantas lost its market share. In the context of the United States of America, I believe that Qantas is vital to Australia's success in that market. The House is aware of Paul Hogan's brilliant North American promotion and the Opposition fully supports his program . It is most successful in putting Australia in the forefront of people's minds, firstly on the west coast of the United States and now on the east coast. Paul Hogan is a great Australian and doing a great job for Australia. I wish I could say the same of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) who is trying to ride on Mr Hogan's back. As Paul Hogan himself recently said, his objective is to create in the American consciousness an image of Australia. Therefore, the Minister must concentrate on actually getting passengers sitting on aeroplane seats on aircraft coming in and out of Australia. On the subject of Qantas and the Australian Tourist Commission's campaign to get passengers to travel to Australia, I wish to refer to some advertising that is being placed in the United States. Air New Zealand, a rival of Qantas, has a prime time advertisement on Los Angeles television which says that Americans can visit New Zealand and the Pacific, as well as Australia, for the same price as a fare to Australia only. The advertisements show a picture of the Opera House, if my memory serves me correctly, then an Air New Zealand 747-not a Qantas aircraft , which is most regrettable-and the viewer is then taken on a trip round the Pacific. The Air New Zealand advertisement makes the point that it can all be done for the price of a single ticket on the airline. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think we are being taken for a bit of a trip on this Bill too. Mr SHIPTON —With great respect, Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Herbert had the indulgence of the Chair to range widely about the advantages of Qantas and the Bill to tourism. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member must relate his remarks to Qantas Airways. Mr SHIPTON —I am relating my argument to Qantas because Air New Zealand is pinching Qantas passengers by this almost false advertising. The point I am making is that the new Boeing 767s which are the subject of this legislation give Qantas the capacity to meet this campaign by Air New Zealand to poach United States passengers. A passenger travelling on Qantas cannot fly to New Zealand, around the Pacific and on to Australia if he is coming from the west coast of America. He would have to fly from the west coast, from either San Francisco or Los Angeles, to Australia. If the passenger wants to do New Zealand and the Pacific and wishes to travel to the same destinations offered by Air New Zealand on Qantas he has to take a side trip. It is to be hoped that with a combination of the new scheduling and the new 767s Qantas will be able to meet that market need. I understand that Qantas is losing passengers to Air New Zealand and to other airlines. It is important for Qantas to be able to compete in the market place. It is still cheaper for many Australians to travel overseas than it is for them to travel at home. The recently announced cheap Qantas fares to China are evidence of that. It is cheaper to travel Qantas to China or to Fiji, Bali, Noumea and Vanuatu than to take holidays of an equivalent standard in Australia. I hope the Government will do something about that and that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism will fairly and squarely face that issue. I do not think it has been faced fairly and squarely by the Government to date. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) so adequately spoke about the Air Navigation Amendment Bill (No. 2). I am pleased to support him in this debate and in the amendments he will move. I pay tribute to him. I see that the honourable member for Herbert has entered the chamber. Perhaps he will tell us why he is telling the people of Townsville that the 767s will be flying in and out of Townsville when it is government policy that they fly in and out of Cairns. Mr Lindsay —You would not know what you are talking about. Mr SHIPTON —The honourable member says that I would not know what I am talking about. I ask the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) to tell the people of Townsville whether Qantas has permission, has the permits, and will be flying 767s in and out of Townsville. What are the dates, times and routes? Has permission been granted? The honourable member talked about flying from Townsville to Japan. Has Japan Airlines agreed with that? Has the Japanese Government agreed with that? The honourable member said that that will happen. The question of whether he is misleading the people of Townsville must be looked at seriously. Mr Lindsay —You are the one misleading the people of Townsville. Mr SHIPTON —I am not misleading anybody. The honourable member came into the House tonight and attempted to fool the people of Townsville because of the forthcoming election. I say that no permission has been granted and there have been no plans for the 767s to fly in and out of Townsville. Those are the facts, and the honourable member knows it. Referring to the Air Navigation Amendment Bill, the honourable member for North Sydney made a good point in relation to interlining. Interlining, Mr Speaker, as you would know, is the practice of passengers arriving in Australia on one international airline and travelling on domestic routes in Australia which are covered by international airlines. Most people think of interlining as applying to Qantas because Qantas flies more domestic routes in Australia than any other international airline. Obviously, because it is Australia'a national airline, it has the equipment. However other international airlines do fly various sectors in Australia. I think British Airways flies across the continent. I could be wrong on that, but it does fly on domestic sectors, as does Air India. As I understand it, Air India is the only airline that can carry across Australia, passengers who arrive in Australia on other airlines. So if a passenger arrives in Australia on Qantas, British Airways, Malaysian Airline System, Cathay Pacific, Garuda or JAL, he can still fly an Air India sector across Australia under an interlining agreement and then leave by another international airline. I raise the whole question of Qantas being able to interline. The new 767s do give the capacity to interline and compete with Australian domestic airlines. I would be interested in the reaction of the Minister. The honourable member for North Sydney pointed out that Air India has these rights. It is his understanding-I am not sure whether from the Minister or from the Department- that this legislation is not a back door method to stop that interlining. It would be very regrettable if that were so. It is my belief that interlining ought to be more readily available. This would enable more competition to take place. The hour is late, Mr Speaker. I thank the House for its indulgence. I support my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney in the amendments he has foreshadowed to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(12.46 a.m.) —I would like to make some remarks in this cognate debate. Most honourable members will know that there is a close historical link between the Northern Territory and Qantas Airways Ltd. Qantas, of course, takes it name from Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services. It has throughout its history had a close relationship with the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, Qantas's involvement in the Northern Territory has been reduced considerably in the past decade. That has happened for a combination of reasons. The replacement of 707 aircraft by larger, longer range aircraft such as Boeing 747s have made it less attractive to operate through ports with a small passenger uptake such as Darwin. At the same time Singapore developed as a hub for the South East Asian air traffic. Darwin's proximity to Singapore was a disincentive to stage larger, longer range aircraft through Darwin. As a result many airlines started to overfly Darwin. Soon after Cyclone Tracy in 1974 Qantas stopped using Darwin as a staging post. For some years now Qantas has operated only one weekly service in and out of Darwin. It has been criticised for that, for not doing enough to support the development of the Territory's expanding tourist industry. The Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1984 will help Qantas to answer that criticism. The purpose of the Bill is to guarantee Qantas's purchase of two 767 aircraft. Qantas is, in fact, purchasing six 767 aircraft. The purchase of the other four is to be financed internally by Qantas. The important thing for the Northern Territory is that one of these aircraft will be introduced to a new twice-weekly service which Qantas will operate between Singapore and Darwin. So this legislation will help Qantas to resume its role as an important contributor to the Territory's development. The fact is that apart from Qantas 11 other international airlines have rights to operate through Darwin and they are not using them at present. Qantas is now pulling its weight. I think the question should be asked about these other airlines as to whether they intend to take up their rights. They are not using the rights at present. They are in effect protecting their market position yet are keeping out other airlines that might be interested in operating through Darwin. I ask the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) perhaps to consider asking these airlines to explain whether they intend to use their rights to operate through Darwin and, if they do not, to consider taking their rights away and allowing other airlines that may be able to operate aircraft such as the 767s to consider flying through Darwin. The tourist industry will certainly benefit from the Qantas 767 purchase as would any other airlines that might want to so operate. In conclusion, I say that the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill will allow Qantas to fulfil an important role in developing the Territory's tourist industry with the introduction of the 767 aircraft on the Singapore-Darwin route . I think the critics of Qantas would do well now to support Qantas in this new endeavour and take some positive steps to encourage those other airlines that are not using their rights to operate through Darwin to do so as quickly as possible. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clauses 1 to 3-by leave-taken together. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.50 a.m.) —Madam Chair, I will be brief on clauses 1 to 3. Two of these clauses are agreed to as they are purely machinery clauses dependent upon later clauses. One is not agreed to, and that is clause 1. The effect of clause 1 is to change the penalty interest rates which are now proposed under the Bill. It is proposed that the period of grace for payment of air navigation charges be reduced from 45 to 28 days and that the penalty charges shall be increased on any air navigation charges that are outstanding. Mr Beazley —Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. I think the honourable gentleman is speaking to clause 4 and the first amendment. I think that clauses 1 to 3 are accepted. The CHAIRMAN —Clauses 1 to 3 relate to the title, the commencement and the interpretation. Mr Beazley —I will clarify the situation for my colleague who has been very co- operative with this legislation. Clauses 1 to 3 are uncontested, as I understand it, by the Opposition. The Opposition has an amendment to clause 4. Mr SPENDER —I am sorry. Clauses agreed to. Clause 4 (Air Navigation Charges). Mr SPENDER —Thank you, Madam Chair. What I have just said can now be incorporated into clause 4. I was looking at my own numbering and not the numbering in the Bill. I thank the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) for pointing that out. Picking up where I was, I mentioned that the penalty rates will go up to 1.5 per cent. It is provided that it can be such other rate as may be prescribed. Rates will be compounded monthly, I think. That seems to us to be too high. I have put to the Minister, and I put it to this Committee, that the proper rate, bearing in mind the prevailing market climate-Bankcard not- withstanding-would be one per cent or such other amount as is prescribed. So if the Department of Aviation thought a higher amount was necessary it could change it from time to time. We would agree with compounding. That would leave the position quite open for the Department. But once we set into a statute 1.5 per cent or such other rate as may be prescribed, there is a tendency to take the 1. 