Friday, 5 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 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 Brumby,Mr Fisher,Ms Mayer,Mr Peacock and Mr Shipton. 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 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 respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. 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 successor to the Costigan Inquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31 March 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfuly conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe 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 Donald Cameron,Mr Carlton,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government of 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 that Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley,Mr Mountford 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 respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore the decision of the Government, to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Fife 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 respectfully shows that: We applaud 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 of the Hawke Government 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 Shipton. 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 reject the Remuneration Tribunal's travel entitlement to de facto wives of Parliamentarians and the ABC's Commissioners decision to allow the de facto and homosexual partners of ABC staff to travel at public expense, and that the Government should introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes, (3) Protect Australians and those who enter into de jure (legal) marriages, and their families, from exploitation and the encroachment of immoral regulations and Acts into the traditional and Christian forms of life. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Fisher. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Rocher. 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 of grossly obscene pub- lications 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 Lusher and Mr Snow. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that: The Attorney-General enforce laws to prevent the importation and sale of hard- core pornography (e.g. X-rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs. The importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy be prevented. Imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Film Censorship Board. Censors more appropriately reflect responsible attitudes. Further measures be taken in association with States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation, and That, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: The Australian Aerospace Manufacturing Industry has not been developed to its full growth potential through lack of Government commitment and planning. Local industry has not been allowed to fully participate in designing, developing and manufacturing Australia's Aerospace requirements. Whilst the Hawke Labor Government's recent announcement by Senator Button to address the industry's problems are a welcome change. These opportunities will only be fully realised if there is proper consultation with unions before decisions on equipment purchases are made. We urge the Australian Government to recommend the purchase of the Westland helicopter for the Royal Australian Navy, ensuring that the South Australia Aerospace Industry may continue to fully participate in design, development and manufacture of Defence Electronics. Your Petitioners therefore, humbly pray that the Government, prior to a decision being made to purchase helicopters for the R.A.N., that there be full consultation with the Unions on which helicopter is to be purchased, to establish which helicopter purchase would be in the best interest of the industries development as well as the nation's defence needs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that the Attorney-General with the agreement of Federal Executive Council amended the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations under the Customs Act (1901), to permit the importation of obscene and indecent pornography into Australia without reference to the Australian people or the Australian Parliament. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will establish a Parliamentary Committee to take evidence from the people of Australia, such as the Judiciary, the Police, Welfare workers and Youth workers, the video industry , the media, those engaged in public health, private citizens, civic organisations, churches and other community groups, and report to Parliament on the effects of all pornography. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beazley. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that the TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. The Federal Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements; and 2. the Government's proposed assets test leglisation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. following the report of such a wide enquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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 the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, recognises that the flag as a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporated the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag, or if changes are contemplated that the question be put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm its obligation to fully fund tertiary education and to implement all 1983 election promises to academic staff and students. 2. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to accept and implement the recommendations of the Advanced Education Council in regard to the funding of the advanced education sector over the 1985-87 Triennium. 3. They call on the Government of the Commonwealth to affirm that increases in Commonwealth Grants to tertiary education should be financed from general revenue and not from the deferral of increases in the level of academic salaries or of tertiary student allowances. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Brumby. 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, with its traditional approach, restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the excessively 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 are vertebrogenic (spinal) in origin and therefore 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. by Mr Cadman. 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 shows: That we, electors of the Commonwealth of Australia, view with extreme concern and express forthwith our complete abhorrence to the relaxation of the former Federal Laws concerning censorship classification to allow publication and importation of 'Hard Core' 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 Donald Cameron. 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-rates 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 undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth : That the potential noise hazard to residents of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton and Nudgee Beach (including 4000 aged people) will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will, when the redeveloped Brisbane airport becomes operative ensure 1. No jet aircraft use the 32'14'' crosswind runway: 2. That the Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. ; and calls on the Government to: 3. introduce a six months trial period if the policy to lift the curfew on the runway is adhered to, to enable residents to voice their opinions on such a curfew before Government policy is finalised. (Curfew from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen', And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully request that the Australian Government negotiate with the Australian Council of Trade Unions significant taxation relief for lower and middle income earners together with improvements in the social wage with particular emphasis on improving the position of those reliant on social security payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hollis. 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 because it will cause untold damage to the morals of the youth of our community, the Parliament will make such laws as prohibit the importation or entry into Australia of video films, tapes, discs, slides or other recording from which a visual image can be produced which displays degradation of any person, particularly women, children or animals; scenes of explicit sexual relations showing genitalia detail; acts of violence and sex; sexual perversion such as sodomy; mutilation; child pornography; coprophilia; bestiality or the use and effect of illicit drug taking. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Keogh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 shows that because video cassettes are a particularly powerful media form now easily accessible to the general public for private home viewing, and believing that the likelihood of minors obtaining or otherwise viewing obscene and pornographic videocassettes is very high even with careful parental oversight, we the undersigned protest at the removal of previously existing censorship bans, and in particular request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A .C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith, which now allows into the community such pictorial material as ''relished descriptions of violence'' and ''publications which mildly advocate the use of soft drugs such as marijuana '' (Category 1), and ''sado-masochism'', ''extreme fetishism'' (e.g. necrophilia ), ''anal intercourse with consent'' (Category 2), and other such depraved and repugnant activities; and non-pictorial material referred to as ''hardcore'' paperbacks containing ''relished child pornography, e.g. incest, and school teacher/student'', and ''extreme sexual torture'' (both Category 2), in the conviction that the ready availability and increasing public consumption of same will be a blight on our society, stimulating individual dissoluteness and leading to unlawful behaviour with innocent persons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the penalties of a fine and three years suspension from Medicare imposed on Dr Rex Hood of Pingelly are out of all proportion to his offences; That neither Medicare nor Dr Hood's patients were put to increased expense by his unlawful acts; That the court action, administrative action and Medical Board inquiry in respect of the same acts constitute a form of triple jeopardy repugnant to the traditions of our legal system; and That the interests of the people of Pingelly were not considered. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Minister for Health rescind the suspension of Dr Hood; 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 shows that the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery at the rate of 20% is an unfair and unjust burden on this important manufacturing industry and your petitioners therefore pray that confectionery be treated in a similar fashion to all other foods, including snack foods, which are exempt from sales tax. by 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 call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and the implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. Omega by sending low frequency signals, penetrating sea water enables hunter -killer submarines to establish their position and the 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 of 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. by Mr Steedman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling,Mr Millar and Mr Wells. Petitions received. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) will second: That this House- (1) notes with concern the persistent and repeated refusals by the Prime Minister to answer specific questions, both inside and outside the House, with reference to 'the Boulevard Hotel incident', and (2) calls upon the Prime Minister to make full and frank disclosure to this House of all matters within his knowledge relating to the alleged theft of $4600 in Australian and US currency and an unknown quantity of travellers cheques on the evening of 21 February 1982. We are ready to debate this notice of motion right now. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the decision of Australian Iron and Steel Port Kembla, N.S.W., to sack 278 final year apprentices; (2) reminds AIS of the assistance received under the Government's steel assistance plan to stabilise the industry and ensure jobs, and (3) notes that BHP, the parent company of AIS, recently announced a profit of $ 622 million. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the intention of the Government to make the 219 Members and Senators of the next Federal Parliament provide detailed lists to the Parliament and the public of everything they, their spouses, their children and even their babies own, and (2) requests the Government to advise when it intends to apply this same rule to all other citizens of Australia during its obviously planned transition of this country to a Marxist Communist State. Mr Leo McLeay having given a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The notice of motion is out of order. The honourable member knows the rule about argument being contained in notices of motion. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) rejects the current two-week sitting pattern of the House; (2) condemns the Leader of the House for his failure to manage business without unnecessarily long sitting hours; (3) finds unacceptable the attitudes of Ministers and departments in regarding the Parliament as a rubber stamp to legislation, demonstrated by their production of mountains of legislation to be dealt with in a few days at the end of a Session, and (4) acknowledges that this is the third occasion on which Members have had to criticize the Leader of the House and is tempted to condemn him as an incompetent manager of Government business. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh) will second: That this House- (1) notes the staff shortages in many hospitals in Queensland, and (2) calls on the Queensland National Party Government to provide an honest account of how it has expended the $25m special Medicare grant it has received from the Commonwealth. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) will second: That this House condemns the Prime Minister for his scandalous action in personally exposing the deep personal problems of his children for political sympathy, yet failing to ensure immediate police investigation to ensure the apprehension of the criminals who introduced and supplied the drugs of their addiction. Mr Leo McLeay proceeding to give a notice of motion- Mr Groom-I raise a point of order. This notice of motion clearly still contains argument and is therefore out of order. What would he know about Tasmania? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I am watching the content carefully. Mr Leo McLeay continuing to give a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is still offending against the rules on notices of motion. He has been here long enough to know about the question of argument. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the total number of very sick people being sent home from hospital with nowhere else to go continues to rise as a result of the 35 day care Medicare rule, and (b) doctors face a $5,000 fine or 6 months imprisonment if, in trying to help people, they wrongly certify someone is acutely ill when the person is only still very sick, and (2) condemns the Government for its apparent ''get up and walk'' Medicare policy approach to the nation's aged and sick. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern that there has been political interference with the appointment of judges and magistrates in New South Wales, and (2) expresses its contempt for a system which seeks to identify the political inclinations of the judicial figures of New South Wales prior to their appointment. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate concurs in the resolution of the House relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(10.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes amendments to the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 as a consequence of an independent review of the functions and operations of the Industries Assistance Commission. The Government's election platform included a commitment to review the role of the Industries Assistance Commission to ensure that its operations are directed towards the development and extension of industry. The independent review conducted by Mr John Uhrig was announced on 3 August 1983. Mr Uhrig presented his report to the Government on 16 December 1983 . The Government's major concern in initiating the review was to maximise the effectiveness of the IAC as a provider of practical advice to Government on questions of industry assistance. In the past, the Commission has tended to focus on tariff and other related forms of protection, with the result that its recommendations have often been stereotyped, with lower levels of protection frequently being put forward as the sole solution to an industry problem. In the Government's view, the restructuring and revitalising of Australia's industrial base will require that there be a much greater emphasis on the development and implementation of a wider range of positive industry assistance measures. In agreeing with the thrust of the Uhrig report, the Government concurs that it is now time to make changes to the Commission so that it will be able to contribute more effectively to the formulation of the Government's industry policy. Changes are proposed to the Commission's approach to the inquiry process and the nature of its advice, but not to its basic independence. In proposing these changes the Government is conscious of the comments by Mr Uhrig that changes in legislation will not, on their own, ensure that more effective advice is forthcoming from the Commission. Mr Uhrig said that much will depend on the IAC being more responsive to the information needs of government. Government must in turn ensure that requests are framed in such a way as to permit the most effective use of the Commission's expertise. The Government agrees with these sentiments. The Uhrig report called for a re-orientation towards industry-wide references which specified in greater detail the information needs of the Government. In addition, it proposed that references should normally require that options be provided-including the Commission's recommended option-and that the Commission's advice should extend beyond its current somewhat narrow focus on barrier protection to cover other forms of assistance. The Government has accepted these recommendations and believes that they should lead to the Commission providing considered advice on a number of methods by which the Government can pursue policies to facilitate structural change and industrial development. The Government has also accepted the report's recommendation that, while no formal link should be established between the IAC and the industry councils, there is scope for increased use of the Commission by the industry councils. In particular, the councils may find it useful to draw on the extensive information base built up by the Commission during the course of its inquiries. They may also see benefits in requesting the Commission, through the Minister, to undertake research tasks which complement the Commission's work schedule or require some of the special skills of the Commission's staff. The Government believes that its acceptance of the vast majority of the review' s recommendations will result in an emergence of a new era in the industry assistance advisory process. In particular, the improved operations and procedures of the Commission should allow it to become more effective in meeting the Government's industry policy objectives and needs. These objectives stress the need for industry to become more internationally competitive, more flexible and better able to take advantage of technological developments. In pursuit of these objectives, the Government wants to shift the focus of industry assistance away from the past concentration on protection to more positive forms of assistance which will actively assist industry to restructure. This includes measures designed to stimulate investment, increase industrial research and development, provide more and better training and retraining facilities, upgrade export support services and provide industry with easier access to development finance. It also involves developing mechanisms which will ensure that the benefits of restructuring are realised, and the economic and social costs of adjustment are not borne disproportionately by those at the face of change. The Government has agreed that the Commission's policy guidelines should be simplified to reflect widely supported industry policy objectives. Accordingly, the new guidelines, as set out in clause 11 of the Bill, are cast in terms of facilitating adjustment and encouraging the growth of efficient and internationally competitive industries having regard to the interests of other industries and consumers. Clause 13 of the Bill proposes to implement the acceptance of the recommendation that the Commission's power to initiate its own inquiries be revoked. Such decisions are policy matters and are more appropriately made by the Government itself. However, the new arrangements will not prevent the Commission from suggesting to the Government the need for an inquiry where this is considered to be warranted. A major recommendation by Mr Uhrig was the abolition of the Temporary Assistance Authority and that the IAC be responsible for advising on all temporary and short term assistance matters. The Government has agreed to this and to the related recommendation that a separate set of guidelines be developed to apply to all temporary assistance matters. The guidelines proposed in clause 17 of the Bill are based upon those proposed by Mr Uhrig. The Government's decision to alter the temporary assistance arrangements reflects its concern that the current provisions provide opportunities for assistance to be granted where the underlying problems are not temporary but of a long term structural nature, or reflect an economy-wide problem which is impacting adversely across all sectors. We have therefore decided to make temporary assistance available only in cases where serious injury is occurring or threatened to an industry by circumstances largely outside its control, and where the circumstances are peculiar to the industry or are impacting with particular severity on the industry. Further, the