5 per cent as being the rate that should apply. I should like to see the Department and the Government adopt a lower rate so that the Government can give more flexible and close attention to altering the rate according to conditions from time to time. I therefore formally move amendment No. (1) to clause 4 that has been circulated in my name. I move: (1) Clause 4, page 2, lines 6 and 7, omit paragraph (c), substitute the following paragraph: ''(c) by omitting from sub-section (2) '1%' and substituting '1% or such other amount as is prescribed'; and''. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(12.54 a.m.) —I wish to speak briefly to clause 4 of the Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill. Qantas Airways Ltd has been flying the new Boeing 767s and is subject to these changed charges. In the second reading debate the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) said he assumed that the 767s would be subject to these charges and would be flying in and out of Darwin. That is not so. No arrangements have been made and no permission has been given. Qantas has made no decision about it. I would not want the people of Darwin to think they are suddenly going to get increased services as a result of this legislation. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Would the honourable member remain relevant to the Bill? Mr SHIPTON —Thank you. I have concluded my remarks. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(12.55 a.m.) —I suppose we can forgive the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) for obviously deviating miles from the purpose of this Bill given the circumstances in which the debate on the second reading was conducted. As he quite rightly pointed out, it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which Qantas Airways Ltd would default in payment of the air navigation charges which are the subject of this clause. As the honourable member has sought to link those two together I assure him that Qantas assures me that the basic purpose of buying the 767 aircraft is precisely so that it can effectively service airports such as Cairns, Townsville and Darwin. That purpose had been made clear to me and it has been made clear by Qantas in public statements. It is most unlikely that Qantas will actually have routes planned out when it does not actually have the aircraft at this point. No doubt we will all be informed in due course as to precisely how it intends to conduct its operations out of those three centres and other areas when it gets around to it. I cannot see the type of point that the honourable member is trying to score off the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay). I thought the honourable member for Herbert was merely stating the obvious. The Government thought at considerable length about whether it would accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). I might say, by way of introducing my remarks on it, that the honourable member for North Sydney has put forward a series of very helpful amendments on this legislation. I thank him for his co-operation. They have strengthened the Bill and made it more effective. Having thought at some length about it and having noted his comment that the proposition he put forward would not necessarily preclude the Department introducing a more punitive rate of interest than he currently suggests, nevertheless the Government determined to oppose the amendment although we will support others that he will put forward. The operators might suspect a sleight of hand on our part were we, immediately after we secured the passage of legislation which in the first instance referred to one penalty charge, to establish, as we would have to do, a higher rate of interest. They might suspect from us a degree of duplicity which is not intended and which is certainly not there. We start out with the basic proposition that we are looking for a punitive rate of interest. The present rate of interest of one per cent per month simple has proved to be an inadequate incentive to the payment of charges. The rate, of course, being simple is equivalent to 12 per cent per annum. If the rate were compounded monthly, as has been proposed by the honourable member for North Sydney, the equivalent annual rate would be increased to 13 per cent or a little more. This compares with the trading bank prime overdraft rate of 13.5 per cent for amounts in excess of $100,000 although that rate can go as high as 15 per cent. For amounts less than $100,000 the rate is 14 per cent. The retention of the existing rate, even if compounded monthly, would at this point represent cheap finance to operators. I do not know whether the honourable member included a degree of flexibility in that. The Commonwealth is confronted with a substantial immediate problem to the tune of $5m in uncollected air navigation charges. One of the major reasons why they are uncollected is that the current punitive rates in terms of current interest rates-I think this will be the case for some time into the future-are quite attractive. They are even more attractive when we consider the length of time for which some air navigation charges have not been paid. The Government's proposal in the existing clause of one and a half per cent per month compounded represents an equivalent annual rate of almost 20 per cent. If things keep going as well as they have been for us in the last year or so, I expect that in the next few years it might well be three or four times the prevailing rate of interest, as opposed to being merely twice or a little under twice the prevailing rate of interest at the moment. I see the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) is moving to discipline me in this debate, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, having made the essential points. The purpose is that the rate of interest should be punitive. The proposition put forward by the Opposition would not, in the first instance, be punitive; it would effectively be a minor adjustment to the current rate of interest which is a long way short of that and it would involve us in the difficult exercise, in terms of our relationship with the industry, of having with absolute certainty to establish by regulation the rate of interest that we are proposing in the legislation because the proposed rate would in no way meet the purpose for which the legislation is being put forward. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 5 (Remissions and refunds of charges and penalties). Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(1.02 a.m.) —by leave-I move: (2) Clause 5, page 2, line 25, omit '5C, 5D, 5E and 5F', substitute '5BA, 5C, 5E, 5F and 5FA'. (3) Clause 5, page 3, line 10, omit 'Where', substitute 'Subject to section 5BA , where'. These amendments are of a machinery nature and I do not think I need say anything about them at this stage. Amendments agreed to. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(1.03 a.m.) —I move: (4) Clause 5, page 3, lines 25 to 34, proposed section 5B, omit sub-section (6) , substituting the following sub-section: '' '(6) For the purposes of priorities amongst creditors and the purposes of the distribution of proceeds of a sale made under sub-section (9), the statutory lien has effect as a security interest in respect of the aircraft ranking in priority- (a) after any security interests in respect of the aircraft created before the time of registration of the statutory lien (together with interest accruing on any such interest after the time of registration of the statutory lien); (b) after any unsecured debt coming into existence before the time of the registration of a statutory lien; (c) before any secured interest not falling within paragraph (a); and (d) before any unsecured debt not falling within paragraph (c).''. The purpose of the amendment is to change the order of priorities which appears in the Bill. We must remember that this Bill creates a statutory lien in favour of the Commonwealth and that statutory lien has certain effects. Two of the effects, according to the Bill, are that after a certain period the Commonwealth will be able to deregister the aircraft in question where the amount outstanding in broad terms has been outstanding for six months. The precise formula is to be found in what will be section 5B (7) of the Act as amended. There is some doubt as to whether that will be constitutionally valid but that is a matter for the Government to consider and we are not particularly concerned with that question. Let me describe what the statutory lien does. On entry by the Department of Aviation after 28 days have run and an amount which is due in respect of charges has not been paid, a lien can be entered in respect of an aircraft. Where that lien is entered in respect of an aircraft certain statutory priorities apply to the aircraft. They are to be found in what will be sub-section (6) of section 5B . That provides effectively that the statutory priorities have first of all secured creditors to the extent of any amount owed to them up until the time of the entry of the lien, other than a creditor who has a floating charge. That means if a creditor has a floating charge he will be displaced by the statutory lien, notwithstanding the fact that a great deal of money may have been lent on the floating charge and lent a long time before any question of the lien arose. Furthermore, if a security interest has priority over the statutory lien then, according to the terms of the Bill, amounts accruing on that security charge, to the extent that they accrue after the lien, are not to have priority. That is the way the Bill is intended to be read although-I say this without attempting to be critical in any personal way-it is perhaps not expressed as clearly as it could be. It is very unjust that, for instance, a repairer, as I instanced in my speech on the second reading, may be owed a lot of money and he may have recourse only to the plane. He is an unsecured creditor just as the Department may be an unsecured creditor. What happens is that once the lien is entered he finds that the Department automatically has priority over him and may, as a result of the lien if charges remain outstanding for a period of nine months, seize the aircraft and the Department may sell the aircraft. The particular mechanisms are provided for by what will be section 5B sub-sections (8) and (9). If the aircraft is sold, a good title is given. That has or could easily have grave consequences for someone who had dealt with the owner of the aircraft in good faith, was owed money and believed that that money would be recoverable from the owner or, at the very least, that ultimately he would have recourse against the aircraft and finds that the Department steps in and takes priority over him. I do not believe that the Commonwealth Government should be zealous always to place itself in front of citizens when it comes to getting priority for debts. There is a lot to be said for the Commonwealth Government ranking equally with its own citizens and not seeking to use the processes of this Parliament so as to get a better deal for the revenue than citizens are able to get. We should be more concerned with the citizens of this country, with the companies that do the work on planes, with ordinary rights rather than with collecting revenue for the Commonwealth. I know that may be anathema to some but I would have thought that we were about a fair deal for people and this is manifestly not a fair deal in the way that it will operate. What we propose is to change the order of priorities so that, in brief, the statutory lien will take priority after any security interests which existed before it came into existence, together with any interest that might accrue thereafter, so that the person who has a security interest is protected for the debt and for the interest as it accrues and after any unsecured debt that came into existence before the time of the registration of the statutory lien. We think that is common justice and that is the purpose of the amendment proposed to clause 5 and what will be sub-section (6) of section 5B. Having said that, I will now sit down and listen to what the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) has to say upon that subject because a couple of speakers have yet to speak. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(1.09 a.m.) —The Minister will not say much as he is being disciplined by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) who is sitting behind him, except to say that the Government does not agree with this amendment moved by the Opposition. It needs to be understood what the Government is intending here. The first point I make on that is that it is not the intention or the effect of the particular clause concerned to rank the Commonwealth ahead of all creditors of the particular individual or company concerned which has become the object of a statutory lien. The intention is to rank the Commonwealth ahead of the unsecured creditors and behind the secured creditors. So there is at least one other classification that the honourable gentleman was talking about that would not be affected in precisely the way that he suggested. However, the other classification would. Therefore I think it is necessary for me to defend briefly the actions being undertaken by the Commonwealth. The intention and the basic thrust of the legislation has been to enable the Commonwealth to secure debts owed by operators. It is not a hastily arrived at position in this regard. In fact, this area of the problem has been discussed in considerable detail with the aviation industry. That is not necessarily to say that all sectors of the aviation industry agree in detail with what the Commonwealth proposes. However, there is a general view in the aviation industry that the Commonwealth ought to take far firmer action than it has in the past collecting charges that it has failed to collect to this point. The nature of the way in which the aviation industry is cost recovered is such that at least technically, if you like, a failure to recover costs in the industry imposes, albeit it often theoretical, paper burdens at least on the rest of the aviation industry. That places us in a slightly different situation from another department which is perhaps dealing with the recalcitrant payer, dealing with a person who would find himself with other creditors, where the strictures, as mentioned by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) might logically apply. In this instance, theoretically in some cases and in others actually, a failure to achieve a cost recovery comes out of the hide of the rest of the industry. So there is a philosophical difference between the two sides on this proposition. I accept the philosophical view that underlies the honourable member for North Sydney's amendment. I do not agree with it for those reasons. I note again the qualification that the Commonwealth is not placing itself ahead of all creditors, merely ahead of unsecured creditors, which is a situation in which unsecured creditors would find themselves in in any circumstances where they are confronting a situation of bankruptcy. They would find themselves in the case of any company going bankrupt at a disadvantage to secured creditors. The way in which unsecured creditors are to be dealt with will not introduce some unusual precedent into this legislation. For those reasons we oppose the amendment. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —by leave-I do not understand the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) to contest the fact that I am right when I say that what is proposed is that the lien will put the Commonwealth ahead of unsecured creditors who existed before the date of the lien; will put the Commonwealth ahead of a creditor who has a floating charge before the date of the lien; and will put the Commonwealth ahead of a person who has a fixed security insofar as interest accrues after the date that the lien comes into effect. I draw that matter to the Minister's attention because there are perhaps some obvious implications in relation to at least some organisations financing aircraft with this kind of statutory lien being a possibility that they must encounter. In my earlier comments I did say that I did not think that the clause was drafted as well as it could be, but that is certainly the intent of what would be paragraph 5B (6) (b) of the Bill. I point out to the Minister that it is all very well to talk about statutory liens, air navigation charges and the duties of the Commonwealth , but this statutory lien is all one way. A lien ordinarily arises as a result of a transaction entered into by parties; this is a lien which arises as a result of operation by statute and the entry in a register. Therefore, it is a quite different proposition. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(1.16 a.m.) —The answer to the first two propositions put by the honourable member for North Sydney is yes. As to the third, my understanding is that interest accrued after the imposition of the lien is part of the debt incurred prior to the imposition of the lien and therefore a secured creditor who is entitled to that interest would rank ahead of the Commonwealth in regard to recovery from the sale of the aircraft. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Spender's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Aldred, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Hodgman, W. M.Blunt, C. W. Howard, J. W.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald Porter, J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Rocher, A. C.Carlton, J. J. Ruddock, P. M.Coleman, W. P. Shipton, R. F.Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Spender, J. M.Fisher, P. S. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Baldwin, P. J. Howe, B. L.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Lindsay, E. J.Bowen, Lionel McHugh, J.Brown, John McLeay, LeoBrown, Robert Maher, M. J.Brumby, J. M. Mayer, H.Campbell, G. Mildren, J. B.Charles, D. E. Milton, P.Charlesworth, R. I. Morris, AllanChild, J. Morris, PeterChynoweth, R. L. O'Neil, L. R. T.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Punch, G. F.Darling, E. E. Reeves, J. E.Dawkins, J. S. Saunderson, J.Duffy, M. J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Edwards, Ronald Simmons, D. W.Everingham, D. N. Snow, J. H.Fatin, W. F. Staples, P. R.Free, R. V. Steedman, A. P.Gayler, J. Tickner, R. E.Gear, G. Uren, T.Gorman, R. N. J. Wells, D. McM.Griffiths, A. G. West, S. J.Hand, G. L. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Young, M. J.Hollis, C. Katter, R. C. Fry, K. L.Edwards, Harry Hayden, W. G.Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C.Newman, K. E. Blanchard, C. A.Miller, P. C. Jacobi, R.Hunt, R. J. D. Theophanous, A. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(1.28 a.m.) —by leave-I move: (5) Clause 5, page 4, lines 7 and 8, omit proposed paragraph 5B (8) (a), substitute the following paragraph: ''(a) shall take reasonable steps to give notice of the seizure to- (i) such persons as, in the opinion of an authorized officer, have a security interest in the aircraft; (ii) each person who is any of the following, namely, an owner, operator, lessee, hirer, charter or pilot in command of the aircraft; and (iii) such other persons as are prescribed; and''. (6) Clause 5, page 4, after proposed section 5B insert the following section: Certificates '' '5BA. (1) Upon a request made in writing in respect of an aircraft by a prescribed person, an authorized officer shall issue a certificate on the prescribed form, stating whether or not, as at a specified date and time, any charge is payable and unpaid in respect of the aircraft and, in respect of any such charge, the amount of the charge and the date upon which it became payable. '(2) Where a certificate has been issued under sub-section (1) in respect of an aircraft, any statutory lien in respect of the aircraft, whether imposed before or after the time to which the certificate relates, does not cover any charge in respect of the aircraft that was payable and unpaid as at that time but was not specified in the certificate or any penalty relating to any such charge.''. (7) Clause 5, page 5, line 2, omit ''while'', substitute ''knowing that''. (8) Clause 5, page 5, add at the end of proposed section 5D the following sub- section: '' '(4) Sub-section (1) does not apply to an act done as required by or under the Air Navigation Regulations.''. (9) Clause 5, page 5, after proposed section 5F insert the following section: Insurance of aircraft '' '5FA. (1) Where an aircraft is to be seized in accordance with sub-section 5B (8), the Commonwealth shall insure the aircraft, and keep it insured against the loss of, or any damage to, the aircraft during its seizure or while it is in the custody, possession or control of the Commonwealth or of an officer, employee or agent of the Commonwealth. '(2) Insurance effected under sub-section (1) shall be for the benefit of the person or persons prescribed. '(3) Where an amount of a premium of insurance effected under sub-section (1) is paid by the Commonwealth, an equivalent amount becomes a debt due to the Commonwealth by the person by whom amounts covered by the statutory lien in respect of the aircraft are payable, and, until paid, shall, for the purposes of section 5B, be deemed to be an outstanding amount covered by the lien.''