form of such assistance is not to seriously disadvantage other Australian industries. The Government has also decided that where temporary assistance is recommended by the IAC it is to be limited to a maximum of 12 months and the Commission will be required to report on whether circumstances warrant a subsequent inquiry into longer term assistance. The Commission is also to report on whether in its view an inquiry into the need for further temporary assistance would be likely to be required prior to the expiry of any temporary assistance already granted. This provision is to cover those situations where 'temporary' problems may exist for longer than a 12 month period. In addition, the Commission shall report on what actions it considers the industry should undertake during the period of temporary assistance. A further recommendation accepted by the Government is to make specific reference to tertiary and service industries in the Industries Assistance Commission Act. This reflects the importance of this sector to the Australian economy and the higher priority the Government will be placing on examining issues which may be facing tertiary industries in Australia. By also agreeing to eliminate, in most instances, first round public hearings as proposed by clauses 23 and 24 of the Bill the Government is seeking to improve the efficiency of the Commission's operations and reduce the costs incurred by many interested parties in presenting evidence. In line with its objective of increased consultation in the decision making process, the Government has further agreed that, in most cases, final reports will be published prior to a Government decision being taken. The only exception to this will be those occasions when significant commercial gain could ensue, or where international negotiating positions might be jeopardised. The Government is confident that the changes to the IAC's charter and operations as proposed by this Bill will enable the Commission to provide a more valuable input to industry development in Australia. Together with other changes occurring in the advisory and consultative process, these changes further reflect the Government's consensus-based approach to industry policy formulation and economic policy generally. Financial Impact Statement The measures contained in this Bill have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Braithwaite) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent Notice No. 643, General Business, being called on forthwith. Motion for Disallowance Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.24) —I move: That the Nursing Homes Fees Determination Principles 1984, formulated under sub -section 40AA (7) of the National Health Act 1953, be disallowed. I raise this matter in the House, it having been discussed in the Senate and not proceeded with by the Senate basically because the Australian Democrats did not meet an undertaking they gave to the Opposition and to nursing home industry representatives that they would support us on this disallowance motion. Consequently, the disallowance motion was not carried by the Senate. This is an important matter relating to the care of the aged and the disabled in nursing homes and it affects the financial viability of privately operated nursing homes . It is a matter of subordinate legislation and is something that this House has the opportunity to deal with by way of disallowance. Indeed, today is the last day on which it can be dealt with. The Opposition is seeking the support of the House of Representatives to disallow a thoroughly unjust set of principles which have been determined under the National Health Act 1953. Let me say something about this nursing home business in general. The Opposition will not claim that it is totally without some blame-in fact, considerable blame-for the difficulties faced by the nursing home industry. Over many years this was an area of considerable administrative and political difficulty. The original method of setting fees for nursing homes goes back to legislation formulated by the McMahon Government but passed by the Whitlam Government in 1973. Various fee setting mechanisms have continued more or less unchanged for the succeeding 11 years. At the time I was appointed Minister for Health in 1982 I regarded this area of administration as one that presented the most difficulties for the Department of Health and for the Executive. In conjunction with the then Minister for Social Security, Senator Chaney, and the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Messner, I set up a working party under the head of the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat, Mr Daryl Dixon, to examine the whole question of nursing homes, their administration and fee setting principles. I also took on a private external consultant, an economic consultant to the Department of Health, to assist in this work. On a number of occasions when I was Minister I expressed my very grave concern about the state of this industry, about the way in which the people who were running nursing homes were being treated by the Government and by the Department and the difficulties which public servants within the Department of Health, both in the Federal area and in the State offices, were experiencing in administering an almost impossible scheme. I also expressed my concern about the fact that the subsidies for beds in private nursing homes were quite different State by State because the costs were different in each of the States; the State governments, of course, having the responsibility for setting standards in nursing homes and for negotiating industrial awards but not bearing the financial responsibility, which was borne by the Commonwealth. It was a matter of some concern, certainly to States such as Western Australia and Queensland where the bed day subsidy was considerably less than in such States, for example, as Victoria. Indeed, the amounts were 50 per cent or more higher for the same service, in effect, in Victoria than they were in Western Australia. All that is acknowledged. I know that the Minister will make a great meal of the fact that this was an inherited problem. He will go over his usual complaints about what was left to him. I merely say that this problem was very clearly acknowledged by me publicly and privately, and everybody knows that. I indicated during the last six months or so in which I was in that chair that I regarded it as the biggest single policy problem that I had to address. I did this in conjunction with my fellow Ministers in the Senate. That is the background of the matter. Certainly, if we were still in office, had we had the further 18 months that has elapsed since the time that we actually went out, as has the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is sitting opposite, we expect that we would have gone a long way in sorting out these problems. Unfortunately, I have to report to the House that not only has the Minister opposite failed to do anything about this to this point but also, with the kind of principles that have been brought in under the National Health Act and for which I am seeking disallowance, he is making the situation worse. Firstly, the Government did not meet and has not met its promise to set up an office of aged care. This was a bipartisan policy proposal. Both the then Government, now the Opposition, and the Australian Labor Party promised to set up an office of aged care. I inform the House that Senator Chaney, Senator Messner and I had already, before we left office, worked out the administrative arrangements for this office of aged care. The whole thing was ready to go immediately after the election. We were holding off only to have discussions with various groups before we made a decision as to whether the office would go into the Department of Social Security or the Department of Health. The Labor Party promised to set it up when it came to office and to put it into the Department of Health. Mr Hunt —Why haven't they done it? Mr CARLTON —That was a promise. Why has not the Government done it, as the Deputy Leader of the National Party so correctly asks? I do not know. I can only assume that there has been an outbreak of bureaucratic in-fighting, which certainly Senator Chaney and I would not allow. I presume that the Minister and his counterpart in the Senate, the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, have not been able to come to an agreement on what should be done and have not been able to give instructions to the Public Service Board to proceed with this office. I think it is a disgrace that 18 months down the line we still do not have this co-ordination of policy which is essential to bring the various elements of aged care into the one administrative unit. Secondly, I simply do not know what the Government has been doing with the work that was prepared by Mr Daryl Dixon and his working party or what it has done with the work that was prepared by the private consultant whom I appointed but who was asked to leave the Department's work when the present Minister took over . No particular reason was given to him for his departure. That work having been done, 18 months down the line we wonder why there is no clear nursing home funding and fee setting policy. Thirdly, the whole area of nursing homes has been put under very considerable stress because of the changes made under the Medicare legislation to the rule governing long stay patients in private or public hospitals. I dealt with this matter earlier this week in the House. In short, what it means is that after 35 days in a hospital, public or private, unless a doctor is able to sign a certificate, called a section 3B certificate, which states that the patient needs continuing acute care, that patient loses the private hospital benefits. If he is in a public hospital he will have to pay immediately $12.40 a day from his own resources to the hospital. So a patient cannot get a free bed under Medicare if he happens to miss out on a section 3B certificate. If he is in a private hospital he is in much worse standing because he will lose benefits which can make him liable to payments of at least $50 a day. The amount increases depending on the cost of the private hospital. The 35-day period was previously 60 days under our administration. Also, the certificates that were signed had four different criteria under which a patient could be allowed to stay in hospital-for example, for continuing care of a condition, not just acute care. This was a much more reasonable way of dealing with people who were elderly and classed as long term sick. It allowed them, in their own time and in a reasonable and decent fashion, to find alternative accommodation or to recover in a hospital and go home. Under this cruel and harsh 35-day rule introduced by the Minister there is immense pressure on nursing home beds, which are simply not available. There are waiting lists for nursing home beds all over the country. There is an additional demand, because of this 35-day rule. It is squeezing people out of private hospitals and they simply have nowhere to go. In addition, the Minister has not approved any new nursing home beds since the Government came into office 18 months ago. The Minister in response to this assertion always says: 'Yes, but there are various beds coming on stream'. These , of course, are as a result of approvals given during my period of administration or that of my predecessor, the honourable member for Warringah ( Mr MacKellar). The Minister imposed a complete freeze on nursing home bed approvals for 15 months. Following that he introduced new guidelines for nursing home beds which make it almost impossible for anybody to get new nursing home beds approved. What has he done? He has increased the pressure and the flow of patients to nursing homes through his 35-day rule. He has not brought in any satisfactory domiciliary care services. Again, that is another promise which has been broken. Nothing has been done in that area. Mr Hunt —Have the benefits been increased? Mr CARLTON —The benefits have been removed under this 35-day rule. That is a disgraceful thing. This whole industry is in a state of very considerable stress . The final point I want to make about the general situation is that the Minister has a determined attitude of opposition to private nursing home operation. Indeed, earlier this week, on Tuesday or Wednesday, he made an unprincipled attack on a nursing home operator, a Mr D. B. Moran, who had placed an advertisement in the Brisbane newspapers drawing attention to some of these problems. The Minister attacked Mr Moran on the basis that he had run a profitable business and had become a wealthy man as a result of his business activities. This was a disgraceful attack. It seems that under this Government it is a sin to run a profitable business. I am not aware-certainly nobody has given me any evidence-that the person who the other day was attacked so viciously by the Minister runs bad nursing homes. All the evidence I have had has been to the contrary. I also understand that Mr Moran has given advice and assistance to religious and charitable bodies in the setting up of their nursing homes and that he is widely respected by those bodies. I am not in possession of all of the information regarding his activities in that area, but I have been told by religious and charitable groups that they value the work he has done and much of it has been done on a donated basis. That is just an example of the attitude the Minister has towards the private enterprise operators of nursing homes. No doubt not all operators run good homes and not everybody does the right thing all the time. However, by and large the private nursing home proprietors are the ones who do a lot of innovative things in this area, and it is essential that the industry be allowed to operate profitably. I return to the motion for disallowance. A case brought by the Alexandra Private Nursing Home was heard in Melbourne before Mr Justice Woodward. As background to that case, I point out that over several years in a number of Federal Court of Australia and High Court of Australia judgments it has been found that the Federal Department of Health applied guidelines for the determination of nursing home fees in breach of section 40AA (7) of the National Health Act. That section requires the Department of Health to have regard to costs necessarily incurred when it sets fees. Rather than comply with that section of the National Health Act and rather than proceed down the road of making determinations having proper regard to costs, the response of the Department was to amend the Act to remove that section and the requirement to have regard to costs necessarily incurred. In its place the Department substituted a requirement to have regard to what were called principles which were to embody established departmental practice. In other words, the Government , instead of listening to what the courts had said and continuing to apply the requirement to have due regard to costs, decided to alter the rules of the game to validate what the Department had done and to do so by means of introducing some new principles. As a result of these actions the Alexandra Private Nursing Home challenged the Department in court on the basis of the old provisions of the National Health Act. Mr Justice Woodward found that, because of the passage of the new legislation, the Department had acted technically within the law. There is no complaint about that. Mr Justice Woodward went to some lengths to make it clear that the decision, to use his word, was a hard decision. He went further and said that the Department's decision was unfair-again Mr Justice Woodward's word. He said that the Department seemed to be squeezing the profits of private nursing homes just short of the point causing the enterprise to fail. His Honour stated: I agree that it is from the applicant's point of view quite unfair that it should have to accept a profit in 1984 that is little different from that which it was accepting in 1972 . . . In the light of this evidence there can be little doubt that the Department is taking a hard line with the proprietors of established nursing homes. He went on: I do not believe that the use of historic costs by the delegate-- that is the Department-- is 'so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power' to fix fees in such a way. With the passage of time, and depending on the levels of inflation, the situation may eventually be reached where such a decision could be so described, but the wording of the ADJR Act-that is, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act-on this point, which I have just quoted, is very restrictive. I have already said that I think the applicant is entitled to regard the decision as quite unfair. That is what Mr Justice Woodward said. I also quote from an earlier judgment of Mr Justice Northrop in respect of Nagrad Nominees Pty Ltd. He talked about the departmental guidelines that preceded the principles. They are virtually the same set of rules we are looking at now. Mr Justice Northrop said: As a result, no person properly advised would consider purchasing an approved nursing home business. As a corollary, existing proprietors are saddled with a business producing a diminishing financial return and are unable to sell that business for anything like its current value. Likewise, no account is taken of capital actually invested by a proprietor in a nursing home business, but profitability is determined on an artificial amount of capital expended at an earlier and irrelevant time by the proprietor of premises in which a nursing home business is conducted. In simple terms, what this means is that the fees are determined on the basis of assets which were valued, say in the case of the Alexandra Private Nursing Home in 1972, at $140,000. If one allows a 10 per cent nominal profit on $140,000, the nursing home is allowed to have $14,000 profit. However, if one updates the asset to the current day, one finds that it is worth $760,000. Allowing 14 per cent or 15 per cent these days to service debts, one can see that a profit of the same amount, $14,000 on a capital value of $760,000, is absurd. So what happens under these principles is that if one has an asset which is valued historically at some certain point, at that time one gets a reasonable return on it, but as the value of the asset rises and, as inflation, interest rates and goodness knows what else rise over a period, one is allowed to have only the same dollar amount of profit year by year on an increasing asset; therefore, one is gradually, determinedly, going broke. That is the effect of the principles that the Minister has introduced. Mr White —That is what he wants. Mr CARLTON —Yes; he wants to squeeze them out of business. That is the only interpretation that I can make of these principles and why he is bringing them in. They were bad principles or bad guidelines that were being applied by the Department under my administration. I make that quite clear; under my administration these are the guidelines that were being used. The Minister knows that. I said that they were bad at the time, and we were doing something about them. Mr Hunt —But we were building nursing homes too at that time. Mr CARLTON —Yes-and this Minister is closing down the nursing home business, building no new nursing homes, and squeezing existing proprietors out of business, too. What the Minister says is this: 'All right; you can have only the same amount of dollar profit, virtually, year by year, on an asset that is increasing in value, and you cannot sell it to anyone else because no one would want to buy it under those circumstances'. This means that year by year, inexorably, these businesses become unprofitable. The logic of these principles is absolutely clear. That is their intent, and it is not just the Opposition that is saying this; it is Mr Justice Woodward, in the Alexandra case, and Mr Justice Northrop in the earlier Nagrad Nominees case. Both judges made it absolutely clear that they regarded this situation as nonsensical. Let us be clear about what the Government has done. Instead of taking the advice prepared by the working party of Mr Daryl Dixon and the private consultant that I brought in and, instead of proceeding with the setting up of the proposed Office of Aged Care, the Government has allowed these old guidelines to continue under new legislative force. It has entrenched a provision whose intention is to make privately operated nursing homes gradually go broke. Given the Minister's vicious attack on one of these private operators earlier this week in this House-a quite dreadful personal attack-it is clear that the Minister is following his usual socialist path, as he is with Medicare, and determinedly trying to put the private nursing homes out of business. The people who will suffer will be those who are already suffering dreadfully under this Minister-the aged, the sick and the infirm. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr White —I second the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, and reserve the right to speak. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(10.44) —The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) began by lamenting the fact that the Australian Democrats had not supported this motion in the Senate. If his colleagues in the Senate presented the same miserable collection of arguments as he has done, I am not surprised that the Democrats did not support it. The honourable member's arguments essentially consisted of, first, a series of irrelevancies which have nothing whatsoever to do with the principles which he is seeking to disallow. I shall not deal with all of those irrelevancies, except to repeat that there is a simple and clear answer to the argument that this Government is somehow not providing nursing home beds. That answer is that since we have been in government 2,452 beds have come on stream, which is much the same number of beds coming on stream as in past periods, and that another 3,316 beds are approved. It is true that they were approved under the previous Government, but this has enabled us to have a pause in new approvals so that we can have a properly planned policy. But there has been no squeezing in the provision of beds. As I say, since we have been in government, 2,452 beds have come on stream. I do not want to go on dealing with irrelevancies. I want to tackle what little argument the honourable member for Mackellar presented. In essence, it was an argument that we are to be attacked because in 18 months we have not dealt with issues with which the previous Government failed to deal over eight years. It is argued that we have not yet put our Office of Aged Care in place. Opposition members had eight years to put an aged care office in place. They knew the pressure for it; nothing