. In these proposed amendments we are again talking about the statutory lien. First of all, the notification provisions which presently exist in the Bill are deficient in that they do not say who shall be notified when an aircraft is seized. It seems reasonable and proper that those people should be identified in the legislation and that is done now in the amendments which I propose and to which the Government will agree. In the legislation we will see who must be notified when an aircraft must be seized under the Government's statutory lien. The next amendment seeks to insert a new section. The effect of that is to provide a means by which anyone who is dealing with an aircraft can make an inquiry of the Department of Aviation and be informed whether or not any amount is owing to the Department in respect of that aircraft for charges as at the date that the certificate is given. Effectively, when such a certificate is given it is not open to the Department to rely on the fact that it issued the certificate in error. Once having given the certificate, it is bound by it. This gives a means to people who wish to deal in good faith with the aircraft to inquire of the Department, to get a certificate from it, and then to be able to deal, knowing that the Department cannot displace the rights that have been acquired under the contract. It should be borne in mind that what could happen otherwise is that a person in good faith could enter into the purchase of a plane shortly after a statutory lien is entered in a register but before any notice of that is made public and find that that statutory lien entirely defeats the purchase and the aircraft may be subject to sale by the Department. It should be remembered that when the aircraft is sold by the Department, under the proposals contained in the Bill, the Department is able to give good title against anyone, including the original owner of the aircraft, because of the existence of the statutory lien. That was all the more reason for the proposal concerning priorities which I put earlier but which was accepted by the Government. There are two further amendments I have put to the Committee. The first is the one to which I referred in passing. Under proposed new section 5D(1), the remarkable consequence is that, as it now stands, once a statutory lien is in effect a repairer who takes a propeller away from the aircraft or takes the engine out will find himself staring down the barrel of a gun at a penalty of $5 ,000 or two years gaol or both. A person who has obligations under the Air Navigation Regulations and seeks to fulfil those obligations by doing exactly the same thing will find himself in the curious position that if he does not fulfil his obligations under the Air Navigation Regulations he may be subjected to penalties. If he does, under the provisions of the Bill he may be subject to going to prison. The alterations to that provision will overcome that unintended consequence. The last amendment I have moved, which has again been accepted by the Government, relates to what happens after an aircraft is seized. As the Bill now stands, once an aircraft is seized then, in the absence of wilful or negligently caused damage, if an aircraft is damaged or destroyed while in the possession of the Commonwealth the owner and others who have an interest in the proceeds of the aircraft have no recourse at all. Effectively, that means that if, for example, the Commonwealth seized an aircraft and whilst in the Commonwealth's possession, through no fault of the Commonwealth, the aircraft was lost-perhaps by a fire caused by some third person or by sheer chance-the owner would have no right to go to the Commonwealth and say: 'That aircraft was worth $250,000. It was in your control. I want to be reimbursed'. It would be perfectly unjust if in those circumstances the Commonwealth could not or should not give recourse to the person who had suffered damage. The amendment seeks to insert a provision for the Commonwealth to insure aircraft which are seized so that in all circumstances people who lose as a result of an aircraft being damaged or destroyed while in the hands of the Commonwealth will be able to be reimbursed through the process of the insurance policy. Having finished that examination of an enthralling piece of legislation which has no doubt kept the Committee on the edge of its seat, I therefore commend the amendments. I look forward to a lengthy and interesting exposition from the Minister. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(1.35 a.m.) —The amendments are good amendments. The Government agrees to them. Amendments agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Beazley: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Beazley) read a third time. House adjourned at 1.38 a.m. (Thursday) The following notices were given: Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act relating to the grant of financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory for and in relation to schools, and other matters. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act relating to the grant of financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory with respect to tertiary education. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983. Mr Peacock to present a Bill for an Act to amend the National Crime Authority ( Consequential Amendments) Act 1984. Mr Peacock to present a Bill for an Act to amend the National Crime Authority Act 1984. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 3 October 1984: Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1984/24-Sex Discrimination Commissioner and holders of public offices on other bodies. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1147) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, 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 Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) - (5) See attached Table. (6) Detailed guidelines on the engagement of consultants were issued by the Public Service Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, in 1978. A copy of these have been provided to the honourable member. The guidelins cover situations where the consultant is selected from a competitive field and those where only one consultant can provide the required service. Additional details relating to particular consultancies are included in the attached Table. DEPARTMENT OF TERRITORIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT: CONSULTANTS ENGAGED SINCE APRIL 1983 Consultancy Name of Length of Agreed Special background description consultant engagement fee and experience Approval Edit a publication ACT Forest-Practices W. E. Nicol 10 hours $400 Communications consultant and professional journalist In accordance with PSB guidelines Research and write a History of the ACT 2 Postgrad Scholarships to the Australian National University March 1988 completion $22,000 Postgraduate students to write History as Phd thesis Approved by PSB Prepare conversion cost-estimates for the replacement of Burroughs mainframe Price Waterhouse 3 weeks $8,000 +expenses Experience with Burroughs technology and comprehensive understanding of project objectives Approved by PSB Prepare a publication 'Canberra-a centre for Research and Technology W. E. Nicol 200 hours $3,000 Communications consultant professional journalist Approved by PSB Advise the Canberra Development Board on a publications strategy W. E. Nicol 22 hours $1,500 Communications consultant and professional journalist Approved by PSB Prepare an Annual Report for the Canberra Development Board W. E. Nicol 120 hours $4,000 Communications consultant and professional journalist Approved by PSB Prepare a new range of Canberra Development Board brochures International Public Relations Pty Ltd 420 hours $15,000 Strong commercial experience, relevant experience in marketing and promotion Approved by PSB Inquiry into range of functions and methods of financing local government General Council Pty Ltd 2 months $7,190 Expertise in local government Approved by PSB Draft on research program, assemble background material and outline sources for special work prior to the Inquiry into Local Government Finance Dr J. Yates 4 weeks $3,470 Senior Lecturer in Economics at Sydney University, experienced economist Approved by PSB Identify and develop detailed projects outlines for the Regional Community Development Program in West Sydney B. Forner (ACOSS) 2 weeks $2,800 Extensive background in urban affairs, knowledge and appreciation of the role of government Approved by PSB Advise on preparation of preliminary drafts of recommendation for the Community Development Program Mr J. Hall 1 week $1,300 Extensive background in urban affairs, knowledge and appreciation of the role of government Approved by PSB Draft recommendations of suitable program for funding in West Melbourne under the Regional Community Development Program R. Eade 10 days $2,300 Academic, research and work history in economics and knowledge of local government structures Approved by PSB Draft recommendations of suitable program for funding in North West Melbourne under the Regional Community Development Program North West Finance & Insurance Pty Limited 10 days $2,300 Experience in economics and finance Approved by PSB Chair ACT Employment Advisory Committee, advisor to Department on employment issues J. Lang 2 day/week, 1 year from September 1983 $320 per week Extensive project experience with relevant Government departments and community groups, Master's Degree in Town Planning Approved by PSB Tuggeranong Shopping Centre feasibility study, Canberra Commercial Development Authority Touche Ross 4 weeks $24,000 Good understanding of requirements, experience in financial feasibility studies Approved by PSB Implement the Computer Assisted Network, Vehicle and Staff Scheduling (CANVASS) for the Action Bus System Pak-Poy & Kneebone Pty Ltd three months $9,250 Considerable expertise in computer applications in the transport industry Approved by PSB Revise Public Transit Accounting System Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Services 10 weeks $26,977 Experienced firm of Accountants Management Consultants Approved by PSB Advise on current and future system requirements for Accounting and workshop areas in Public Transit Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Services 8 weeks $30,000 Experienced firm of Accountants Management Consultants Approved by PSB Advise on establishment of no fault motor accident scheme (ACT) E. S. Knight and Co. 10 months $25,000 Insurance actuaries, with understanding of various schemes for third Party Insurance Approved by PSB Advise on priority order removal asbestos from public buildings Dr Selinger 26 hours $2,260 Specialist in Chemistry with experience in asbestos Approved by PSB Chairman to Asbestos Advisory Committee Dr Selinger 1 meeting every 3 or 4 weeks $70/hour up to $170/day Specialist in Chemistry with experience in asbestos Approved by PSB Ascertain by investigation foundation conditions of building sites in Bruce Coffey & Partners 2 days $185.20 per test Total $925 to $1000 Consulting Engineer with experience in soil test In accordance with PSB guidelines Advise on the structure of the Self Government and report on the constitutional and legal foundations of Self Government J. McMillan 7 days $980 Expert on constitutional law In accordance with PSB guidelines Advise on the role of Statutory Authorities and their relationships under Self Government Dr G. Hawker 7 days $362.50 Lecturer in Public Administration Expert on inter Government relationships In accordance with PSB guidelines Introductory article, Nolan Gallery publication Mr E. Lyn 1 day $500 Curator, art historian In accordance with PSB guidelines Prepare conservation and museum management plan for Calthorpe House N. Lewis & Associates 2 months $14,920 Expertise in the field of historic restoration In accordance with PSB guidelines Seminar on horticultural therapy for disabled Dr Relf 1 day $300 Professor from United States of America Pioneered horticultural therapy for disabled In accordance with PSB guidelines Seminar on insect pest in pines Mr J. Moran 2 days $597 Victorian Forestry Department Expert on growth of pines In accordance with PSB guidelines Self sufficiency study for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd 8 weeks $16,000 Experience and proven capability in economics feasibility studies Approved by PSB Examine effects of unusual algae in Cocos Lagoon Dr W. Blake 4 weeks $3,200 1. Qualified and experienced marine pharmacologist 2. Qualified and experienced Medical doctor on Island also Approved by PSB Self Government Task Force Committee Member A. B. Ashley & Associates Pty Ltd Nov 1983 to June 1984 subject to review $60/hr p/t $385/day f/t High level finance and legislation background-experience with Northern Territory Self Government Approved by PSB Arrange for wallpaper for Lanyon Mrs Searle 25 hours $750 Interior Decorator for Historic Building In accordance with PSB guidelines National Sports Centre-address meeting on training/competition surfaces Dr H. Indyk Resident USA 1 day $250 US Expert on sport surface management In accordance with PSB guidelines Seminar on Rehabilitation aspects of compensation Mr D. Rennie Resident New Zealand 1 day $100 Chief Research Officer, Accident Compensation Corporation In accordance with PSB guidelines (Question No. 1166) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: (1) Did the Trade Practices Commission (TPC), in granting authorisation to Master Builders' Contract Form HC2, Vic., referred to in the answer to question No. 409 (Hansard, 28 February 1984, pages 131-2), consider that (a) the Master Builders' Association of Victoria Contract Form HC2 was a contract of adhesion, (b) the Contract Form contained a 'Scott v. Avery' arbitration clause, (c) every Law Reform Commission in Australia has condemned Scott v. Avery arbitration clauses and contracts of adhesion long before the granting of authorisation to this Contract Form, (d) the New South Wales Law Reform Commission referred to Scott v. Avery in its report as 'the evils of the clause' and that contracts of adhesion and contracts containing Scott v. Avery arbitration clauses should be declared void, (e) Scott v. Avery clauses in contracts are anti-competitive in that the courts are precluded from hearing disputes, that disputes can only be arbitrated, and the arbitrator's award is final and binding and (f) building arbitration clauses in contracts have been known as evil for at least the past century; if so, why was authorisation granted to the Contract Form. (2) Is it a fact that, due to public outcry, the NSW Government has appointed a committee to investigate Scott v. Avery arbitration clauses in building contracts. (3) If the TPC was not aware of (a) to (f) in Part (1), will the Attorney- General consider, notwithstanding sections 90 and 91 of the Trade Practices Act, immediate revocation of the authorisation of this Contract Form; if not, why not . Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The TPC is an independent statutory authority which makes its own decisions on authorisation applications. Sub-section 90 (4) of the Trade Practices Act requires the TPC to give written reasons for its determinations. The matters on which the TPC relied, the conclusions it reached and the reasons for those conclusions, are set out in the TPC's determination. (2) I understand that in December 1982, the then Minister for Consumer Affairs in New South Wales established a committee to examine building contracts generally and whether they should be subject to arbitration and that committee has not yet reported to the Minister. I am not aware of the reasons that led to the constitution of that committee. (3) Sub-section 91 (4) of the Act empowers the TPC to revoke or vary authorisations in certain circumstances. Section 101 of the Act makes provision for the review of such authorisations by the Trade Practices Tribunal. I am not empowered by the Act to revoke or vary an authorisation. I draw the honourable member's attention to clause 55 of the Victorian Commercial Arbitration Bill 1984 which provides for Scott v. Avery clauses to be rendered inoperative. That Bill, which incorporates a number of recommendations made by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General after consideration of public comments received on the Commercial Arbitration Bill 1981, was introduced into the Victorian Parliament on 2 May 1984. Public comments have been invited. It is expected that the Victorian legislation, when enacted, will form the model for uniform commercial arbitration legislation throughout Australia. (Question No. 1223) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 30 March 1984: (1) Further to the Attorney-General's answer to question No. 409 (Hansard, 28 February 1984, pages 131-2) is it implicit in parts (1) and (2) (b) of the answer that the Attorney-General is not empowered under the Trade Practices Act to vary or withdraw any authorisation given by the Trade Practices Commission ( TPC). (2) Is it a fact that the TPC has authorised a Victorian Master Builders' Association contract containing clauses categorised as 'evil' by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission report on Commercial Arbitration and supported by the Australian Capital Territory Law Reform Commission's report on Commercial Arbitration and the Victorian Chief Justices Law Reform Committee on commercial arbitration. (3) Will the Attorney-General immediately introduce the necessary amendments to the Trade Practices Act, to give the Attorney-General the power to withdraw this authorisation. Mr Lionel Bowen —The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Yes. (2) The Trade Practices Commission (TPC) has given an authorisation to a Victorian Master Builders' Association contract (MBAV contract) which contains a 'Scott v. Avery' clause. The New South Wales Law Reform Commission and the Victorian Chief Justice's Law Reform Committee have recommended legislation declaring such clauses void and the Australian Capital Territory Commission has recommended legislation modifying their effect. (3) No. I also refer the honourable member to my answer to Question on Notice No. 1166. (Question No. 1381) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 May 1984: Further to his answer to question No. 5257 provided to me on 18 January 1983, will he (a) update the table to part (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the question including estimates for 1983-84, by Electoral Divisions and (b) advise whether there have been any changes to the answer to part (2); if so, what are the reasons for those changes. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The amounts expended on roads by the Commonwealth, States and Territories ( in each State and Territory) for 1981-82, the latest year for which comparable data is available, are as follows: Total NSW Vic. Qld SA WA Tas. NT ACT Aust. 81-82 $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m Commonwealth 214.2 138.5 140.6 56.4 84.1 46.5 23.0 15.0 718.3 State/Territory 329.8 203.8 174.2 58.2 89.5 35.6 37.9 . . 929.0 Source: Bureau of Transport Economics 'Australian Road Financing Statistics: 1972-73 to 1981-82'. Data on estimates for 1983-84 by Electoral Divisions are not currently available. (b) A revision of those figures provided in the answer to part (2) of question No. 5257 relating to forecast expenditure under the Roads Grants Act (RGA) Program and indicative allocations under the Australian Bicentennial Road Development (ABRD) Program are set out below. The variation in estimated allocations under the ABRD Program reflects revised estimates of fuel excise receipts. 1983-84 1984-85 1988 (1 July 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 31 December RGA ABRD RGA ABRD ABRD ABRD ABRD ABRD $m $m $m $m $m $m $m $m NSW 243.444 151.8 258.148 134.2 135.2 135.2 135.2 67.60 Vic. 156.523 72.6 165.979 84.9 85.5 85.5 85.5 42.75 Qld 158.301 96.2 167.865 91.0 91.6 91.6 91.6 45.80 SA 63.943 29.8 67.807 29.8 30.1 30.1 30.1 15.05 WA 95.262 47.7 101.017 51.5 51.8 51.8 51.8 25.90 Tas. 34.349 12.5 36.424 14.9 15.1 15.1 15.1 7.55 NT 26.178 6.6 27.760 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7 5.35 778.000 417.2 825.000 417.0 420.0 420.0 420.0 210.00 Note: Figures quoted for ABRD Program are indicative only except for 1983-84 where actual expenditure figures are available. Final allocations for subsequent years will depend on actual revenues raised from the surcharge on motor spirit and diesel fuel excise and on decisions relating to the distribution of national roads funds between the States and the Northern Territory. (Question No. 1402) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 4 May 1984: (1) Are the properties known as No. 14 Hobart Avenue, Forrest, Australian Capital Territory, and No. 39 National Circuit, Forrest, Australian Capital Territory, owned by the Commonwealth. (2) Is his Department responsible for protecting the Commonwealth's proper interest in its properties from unauthorised and illegal occupation; if not, which Department has that responsibility. (3) Have the two properties recently been occupied by a group of people claiming to be homeless and unemployed squatters. (4) Has his Department ascertained who is in occupation; if so, what are their (a) names and (b) circumstances. (5) Are the people in residence people whose names appear on waiting lists for welfare housing kept by the Department's Housing Branch. (6) Are the circumstances of the occupants such that they would be entitled to priority listing on Housing Branch waiting lists. (7) If the occupants' names are not on the waiting lists, are their circumstances such that they would be eligible for inclusion on the waiting lists. (8) If the occupants' names are on the waiting lists, in the ordinary course of events and assuming they are (a) priority wait-listed or (b) ordinary wait- listed, what is the anticipated time before each occupant receives accommodation . (9) Has rental been (a) offered or (b) received from the occupants. (10) Is it a fact that since the occupation of 39 National Circuit (a) electricity has been connected and considerable power has been consumed and (b) ceiling heating has been installed. (11) Is it a fact that the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority has refused to connect electricity to the building as reported in the Canberra Times of 25 April 1984. (12) If electricity has been connected (a) who authorised the connection, (b) who is paying for the electricity and (c) have the premises been inspected to ensure that the premises, up to now unoccupied for nine years, are safe for electricity use. (13) If the electricity connection was unauthorised, what action has been taken . (14) Is it a fact that there are plumbing problems which have been temporarily alleviated by the hire of an 'electric eel'. (15) Is it also a fact that the sewerage system has not been operating properly and that there was a very unpleasant smell emanating from the buildings; if so, does this problem constitute a significant health risk; if so, what action (a) has the Government taken and (b) does the Government intent to take, to eliminate such a hazard (16) Are the numbers of occupants using facilities in the buildings such as to constitute a significant health risk. (17) Has the use of candles by occupants, particularly in 14 Hobart Avenue, constituted a severe fire risk to Commonwealth property. (18) Did the lease purpose clauses for the properties when originally let provide for their use as single domestic dwellings; if so, is the present usage in contravention of the lease purpose clauses. (19) What action will be taken by the Government to obtain vacant possession of both premises. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. The Department of Administrative Services. (3) Yes, but this is no longer the case. (4) (a) and (b) I am advised that my Department is only aware of the names and circumstances of those who have applied for Government housing. Details supplied by applicants for housing are treated as confidential and I am not prepared to release them. (5) Apart from the people referred to in answer (4), this is not known. (6) Those who applied were considered in priority need. (7) See answer (4). (8) (a) and (b) Not applicable. (9) (a) and (b) No. (10) (a) yes. (b) No. Ceiling heating was installed in the premises prior to the illegal occupancy. (11) Yes. (12) (a) No authorisation was given. (b) The Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority has advised that the amount will be written off as a bad debt. (c) Yes. The inspection report was provided to the Department of Administrative Services. (13) No action has been taken. (14) It is understood that there is a plumbing problem in one area which may require excavation and relaying of sewerage pipes to rectify. (15) (a) and (b) There is no knowledge of a health risk. (16) No. (17) I understand there is no evidence of fire risk from the use of candles. (18) The original lease purpose clause for both properties stated that the lease holder was to 'use the said property for residential purposes only'. Both leases have now reverted to the Commonwealth. (19) The Government has obtained vacant possession after most of the people voluntarily moved out. The remaining three also moved out when requested to do so. (Question No. 1425) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 9 May 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the terms offered by Telecom for the inter- connection of commercial paging services as being unfair to private operators. (2) Has Telecom imposed two additional charges of (a) an indial surcharge of $ 120 per line per annum and (b) an inter-connect usage charge of 1 cent per 3 seconds for each call, to the three charges already levied for commercial users of $190 per annum rental, $192 access per line per annum, and $5 per number per annum indial code charge. (3) Is it a fact that Telecom has changed its policy of untimed local calls by the inter-connect usage charge being a timed rate. (4) Is it also a fact that commercial paging services in provincial areas will be even more expensive because of the type of tele-paging devices generally used . Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes. I have received representations in those terms from the Australian Radio Common Carriers Association. (2) The Commission has approved the introduction (from 1 July 1984) of charges for the interconnection of paging services to the public switched telephone network. The charges will apply to interconnected services offered by Telecom's Telefinder service and by private operators. These charges do not apply to the manual operator activated paging services provided by commercial operators. The charges are: access charge per exchange line of $16 per month ($192 p.a.) timed-usage charge at the F trunk call rate (1 cent for 3 second or 20 cents per minute) Any additional facilities required are charged at standard Telecom rates, e.g., if indialling is required, and many paging services will require this facility, the normal charges are made, viz., $120 per annum per line plus $500 p.a. per 100 numbers or part thereof. (3) No. Local calls are timed for other mobile services, viz., Telecom's Mobile Telephone Service, and Interconnected Mobile Radio Services for specified categories, without re-sale. (4) No. Commercial paging operators will be able to continue operating on a manual basis as they do now without incurring any extra charges. Alternatively, they may avail themselves of the interconnection facility thus reducing manual operator costs which are significantly in excess of the interconnect charges. Because the usage charges are time based they apply equally to similar pager type use in both provincial and city areas. Generally however the provincial operators provide services with short handling times which will result in the total usage charge to these operators being lower than for some of the larger capital city services which have longer holding times, for example, those employing alpha-numeric and voice paging devices. (Question No. 1450) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 May 1984: Further to his answer to question No. 1247 ( Hansard, 10 May 1984, page 2290) ( a) which parts of the article are authentic; and (b) which aspects are not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I explained in parts (b), (c) and (d) of my answer to question No. 1247, that the following parts of the Asian Wall Street Journal articles of 12 March 1984 on Vietnam's opium production were consistent with evidence available to us at that time: The northern Vietnamese provinces at Ha Tuyen, Lai Chau, Hoang Lien Son, Cao Bang and Lang Son are included in an official opium-growing program. A contract system under which opium growers (like other agricultural producers) provide a quota of their crops, set by the Government, to the authorities and keep the rest for themselves or to sell, has been assumed to have been in existence for several years. Therefore, there was no reason to doubt that a document such as the one mentioned in the article setting out quotas for opium, may exist. I said in my answer to question No. 1247 that opium marketing in Vietnam was on the basis of a contract system under which farmers provided a quota of their crops, set by the Government, to the authorities and keep any surplus. However, since providing my answer, I have been advised by our Embassy in Hanoi that opium production in Vietnam is apparently carried out under far more restrictive conditions than at first thought. I understand that opium does not come within the agricultural contract system. Discussions between our Embassy and the Vietnamese Ministers of Health and Agriculture show rather that the Ministry of Health is the sole authorised producer and grows opium in several controlled stations and co-operatives. The opium so produced is used for the production of pharmaceutical goods in Vietnam and for export to Council for Mutual Economic Assistance countries. The Vietnamese Government severely discourages the production of opium outside this arrangement and there is no right of private disposal after meeting quotas by the producers. This new evidence would thus throw serious doubt on the authenticity of the agricultural policy document allegedly smuggled out of Vietnam by a former Politburo member, Hoang Van Hoan. I should add that the Australian Government has a good and proven record in the active steps which it has taken to combat the illicit narcotics trade. During my recent visit to Thailand, for example, I opened an Office of the Narcotics Control Board (ONCB) computer facility established with Australian financial support. We would be most concerned by any reports drawn to our attention of involvement in the illicit narcotics trade by the Government of Vietnam or, for that matter, of any other country. If the honourable member has any specific information on this matter, which he would be willing to provide, we would examine it closely with a view to drawing it to the attention of the relevant international drug control bodies, and would consider making appropriate representations to the government concerned. But no useful purpose is served for Australia nor for the international community by the circulation of unfounded or distorted allegations about Vietnam or any other country. It might be worth recalling that before the People's Republic of China gained recognition from the United States and Australia and was still considered an international outlaw, persistent accounts used to appear in the Western press about the illegal production of drugs in China and their illicit transfer, with PRC encouragement, on to international markets. Such stories are rare today. (Question No. 1592) Mr Andrew asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 June 1984: (1) With respect to the Independent Economic Inquiry into Transport Services to the Northern Territory, dated February 1984, will he provide an addendum to the report to specify which particular paragraphs in the report support the assertions, findings and conclusions in Chapter 1 of the report. (2) Did the report consider present and future freight and passenger traffic through the airport and seaport of Darwin, both incoming and outgoing; if not, why not. (3) What Commonwealth expenditure was (a) incurred, or (b) is estimated to be incurred, in each of the years 1982-83 to 1987-88 on (i) airports in Australia, (ii) carriage of freight by sea to and from Darwin (iii) sea terminals in Australia. (4) Which, if any, of the Commonwealth expenditures referred to in (3) above also attracted or will attract financial contributions by the States or the Territories and if there were, or are to be, any such State or Territory contributions, what are the details. (5) What were the costs and benefits of the Alice Springs-Darwin railway as put forward by (a) the Chief of the Defence Force Staff, (b) the Secretary of the Department of Defence, (c) the Chief of the Naval Staff, (d) the Chief of the General Staff and (e) the Chief of the Air Staff. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. Chapter 1 of the Inquiry's report summarises for the convenience of readers the findings and conclusions explained in more detail elsewhere in the report. (2) Yes. The Inquiry took into account current and potential air and sea passenger and freight traffic which could be transported by the railway and road proposals under consideration. It also examined the concept of a landbridge involving the possible export and import of goods through Darwin with transport to and from the southern States by rail. (3) (i) (a) and (b) I am advised by the Department of Aviation that the costs associated with the provision of aviation infrastructure and services are as set out below. Costs have been provided on a total system basis because of the difficulties inherent in defining and isolating specific airport costs. Ongoing costs attributable to Capital the provision outlays on of Aviation currently Infrastructure approved and Services works* ($m) ($m) 1982-83 408.6 156.1 1983-84 (est.) 440.8 124.1 1984-85 (est.) 476.8 157.1 1985-86 (est.) n.a. 239.8 1986-87 (est.) n.a. 150.2 1987-88 (est.) and beyond n.a. 35.5 *Comprises expenditures on approved Civil Works, Technical Capital Works, and Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP) Development Grants. (3) (ii) (a) and (b) Expenditure by the Commonwealth in the form of subsidy to the Australian Shipping Commission for losses incurred on the operation of a vessel from the East Coast of Australia to Darwin, is as follows: ($m) 1982-83-1.5 1983-84-2.0 1984-85-nil 1985-86-nil 1986-87-nil 1987-88-nil (3) (iii) (a) Nil. (3) (iii) (b) The Commonwealth is providing assistance of up to $26 million to Tasmania for the purchase, modification and repositioning of the overseas vessel 'Nils Holgersson' to replace the 'Empress of Australia' on the Bass Strait passengers service, and for some upgrading of the associated terminal facilities in Melbourne and Devonport. An amount of $0.96 million was provided in 1983-84 to fund a deposit on the vessel. The balance of $25.04 million is to be provided in 1984-85, but the amount of the grant for sea terminal works cannot be determined at this stage. (4) (i) I am advised that the expenditures do not attract financial contributions by the States or Territories, with the exception of some Local Government authorities who may receive some financial assistance from State or Territory Governments in operating aerodromes under the ALOP. (ii) nil. (iii) nil. (5) I am advised by the Department of Defence that its report on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway was agreed by all relevant areas of the Department. It concluded that the defence value of infrastructure developments, such as completion of the rail link or an upgraded highway, is almost totally related to the prospect of serious deterioration in our strategic circumstances. A decision now to divert Defence expenditure from projects having priority in terms of endorsed planning criteria to the proposed infrastructure work would, other factors remaining constant, reduce the level of defence preparedness we would otherwise achieve. (Question No. 1597) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to (a) press reports that the population of certain frogs in some countries is being jeopardised by the huge quantities that are being taken for human consumption, particularly for export to countries such as France and (b) reports of ecological damage in third world countries brought about by the taking of huge quantities of frogs which are the natural predator of insect pests of various crops. (2) What (a) quantities and (b) weights of frog legs have been imported into Australia during each of the years 1974-75 to 1983-84 and (c) from which countries did these imports originate. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) and (b) No. (2) (a), (b) and (c) As data on imports of fresh, chilled, frozen, preserved or prepared frog legs are not separately recorded by the Australian Bureau of Statistics or the Bureau of Customs it is not possible to give a response to the honourable member's question. (Question No. 1604) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) Has he indicated that the threat of European Economic Community beef supplies being offered at below-market levels to Australian markets in the Asian /Pacific Basin was to be raised at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade International Meat Council meeting scheduled for 18-19 June 1984 in Geneva; if so, did that meeting take place and was this matter raised. (2) What representations did Australia make on this matter. (3) What was the response by (a) the EEC and (b) Asian/Pacific Basin countries. (4) What assurances is he able to give Australian beef producers as a result of the GATT Meat Council meeting. (5) Have discussions between Australia and Canada revealed how Canadian authorities intend to deal with EEC beef dumping; if so, what action is Canada taking. (6) Has he also indicated that the EEC has been asked to seek ways of solving its beef surplus problems without recourse to unfair market practices; if so, what has been the outcome of this request to the EEC. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As I foreshadowed in my answer to the honourable member's question No. 1540 (Hansard, 21 August 1984, page 126) the matter of subsidised EEC beef exports being made available to traditional Australian markets in the Asian/Pacific Basin was raised at the Tenth Session of the International Meat Council (IMC) which was held in Geneva on 18-19 June 1984. (2) At the IMC meeting the Australian delegation drew attention to the magnitude of surplus beef production and export availability in the EEC and registered Australia's concern at the threat to traditional, non-subsidised suppliers posed by intensified competition from subsidised exports from the EEC. The Australian delegation also made clear to the Council that Australia had continuing beef export availability sufficient to maintain its position in the foreseeable future as a supplier of a large part of the beef import requirements of countries in the Asia-Pacific region. (3) (a) In response to criticism of the EEC beef regime the EEC representative at the IMC meeting on 18-19 June claimed that measures were currently being taken within the Community to reduce the imbalance between beef production and consumption in the EEC. He noted that all premiums paid to cattle producers to stimulate production had recently been reduced, that intervention (support buying) prices had been reduced by one per cent in money terms; and that the levels of export restitution had been reduced twice in the first six months of 1984. He also indicated that the Community had introduced a special social beef sales programme enabling beef from intervention stocks to be sold domestically at reduced prices in particular circumstances. The Community representative also indicated that beef consumption in 1985 is expected to increase by 5% over 1983 levels. (b) Japan is the only country in the Asia/Pacific region which is a member of the International Meat Council and which could benefit from the extension of subsidies on EEC exports and its representatives made no intervention on this issue. (4) I can advise the honourable member that, as a result of Australian representations directly to the EC Commission and the Australian delegation's interventions at the Tenth Session of the International Meat Council, senior EEC Commission officials have acknowledged a greater awareness of Australia's sensitivities and concerns about any extension of export refunds by the EEC to markets in the Asia/Pacific region. Further I can assure the honourable member that Australia's concerns about the impact of EEC export subsidies on the world beef trade are being taken up in a Working Party which was established by the Tenth Session of the International Meat Council. The terms of reference for the Working Party are: 'To assist the International Meat Council in carrying out its function under the Arrangement Regarding Bovine Meat and in particular its Article IV, paragraph 2. To analyse, in the light of the current situation and probable development of the international bovine meat market, the existence of a serious imbalance or threat thereof. To make an assessment of factors, including export subsidies and other forms of assistance affecting exports, that are leading to or may lead to such an imbalance or threat thereof. To investigate the effects in particular on traditional exporting countries of such an imbalance or threat thereof and to see whether this situation is hampering the attainment of the objectives of the Arrangements. To make proposals, for the consideration of the International Meat Council, for suitable steps to be taken to overcome the imbalance or the threat thereof.' The Working Party is scheduled to report to the Eleventh Session of the International Meat Council in December 1984. (5) Subsequent to the consultations between Australia and Canada referred to in my answer to the honourable member's question No. 1540 (part 1), Canada and the EEC held consultations on 26 July 1984 under the provisions of the GATT Subsidies and Countervailing Code. The EEC subsequently decided to reduce export refunds to Canada by approximately 15%. The decrease in export refunds by the EEC should result in an increase in the price of EEC exports to Canada. The new Canadian Government is currently considering options for further action to restrain imports of subsidised EEC beef and the Australian Government will be making further representations on this issue. (6) Yes-my answer to the honourable member's Question No. 1540 part (1) refers. In response to letters I wrote in late May 1984, EC Vice President Haferkamp provided an assurance that 'as far as the Community's export policy towards the Far East is concerned, the Commission has no intention, for the present, to extend the scope of export refunds to this areas. EC Commissioner Dalsager, in his response to me, provided a broader assurance that before taking any decision on this issue, the Commission would take into account not only the commercial interests involved, but also the wider trade policy aspects, including those raised by Australia. (Question No. 1616) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice , on 21 August 1984: (1) What penalty did the Canberra Commercial Development Authority sub-lease with Myer (NSW) Ltd, dated 7 April 1983, provide for late payment of rent. (2) In what clause of the sub-lease was this provision made and what were its terms. (3) Did the clause prescribe that the penalty would apply from the commencement of the sub-lease, namely 16 October 1978. (4) What sub-lease terms were in dispute so as to delay general agreement on the leasing arrangements. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Clause 12 (c) of the Myer sub-lease reads-'Without prejudice to the rights powers and remedies of the Lessor otherwise under this lease the Lessee shall pay to the Lessor interest at the rate of 12% per annum on any moneys due but unpaid for fourteen (14) days by the Lessee to the Lessor on any account whatsoever pursuant to this lease such interest to be computed from the due date for the payment of the moneys in respect of which the interest is chargeable until payment of such moneys in full and to be recoverable in like manner as rent in arrears.' (4) The sub-lease terms in dispute were: (a) Waiver by the lessor's insurers of its rights of subrogation. (b) Exception of lessee's negligence from an indemnity document. (c) Inclusion of licensee sales for the purpose of percentage rent. As background, I am informed that a document was prepared on 26 September 1978 which was thought to be the final engrossment of the agreement to lease. On 3, 4 and 5 October 1978, there were further discussions arising out of the document which left the above lease terms to be resolved. These particular lease terms were, by and large, of a minor nature. Around 14 October 1978 the lessee raised an entirely new matter relating to the interpretation in the agreement of the cut-in point for gross sales following updating of base rent. This provision has been drafted by the lessee. The lessee alleged that this provision did not reflect the true agreement between the parties. This was a major matter which required lengthy negotiations before a final agreement could be reached. (Question No. 1621) Mr Lusher asked the Minister for Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: Is it a fact that the Government is conducting negotiations with the New South Wales Government concerning an increase in the size of the Australian Capital Territory; if so, what are the details. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Neither I nor any officer under my control is negotiating with the New South Wales Government concerning an increase in the size of the Australian Capital Territory. I am, however, committed to the concept of regional planning. In this regard, my Department and the National Capital Development Commission will be continuing discussions with NSW Authorities aimed at complementary development on either side of the ACT/NSW border. These discussions were initiated by the previous Government. (Question No. 1622) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: What was (a) the frequency of American B52 flights and/or exercises over Australian territory and (b) the number of landings of American B52s at Darwin in (i) 1982, (ii) 1983 and (iii) 1984 as at the date of the answer to this question. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a and b) (i) In 1982, 40 B52 aircraft undertook low level navigation training over Australian territory. Sixteen of these aircraft staged through Darwin, either during their low-level navigation activities or before undertaking sea surveillance in the Indian Ocean. (a and b) (ii) In 1983, 63 B52 aircraft undertook low-level navigation training over Australian territory. Of this number, three participated in Exercise Pitch Black 83 in the vicinity of Darwin and two in Exercise Kangaroo 83 in north-west Australia. There were 28 landings in Darwin. (a and b) (iii) Up to 10 September 1984, 94 B52 aircraft undertook low-level navigation training over Australian territory. Of this number, three participated in Exercise Pitch Black 84 in the vicinity of Darwin. There were 23 landings at Darwin. (Question No. 1630) Mr Ruddock asked the Special Minister of State, 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. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There are no 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 which were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) No, the Minister's Department does not control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes. (Question No. 1632) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, 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. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No houses are held by my Department in the Australian Capital Territory. (2) The Department of Foreign Affairs has assumed responsibility under Article 22 (2) and Article 45 of the Vienna convention for protection of two properties belonging to the former Government of Cambodia (now Kampuchea). The properties are located at 4 Melbourne Avenue, Deakin and 5 Canterbury Crescent, Deakin. The building at 4 Melbourne Avenue was formally used as the Ambassador's residence and the building at 5 Canterbury Crescent, was used as the chancery. The Australian Government's view is that ownership of the properties vests in the State of the People's Republic of Kampuchea. However, Australia does not recognise that Government, nor any other Cambodian Government, and until the present political situation in Kampuchea is clarified no plans can be made for the two residences. (Question No. 1639) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Transport, 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. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None. (2) No. (Question No. 1642) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, 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 the premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None. (2) None. (Question No. 1657) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: Is he able to provide any estimates of (a) the number of international tourists expected to attend the 1987 America's Cup to be staged in Fremantle, W.A. and (b ) the amount of money expected to be injected into the Australian economy as a result of this influx of tourists. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The Australian Tourist Commission has not made any assessment of the number of international tourists expected to attend the 1987 America's Cup. However, I am in possession of preliminary estimates made by the Western Australian Tourist Commission. That Commission estimates international visitor tourist traffic to Western Australia will rise in stages from 175,000 in 1983-84 to 375,000 in 1986-87. Over the same period the number or interstate tourists is expected to double from the current 300,000 to 600,000. This would mean the total tourist traffic in the Cup year is expected to reach nearly one million persons. (b) On the basis of this influx of tourists, the Western Australian Tourist Commission expects direct visitor spending in the Cup year to inject more than $ 600 million into the Western Australian economy. (Question No. 1672) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: Will the assets test apply to Aborigines who are landowners as a result of (a) land rights grants or titles, (b) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Heritage legislation and (c) a purchase of land. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) (b) and (c) Under the proposed assets test the net market value of all real estate owned by a person, apart from the person's home and the area of land used in association with the home for domestic purposes (curtilage), will be taken into account for pension purposes. Where real estate is formally held in trust by a community, the value of that asset will not affect the pension entitlement of individual members of the community. (Question No. 1678) Mr Hunt asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: How many (a) homosexual couples, (b) sole parents, (c) married couples and (d) de facto heterosexual couples receive the housekeeper rebate and what is the average income of each category. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Statistics compiled from the 1982-83 income year returns of taxable individuals indicate that 20811 taxpayers were allowed rebates for housekeepers totalling $ 15.8m. There is no breakup of these figures. (Question No. 1684) Mr Blanchard asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 September 1984: Is it a fact that special appeal forms against provisional taxation assessments are not available at post offices; if so, is it possible that appeal forms can be made available at post offices. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Application forms for variation of provisional tax are not available at Post Offices but are available at all Taxation Offices and supplies are sent to all Tax Agents. Since only a small percentage of provisional taxpayers do not use a tax agent, the Commissioner of Taxation considers that the additional costs that would be involved in having sufficient supplies at all Post Offices cannot be justified. A taxpayer who requires an application form may call into, write to or telephone a Taxation Office to obtain a copy. (Question No. 1739) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1984: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a memorandum, dated 1 June 1984, to all permanent heads, heads of statutory authorities and staff organisations from the Secretary of the Public Service Board, concerning encouragement of union membership. (2) Was the memorandum brought to the attention of all staff in the Minister's Department and all statutory authorities reporting to the Minister; if so, how and on what dates. (3) What additional action has been taken within the Minister's Department and statutory authorities reporting to the Minister to avoid delays in constructive action being taken to encourage union membership and on what dates; if no additional action has been taken, what are the reasons for such a decision. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The memorandum from the Secretary of the Public Service Board was circulated to all staff as an attachment to the Department's Management Services Bulletin on 18 June 1984. This Bulletin is directed to all Australia based staff of the Department. (3) The following additional action has been taken. Union posters, pamphlets and membership forms have been included in the brochure stand in the Pay and Conditions Sub-section of the Department; Staff induction procedures have been amended to encourage new staff to join their respective unions, in line with the memorandum from the Secretary of the Public Service Board; At the time new recruits to the Department complete their pay commencement papers, they are advised of the facilities of paying union dues through the payroll system. (Question No. 1769) Mr Howard asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 September 1984: Further to his statement of 20 March 1984 that the Government had decided to establish a working party of Federal and State officials to develop and report on proposals for a legislative framework for offshore banking in Australia as soon as possible, when will the committee be formed. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Following consultation with the States, the Working Party on offshore banking has now been formally established. The Working Party, which comprises officials from all States and the Northern Territory as well as the Commonwealth, held its first meeting on 7 September 1984. (Question No. 1811) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in each of the months June, July and August 1984. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Department of Social Security has not employed any persons under the community employment program. (Question No. 1833) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program, in each of the months of June, July and August 1984. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to honourable member's question: (i) The total numbers of temporary employees of the Department of Veterans' Affairs (including Office of Australian War Graves) under the Community Employment Program during each of the three months specified were as follows (a) Males: June 1984-5, July 1984-5, August 1984-5. (b) Females: June 1984-169, July 1984-172, August 1984-167*. * Includes 18 employees of one Program which terminated in two States on 3 August 1984. (ii) No employees have been engaged under the Community Employment Program by Statutory Authorities which report directly to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Temporary employees working under a CEP project with the Office of Australian War Graves have been included in the answer to (i). (Question No. 1841) Mr Maher asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: What was the estimated loss to revenue in 1983-84 from income tax deductions allowed for overseas travel by professional people. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Statistics that would enable an estimate to be made of the cost to revenue of allowing deductions for overseas travel by professional people are not available . (Question No. 1167) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 March 1984: Will the surplus high powered transponder on the second Aussat satellite be made available in spot beam mode for Western Australia so that the original HACBSS policy of both an Australian Broadcasting Commission and a commercial remote area service can be implemented for at least one State; if so, what will be the arrangement; if not, why not. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Transponder allocations are a matter for Aussat Pty Ltd acting in accordance with ministerial guidelines and its own established commercial practices. Intending lessees of transponders were invited by Aussat Pty Ltd to submit their initial requirements before 16 April 1984. However, the Government is concerned that all Australians should receive basic Australian Broadcasting Commission and commercial television services, and the honourable member will recall that the issue of commercial television services to remote areas was referred to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's Inquiry into Satellite Program Services. The Tribunal finalised its report on 13 July 1984 and the Government will consider its recommendations on this and other issues with the greatest possible speed. It can be anticipated that options involving the use of high powered transponders in spot beams, on either the second or third Aussat satellite, will be canvassed during that consideration. (Question No. 1628) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, 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. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None. (2) No. (Question No. 1772) Mr Braithwaite asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 11 September 1984: (1) Will the spouse tax rebate, extended by the 1984-85 Budget to de facto relations, include homosexual relations. (2) If not, how will the amending legislation be worded to ensure that the rebate will not apply to such relationships. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) By clause 19 of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1984, which was introduced into the Parliament on 13 September 1984, a provision is to be inserted in the Income Tax Assessment Act to specify that, where a man and a woman live together as husband and wife on a bona fide domestic basis, although not legally married to each other, they will be treated for concessional rebate purposes as if they were legally married to each other. (Question No. 1793) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: Further to the answer to question No. 1569 (Hansard, 4 September 1984, page 568 ) will the Minister clarify the treatment to be adopted by his Department for assessment of a pension where assets have been disposed of (a) before and (b) after 1 June 1984 when those assets are above the allowable limits, and for which no adequate financial consideration has been made. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: If a person has disposed of assets prior to 1 June 1984, the value of those assets will not be taken into account under the assets test. If, on and after that date, a person disposes of assets without any financial return, the value of the assets in excess of $2,000 in a year for a single person or $4,000 for a married couple will be assessed as an asset. Where partial financial consideration is received, the amount treated as an asset is the difference between that sum and market value, less the allowable amount of $ 2,000 (single) or $4,000 (married couple). On each anniversary of the date of disposal, the original amount taken into account will be reduced by 10 per cent. Thus after 10 years there will be no amount taken into account in the pension assessment. (Question No. 1827) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 13 September 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the Community Employment Program, in each of the months June, July and August 1984. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There have been no temporary employees engaged in my Department or in Statutory Authorities reporting to me under the Community Employment Program in each of the months, June, July and August 1984. However, on 31 July 1984 the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations granted approval for three projects to be undertaken by the Department under the Community Employment Program. Ultimately nine temporary employees will be engaged under these projects. Recruitment will commence once project details have been agreed to and funding arranged. Accordingly, until recruitment action is finalised it is not possible to indicate the number of males and females who will be employed by the Department under the Program.