was done. Again, the honourable member claimed that we have not clarified these very difficult issues in relation to nursing homes. Opposition members had seven or eight years during which these problems were before them, and they were not tackled. We have had 18 months. The only thing that emerged from the honourable gentleman's speech which I welcome was the kind of confessional apology for the performance for those seven years. We certainly accept that. The chaotic and quite contradictory nature of the Opposition's health policies has never been more in evidence than it is in the motion before the House, because it must rate as one of the great about-faces of all time. What the Opposition has done this morning is to move to disallow a set of fees determination principles which do no more than codify a scheme which it introduced in 1972 and which was administered by honourable members opposite unchanged for eight of the past 12 years. The honourable member for Mackellar, to give him some justice, confesses to the fact that they are procedures introduced by his Party when in government and administered by his Party for eight of the last 12 years. The current arrangements were developed and enacted under the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1972. They provided for significant increases in nursing home benefits; they also provided for the introduction of controls over the numbers of nursing home beds that attracted benefits, over the patients admitted to these beds and over the maximum fees charged. From the inception of the fees control arrangements, fees were increased to reflect increases in costs, but there was no general provision for profitability levels to be increased. However , reasonable increases in rent were reflected in fees of homes where leases are at arm's length, so such homes have received profit increases. Further, proprietors could appeal to the Minister if they considered that in their particular case an increase in profitability was warranted. Throughout the time that the present Opposition was in government it maintained this policy. It became increasingly clear during this period that the whole question of nursing home profitability needed to be examined and anomalies redressed. The ex-Minister confessed to his recognition of that. But the problem in those seven years proved all too hard for the previous Government. The matter was examined by advisory committees and successive consultancies were let, but all this led to nothing in those seven years. The Liberal and National parties did not know where to go with the nursing home profitability question, and had no real policy on aged care. By contrast, this Government came to office with a clear aged care policy, but it also inherited the problems in nursing home funding that had been exacerbated by the inactivity of its predecessor. The Government's policy objectives in relation to nursing home funding were clearly stated by me in the second reading speech on the National Health Amendment Bill 1983. I stated: Existing nursing home benefits and deficit funding arrangements will be replaced by program grants paid to nursing homes. These program grants will be based on standard costs for the services delivered less the income received by the homes through standard patient contributions. The program grant system will take some time to develop. In the meantime the existing funding arrangements for nursing homes will be maintained. I further stated: In summary, the proposed changes will ensure that the Government is able to continue the application of policies and practices in nursing homes fees control , established and supported by successive Governments, pending the introduction of the present Government's residential care program. The particular change which would enable the continuation of the existing arrangements was the provision for the Minister to make the fee determination principles which are now the subject of the Opposition disallowance motion. It was the objective of the Government at the time that legislation was enacted, and it remains the intention of the Government, that there should be orderly transition from the present funding arrangements to program grants. The principles which the Opposition seeks to disallow were developed in consultation with interested bodies, including the Australian Nursing Homes Association, and there is substantial agreements that they reflect existing policy. I should add that the Australian Nursing Homes Association did not endorse the approach to profitability reflected in the principles but I will say a little more about that matter later. The need for nursing home fees to be determined in an orderly manner was recognised by Mr Justice Woodward of the Federal Court of Australia in the recent case involving Alexandra Private Nursing Home, from which judgment the honourable member quoted. His Honour stated: In the area as important as the calculation of profits for nursing homes there must necessarily be a substantial degree of uniformity of approach at questions of principle, or injustice as between nursing homes could become rife. It would create obvious difficulties if different delegates were to adopt different criteria in deciding when to depart from historic costs in order to allow much larger profits based on current valuations. There is much to be said for the view that exceptions to such a general rule should be made in a consistent and co-ordinated way by the Minister who is responsible to the Parliament for both the economic and equitable administration of the legislation. The fee control principles which the Opposition is now trying to disallow will provide the basis for the high degree of conformity and the equitable administration of the legislation which Mr Justice Woodward said was needed. They will also go some way towards satisfying one of the long standing complaints of the industry-again never addressed by the previous Government in its seven years of office that there is no consistency or uniformity in the setting of fees either between or within states. This need for an orderly approach in taking nursing home financing decisions is of particular significance as nursing home fees have to be met either by taxpayers or patients. Expenditure by the Government on nursing homes is estimated at some $1,000m in 1984-85, so it is vital the Government responsibly consider the interests of patients and taxpayers as well as those of nursing home proprietors. To give the industry overly generous profitability would result in an enormous extra cost to the community, but that is not to say that the legitimate profit aspirations of the industry should be ignored. While it is certainly true that the interests of the patients and taxpayers must be protected, it is equally true that proprietors have a right to earn a profit from their business. But the reasons why people invest in a business and their expectations of what they want out of the business are very complex, particularly in the nursing home industry. Investors may choose the nursing home industry for no other reason than the profit the business generates. Alternatively, they may seek the security of the investment which government regulation brings to the industry. They may also seek the capital gain on the asset, the business or both. Some enter the industry out of a sense of altruism, but even then it could be argued that they deserve a fair level of profit on their investment. Against this background, it is very difficult to determine exactly what a fair level of profit is for the industry. The industry is very protected and is virtually riskless. Proprietors are almost guaranteed 100 per cent occupancy because of the limitations on bed numbers by successive governments. Proprietors are assured of minimal bad debts and regular cash flow because the majority of their income comes from either government benefits or payments from patients' pensions. Investment in the industry provides a source of employment for many proprietors or their families and there are intangible benefits which flow from owning and operating your own business. There are a number of other factors which may influence the level of profitability of a nursing home, such as the capital gearing or whether the home is freehold or leased. But the fact that the problem is complex does not mean that we should ignore it altogether as the Opposition did for eight years. As I said earlier, there were a number of half- hearted attempts, half-finished consultancies and half-baked ideas which came from the previous Government, but there was never any real attempt to address the difficult question of nursing home profitability. By contrast, this Government has, within the first half of its term in office, set up a working party of industry and departmental representatives to examine this complex question of profitability. I am advised that there is a good spirit of co- operation in the working party, and I am sure that the Australian Nursing Homes Association representatives would agree that significant progress has been made. I expect to receive the report of the working party this month. The fact that this Government took the initiative in setting up the working party on profitability clearly came as a surprise to the industry. After years of distrust and suspicion in their dealings with the previous Government, it approached the working party with some caution and scepticism, and understandably so, given the treatment it had received previously. Overcoming this legacy and putting the negotiations between government and the industry on a more productive and trusting basis is a major undertaking. Undoubtedly, there have been some constraints on profitability, particularly in Victoria in recent years, but even in Victoria these constraints are much exaggerated. There are still many people seeking approval to build new homes, and proprietors are able to sell their businesses at prices which include large components for goodwill. The amounts paid are known for 16 transactions completed in Victoria since 1 July 1983. The goodwill per nursing home bed ranged from $2,144 to $8,500, and only in four cases was the goodwill figure below $5,500 per bed. This is hardly a description of an industry which it has been alleged has been driven to the verge of bankruptcy. The real question is: What does the Opposition seek to gain by disallowing the principles? There are nearly 50 principles providing for the setting of fees on a consistent basis, and all these will be lost because of concern over the one principle, important though it be, relating to return on investment. The disallowance of the principles will not of itself result in any change in profitability policy, but it will result in more energy being devoted to disputation within the existing financing arrangements and to greater scope for inconsistent decision-making. Uncertainty for both the proprietors and the patients will be increased; endeavours to introduce the new program grants arrangements will be made all the harder. Yet it seems that the simple motive lying behind the Opposition's motion is simply to make all these tasks more difficult. I emphasise that the Government introduced the principles only to enable existing policies to remain in place while the program grants arrangements are being developed. It is obvious that the complexities of the industry are such that we cannot move to a new system overnight. Some developmental work is already under way in relation to nursing home and hostel costs, and we will shortly commence a study into standards of care. But while this work is being done, we need to continue the existing scheme on a fair and equitable basis, and on a consistent and understandable basis. The fee control principles hold out the only hope of allowing substantial progress towards residential care grants and an orderly change over from one system to another. The position is that I expect to receive this month the report of the working party on profitability to which I have referred. The matter will then be considered by Cabinet as soon as practicable. I am well aware of the position of nursing homes which have experienced significant erosion of profitability, such as the Alexandra Private Nursing Home referred to by the honourable member for Mackellar, and will draw their position to the attention of Cabinet. The Government accepts that some modification of the principle on profitability may be required. But to disallow all of the principles because one requires amendment is counter-productive and puts us that much further away from a better system. Question put: That the motion (Mr Carlton's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 25 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. Lusher, S. A.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J. (Teller)Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fisher, P. S. Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Groom, R. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. Baldwin, P. J. Kent, L.Beazley, K. C. Keogh, L. J.Beddall, D. P. Klugman, R. E.Bilney, G. N. Lindsay, E. J.Blewett, N. McHugh, J.Bowen, Lionel McLeay, LeoBrown, John Maher, M. J.Brown, Robert Mayer, H.Brumby, J. M. Mildren, J. B.Campbell, G. Milton, P.Charlesworth, R. I. Morris, AllanChynoweth, R. L. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.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. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hollis, C. Wells, D. McM.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Jones, Barry Willis, R.Keating, P. J. Young, M. J.Kelly, R. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Fry, K. L.Newman, K. E. Hayden, W. G.Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C.Drummond, P. H. Blanchard, C. A.Katter, R. C. Hurford, C. J.O'Keefe, K. L. Jacobi, R.Millar, P. C. Theophanous, A. C.Hicks, N. J. Kerin, J. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.12) —The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) is a Bill containing a number of housekeeping measures, as well as some measures that are not housekeeping. I understand that in addition to the Bill in its present form there are two amendments to the Bill to be moved by the Government, to which the Opposition assents. Without going into detail on all those provisions, many of which are extremely technical and would also be correspondingly boring, I will touch on a few provisions. Firstly, there are certain amendments in the Bill to the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act. One of the amendments provides that for certain purposes an Aboriginal spouse includes a person who is living on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis with the other person. Of course, special cultural circumstances apply to some sections of the Aboriginal community. As well, of course, a very large part of the Aboriginal community is very much part of the Australian community, although we all recognise the special difficulties which have afflicted the Aboriginal community. These are difficulties which very largely are imposed on Aborigines from outside and which result from the history of European settlement of Australia. In relation to that extended definition of spouse, I say that it appears to be characteristic of the progressive devaluation of the status and institution of marriage and of the traditional family unit engaged in by this Government since it came to power. We all have a right to elect to do what we wish, subject to the laws, to live with whom we want to live and to engage in whatever relationships we wish. However, we should not seek to give equal status and recognition to other kinds of relationships that are not included in the traditional concept of family and marriage. I refer briefly also to the amendment to section 49A of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act which allows white Europeans or, to put it differently, non -Aboriginals, to become members of an Aboriginal association, although without rights to vote at a meeting of the association or to stand for election to the governing committee of the association. I looked at the second reading speech for some explanation of this provision but not a word was to be found concerning it. Also, nothing in the explanatory memorandum explains the reasons for this provision. I ask whether this is the white agitators support clause. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is sitting at the table, can answer that. There may be very good reasons for it, although I do not know of any. I refer also to the amendments made to the Copyright Act, covering 11 pages in the Bill. Whilst the Opposition does not oppose the amendments I think it is perfectly plain that these amendments could not be described as housekeeping amendments. Not only is their length such that they could not be so described but also they contain particular provisions which are important enough to be brought forward by the ordinary process of amendments of law and not through the omnibus process which the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) allows by bringing a whole collection of amendments through the House in one hit . For example, certain specific protections given for the copying of material in the Parliamentary Library effectively allow a complete defence for anything done for the sole purpose of providing library services for members of parliament. Members of parliament will be glad that the Library has that protection. It means that, so long as what is done is done for the sole purpose of assisting a person who is a member of parliament in the performance of that person's duties, anything goes. Of course, that is a very wide exemption. I believe-without having checked the detail-that it is far wider than the other exemptions given under the Copyright Act. We see that amendments to section 203D add particular defences to the Copyright Act. Ordinarily, defences which are to be inserted into an Act should be dealt with in legislation for that purpose and not by means of the omnibus legislation which we have here. The very detailed amendments made to the Copyright Act which, as I said, cannot really be called housekeeping measures, can be contrasted with the amendment to the Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 1984. Section 19 is amended as follows: Omit '' 'made' '', substitute '' 'made,' ''. Unquestionably that is a housekeeping amendment but I am just a little puzzled at the reason for it. It may be that the comma or inverted commas got themselves wrongly placed in the original Act. It is not a contentious matter; it is just a rather puzzling matter. Mr Lionel Bowen —Minor. Mr SPENDER —Yes, most certainly they are minor. I comment briefly on one or two other provisions in the Bill. Provision is made for interest on judgments of the Federal Court and the High Court. That is certainly necessary. Amendments are made to the National Crime Authority Act. The amendments highlight two matters. One is the Government's failure to think through the implications of the original legislation and the other is the difficulties the Authority may face when a person wishes to test the capacity of the Authority to question him on certain matters. Only time will tell us just how great these difficulties will become. It is perfectly apparent that there is great room for technical arguments to impede both the speed and the effectiveness of the operations of the Authority. Amendments are proposed to the Trade Practices Act, and these amendments are described in the Minister's second reading speech. Their purpose, effectively, is to remove doubt as to the application of section 52 of the Trade Practices Act to newspapers if they contain inaccurate information. I simply raise the question of whether the amendments go far enough to exempt from the application of that section newspapers and other media organisations engaged in the bona fide dissemination of what they consider to be news, regardless of whether the Australian public would consider it to be news and regardless of whether it is factual. That again is something, I suppose, which can be determined only through time and through examination by the courts, if it arises, of the provisions which are now to be inserted in the Trade Practices Act. The last specific area on which I shall comment is an amendment proposed to be moved in the Committee stage by the Deputy Prime Minister to insert a new offence into the Crimes Act. It is a surprising omission thus far. I will reserve what I have to say on that subject until the Deputy Prime Minister moves the amendment. Subject to the comments that have been made, we support the legislation but we reiterate the need for this kind of Bill to be truly a Bill which deals with housekeeping matters or matters of a non-controversial nature. Major amendments, such as those which are to be made to the Copyright Act, should not appear in a Bill of this kind. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(11.23) —I thank the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) for his comments on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2). He properly said that no detailed explanation had been given of the amendment to the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976. I am advised that members of a number of Aboriginal associations have expressed a desire to confer membership on the non-Aboriginal spouses of Aboriginal members and specified membership rights on other non- Aboriginals. The amendments to the membership provisions of the Act will enable Aboriginal corporations to include such a provision in their rules should their members so desire. Non-Aboriginal spouses will be able to vote and stand for office but other non-Aboriginals with specified rights will not. This will ensure that the decision-making function remains the responsibility of the Aboriginal members and their spouses. Mr Spender —What about the comma? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That matter has left us without a defence. We do not know exactly what has happened to the comma but we will have it looked at. We will see whether we can make or unmake it and whether it was made or not. The honourable gentleman has left us without a defence at this stage. I do not know why we wanted a comma removed and then replaced. I note the honourable gentleman's comments on the National Crime Authority. I think that the matter has been fully discussed in a number of ways. The only comment I make about dealing with crime in this country-this comment was made yesterday-is that the States have a major interest in that area from the point of view of law enforcement, and certainly through legislation, and we have to consult with them and obtain their agreement for everything we do on the National Crime Authority. The Crimes Act amendment relates to the report tabled by Mr Gyles, QC, in which he pointed out a defect in that an attempt to defraud by an individual did not appear to be covered. The amendment we will move will deal with that. The honourable gentleman raised another matter relating to a provision under the Copyright Act. We propose to move an amendment to that Act. I thank the honourable gentleman for his support. I have already indicated to him the amendments we propose to move. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(11.26) —by leave-I move: (1) Schedule 1, page 15, insert '', or an undertaking within a body administering an educational institution of a kind referred to in a preceding paragraph of this definition, being an institution or undertaking'' after ''an institution'' in proposed paragraph (j) of the definition of ''educational institution'' in sub-section 10 (1) of the Copyright Act 1968; (2) Schedule 1, page 16, proposed sub-section 10A (6) of the Copyright Act 1968 , omit ''education institution'', substitute ''educational institution''. Schedule 1, page 25, after the amendments to the Crimes Act 1914, insert the following amendments of that Act: ''After section 29C- Insert the following section: Fraud '29D. A person who defrauds the Commonwealth or a public authority under the Commonwealth is guilty of an indictable offence. Penalty: $50,000 or imprisonment for 5 years, or both.'. Paragraph 86 (1) (c)- Add at the end thereof 'or'. Paragraph 86 (1) (d)- Omit 'Commonwealth; or', substitute 'Commonwealth.'. Paragraph 86 (1) (e)- Omit the paragraph. After section 86- Insert the following section: Conspiracy to defraud '86A. A person who conspires with another person to defraud the Commonwealth or a public authority under the Commonwealth is guilty of an indictable offence. Penalty: $50,000 or imprisonment for 5 years, or both.'.''. I think the explanation of these amendments has already been given in the remarks made in the second reading debate. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.28) —The amendment to the Crimes Act proposes the introduction of a substantive offence of defrauding the Commonwealth. The reason this offence does not appear in the original Act can be found if one goes back to 1915. It was provided by the Crimes Act 1915 that conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth was an offence. It had been a common law offence and the High Court of Australia, in the case of the King v. Kidman in 1915, determined that the offence in the Act could have a retrospective effect, the argument being put that retrospectivity was not open to the Commonwealth. We have had a great deal of debate on that subject in the House. The amendment adds to the Act the substantive offence of defrauding the Commonwealth and increases the penalties, I think correctly. That now fits in with the existing offence of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth. It is a drafting oversight which has not surfaced for some 70 years. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(11.31) —I thank the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). What he says is right. The proposed amendments will cure this defect which apparently has existed since 1914. The existing Act did not contain a substantive offence and this may result in needless conspiracy charges. The other point I would like to mention is that the penalty for conspiracy to defraud is inadequate. The amendments propose an increase in the penalty that may be imposed. So the proposed new section provides that a person who defrauds the Commonwealth, or a public authority under the Commonwealth, is guilty of an indictable offence. The penalty is $50, 000 or imprisonment for five years or both. The offence of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth, set out in section 86 (1) (e), is omitted and replaced with a proposed new section 86A. In similar terms, it prescribes a penalty of $50,000 or imprisonment for five years or both. I am reminded that the amendment to the Copyright Act is a drafting matter. I thank the honourable gentleman for his co- operation. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 13 September, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed) Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.37) —Even laryngitis would not prevent me from commenting on this important legislation introduced into the Parliament as a result of negotiations, which extended over a period, between the Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and the Tasmanian State Government, represented by the Tasmanian Minister, the Hon. Roger Groom, with reference to an agreement between the Federal and Tasmanian governments for the future of the Bass Strait sea passenger service. I agree with the Minister for Transport that this agreement is a milestone because it should mark the beginning of an improved Bass Strait sea passenger service. I believe that this not only will be of great benefit to the people of Tasmania but also is absolutely essential nationally. The fact that the agreement was reached is indeed commendable. It would be fair to say that there have been difficulties and differences between Tasmania and Federal governments-I mean Federal governments of both political persuasions-on the question of maintaining our sea link, which essentially is the fundamental link between our State and the north island of Australia. Under the agreement Tasmania will acquire the vessel Nils Holgersson. On all reports available to me, that vessel is indeed an appropriate one. Whilst the Minister's own advisers have not accepted any responsibility or given any undertaking that the Nils Holgersson will operate successfully commercially, it is my understanding, from discussions with officers in Transport Tasmania, which is the departmental arm responsible, that it looks as though it will be a successful operation. There are matters, though, which do concern me. I hope that the Minister will not take this as a criticism in that I am expressing a view that probably would not be the view of the Tasmanian State Government. Whilst I see the advantages of Tasmania having autonomy in relation to this service, I express some concern as to what the situation might be if, in the rundown, for one reason or another, the proposed service is not the success which it is hoped it will be. Effectively, the Commonwealth's obligations-the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but this is what I understand the Commonwealth's obligations to be-will cease in relation to the operation of the service. It will be operated by the State of Tasmania. I would hope that we could put on the record in the Parliament today the fact that a future Federal government which found itself in a situation where the Tasmanian Government was having difficulty in maintaining the service under the terms of the agreement would be prepared to hear and respond to any representations which might be put by Tasmania for assistance. One cannot ignore the fact that the Australian National Line services operating to and from Tasmania have been able to operate only because there has been a subvention or subsidy in relation to the maintenance of that service. In short, notwithstanding the provisions of the legislation which place upon the Australian National Line under the Australian Coastal Commission Shipping Act an obligation to run the service economically and to maintain it as such, I think the plain fact is, and has to be stated, that, without the subsidy which has existed since the time of the Whitlam Government, which was increased during the Fraser Government and which has been maintained by the Hawke Government, that service frankly could not operate. From time to time, politicians on both sides of this House raise the question of preferred treatment to Tasmania in relation to the maintenance of our transport links both by sea and by air. I think it is appropriate to make two fundamental points in relation to these matters. The first is that Tasmania as an original State of the Commonwealth is entitled, both in law and as of right, to exactly the same privileges as those enjoyed by other States. We know of rail links between Victoria and South Australia and through to Western Australia; we know of rail links between New South Wales and your home state of Queensland, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is not and can never be any rail link between the State of Victoria and other States in the north island of Australia and the State of Tasmania. Effectively, our sea link is our rail link. It is very significant that under governments of both political persuasions the formula in relation to the freight equalisation scheme, which has operated principally as the result of representations made by Tasmanian members in this Parliament to the Fraser Government and the honouring of a commitment given to the member for Denison, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), the honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom)-- Mr Groom —What will happen to it? Mr HODGMAN —I will come to the honourable member's point in a moment. Mr Goodluck —What about the rumours concerning me? Mr HODGMAN —I will deal with that too. The freight equalisation scheme was originally based on the tonne-kilometre rate in respect of rail freight. Honourable members interjecting- Mr HODGMAN —Madam Deputy Speaker, would you prevent the Minister for Transport from persecuting the honourable member for Franklin? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Will honourable members, including the Minister, cease interjecting. Mr HODGMAN —I have had 15 years as a State referee in amateur boxing and I just want to keep the Minister and the honourable member for Franklin apart for the moment. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will come back to the point. Mr HODGMAN —Yes. Would the Minister be good enough to withdraw the last remark about the honourable member? Mr Peter Morris —The honourable member endorsed the remark. He does not object to it; he has agreed with it. I have no intention of withdrawing it. Mr HODGMAN —Madam Deputy Speaker, for the sake of Hansard, the Minister asked the honourable member for Franklin to tell the truth. The implication-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the honourable member for Denison please proceed. Mr HODGMAN —I will leave it to the honourable member for Franklin to defend himself. I was making the point that in the original freight equalisation scheme the greatest thing ever done for Tasmania by any Federal government-let it never be forgotten-was done by the Fraser Government; that is, the manner in which the compensation was assessed was by equating the tonne-kilometre rate for rail travel as between Victoria and South Australia and Victoria and New South Wales. The second point I want to make for those who criticise the scheme is that no public transport that I am aware of operates as a rule at a profit. It is basically public transport because private enterprise is not prepared to operate that particular service and the government, be it State or Federal, feels duty bound to provide the service. I do not know of any railways in Australia which operate at a profit. It is true that some sections of some services do. I remember a former chief of the Australian National Railways saying: 'If it does not move, freight it by rail'. In other words, moving stock, including human beings, is not a profit maker for the railways, but non-moving cargo is. I have heard it said that there is not a single metropolitan bus service in Australia which operates at a profit. I have further heard it said that there is not a single government operated shipping line which has operated at a profit. So when honourable members on both sides of the House are inclined to ridicule the assistance provided for Tasmania, let me simply say that $31m, which was the highest appropriation under the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme in the Budget appropriation of 1982-83, is a drop in the ocean in a Budget which that year had an appropriation in excess of $53 billion. The honourable members who will follow me in this debate will point out that, in the two Budgets that have come down since the Hawke socialist Government came to power, the amount appropriated under the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme has been reduced. I repeat: It has been reduced. It was reduced in the 1983-84 Budget. It is further reduced in this year's Budget. It is now down to $ 28m compared with $31m. Mr Groom —With no account for inflation. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member has pointed out that that does not even take into account inflation. In real terms we have looked at a massive reduction in freight equalisation payments. That is why many Tasmanians in primary industry, secondary industry and tertiary industry are expressing very grave concern. It is no good the Minister trying to blame the honourable member for Franklin or anyone else in this matter. The plain fact is that the word is abroad in Tasmania that if the Hawke socialist Government is re-elected one of the first items on its hit list will be the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. I know that the Government is saying that it is simply going to be reviewed. We know from past experience that when it is reviewed this inevitably means either a cutback or a cutout. I ask the Minister to give a clear and unequivocal assurance to this House that the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme will not be scrapped if the Government is, by some grotesque misfortune, elected for a further term in office. I ask the Minister to give a further firm undertaking that it will not be cut back under the guise of the review. To enable my colleagues the honourable member for Franklin, the honourable member for Braddon and the honourable member for Wilmot to speak in this matter I will conclude my remarks. Across party lines I express appreciation that the Tasmanian Minister, the Hon. Roger Groom, MHA, and the Federal Minister, the Hon . Peter Morris, MP, were able to bring this agreement to fulfilment. We look forward to the arrival of the Nils Holgersson. From the material I have seen, it is a most attractive looking vessel. I am told by those who have travelled on it -Tasmanian officers and Federal officers have actually seen it-that it is an extremely pleasant vessel. It can be operated with a lesser complement than comparable vessels operating in Australian waters. It will boost dramatically the opportunity of Australians to visit our State. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would know, the main problem in the past has been the waiting time. The service has been so popular that people have had to wait and have had to book 12 to 18 months in advance. My final point is that the ANL has announced, following the signing of this agreement and before the introduction of this Bill into the Parliament, that it may well compete against the Nils Holgersson which will be operated by the State of Tasmania. The ANL did not seem to me to be very concerned, on some of its statements, about getting a new vessel and really building up the Bass Strait trade. Having been fairly low key, it has suddenly become more interested. It may well be that we will have a situation similar to the Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans Australia Airlines situation, with one Federal government operated service competing with one State government operated service-not quite private enterprise, but quasi private enterprise. I do not fear competition, providing the competition is rational and providing we have a situation in which the one service which is to be operated by the State of Tasmania and with the co -operation of private enterprise, namely the Nils Holgersson service, is not put to death. I think it would be an outrage if the ANL was able to use its resources to kill this service before it got off the ground. I hope that the Minister for Transport will not use his response in this debate to attack me. I have tried to keep my remarks reasonably moderate. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept that, if there are problems down the track, it will be the duty of a Federal government, be it this or a subsequent government, to respond sympathetically to representations from Tasmania. I do not believe that this matter should be treated as a political one. We are talking about the lifeblood link of our State and that puts it above, one would hope, the realm of party politics. I have certainly not been political in my remarks today. I wish the new service every success. I look forward to travelling on the Nils Holgersson at the earliest opportunity. I hope that this will open up a new chapter in better links between Tasmania and its sister States and better opportunities for the development of Tasmania's most impressive tourism industry. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(11.51) —My desire to speak on the Bass Strait Sea Passenger Service Agreement Bill 1984 stems from the fact that my electorate of Flinders borders Bass Strait and therefore has a common border with Tasmania. I feel that Tasmanians deserve at least one member in this place to speak for them , so I have nominated myself to be that person. The Labor Government has provided over $25m for the purchase of the Nils Holgersson to provide sea passenger services to the beautiful State of Tasmania. It is one of the nicest States in the Commonwealth. I have visited the island many times and I know that Tasmanians can be justly proud of their fine island. They have the right to good representation in this House. However, I am sorry to say that in March 1983 they seem to have elected the wrong people, people who are in conflict with their coalition partners. Let me read some very notable quotations from the shadow Minister and from Tasmanian members. This is from the Opposition shadow Minister for Transport: I ask the Treasurer whether it is necessary, for defence purposes, that some Australians-- Mr Goodluck —I warn the member that the die is cast. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! You do not have the call. Mr Goodluck —If he is going to make this a political exercise it will be on for young and old. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the honourable member for Franklin be seated? Mr Goodluck —I warn him that there will be no peace movement. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Franklin. He does not have the call. Please do not get up and shout across the House without addressing the Chair. Mr Goodluck —I have warned the Minister at the table. He has been dishing it up for a few years. He is going to get a bit back today. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Would the honourable member for Flinders like to continue? Mr CHYNOWETH —This is what the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) said: I ask the Treasurer whether it is necessary, for defence purposes, that some Australians occupy Tasmania. Is this the only reason some Australians live in that State? Will the Treasurer table a cost-benefit study indicating how much mainland Australian taxpayers contribute to the maintenance of the population of Tasmania? Will the Treasurer consider transferring all Tasmanian subsidy appropriations to the defence vote? Failing this, can the amount be transferred to the social welfare vote? Failing that, can the sovereignty of Tasmania be transferred to New Zealand and, if any subsidies are still required, can they be paid under the foreign aid vote? Mr Milton —Who said that? Mr CHYNOWETH —That was the honourable member for Hume. That surprises me. I am quite certain that the people of Tasmania will be appalled when they hear that their coalition partners represented here in Canberra are trying to give away the beautiful island of Tasmania to New Zealand. It is a disgrace. The majority of Australian people realise that they must receive assistance and those of us in the Labor Party are very pleased to support and assist Tasmania. Even as late as 12 o'clock last night the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) was complaining that moneys given to Tasmania for assistance should be removed. The Liberal and National parties have no policies to assist Tasmania. The division within the coalition is as deep as the waters of Bass Strait, and they are saying these things in public. It is indeed a shame that in-fighting in the coalition should effect all Tasmanians. I would like to bring to the notice of the listening public some of the assistance that the Hawke Government has given. Before I do so, I remind people in Tasmania of something that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) said: We in Tasmania realise that we have to be sensible and have to realise, once and for all, that we cannot be continually propped up by the mainland. Obviously he does not want the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme to continue . That is a disgrace. Mr Goodluck —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like that removed from the record. It is totally untrue. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —There is no point of order. Mr CHYNOWETH —I would like to remind the people of what Bruce did say and where it actually came from. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member please refer to honourable members by their title? Mr CHYNOWETH —I am sorry. I would like to remind the people of what the honourable member for Franklin said: We in Tasmania realise that we have to be sensible and have to realise, once and for all, that we cannot be continually propped up by the mainland. This is in Hansard for 2 November 1983, at page 2229. I would like to bring to the notice of those listening some of the assistance that we in the Hawke Labor Government have given to Tasmania. Federal transport assistance to Tasmania in 1984-85: Roads, $51m; rail, $21m; Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme, $29m; Empress of Australia subsidy-- Mr Hodgman —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has just misled the House. It was reduced in 1983-84. Do not say that it has gone up . Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. I call the honourable member for Flinders. Mr CHYNOWETH —I am talking about the 1984-85 assistance. The Empress of Australia subsidy comes to about $2m. The total is approximately $103m, or $2m a week. That is a huge amount. I am quite certain that the voters of Tasmania will remember that in the coming months. The Hawke Government has shown a genuine concern for the State of Tasmania that no other past government has shown. I am sure that the people of Tasmania will wish to be represented in this House after the next election by Labor members who will truly represent them in the next Hawke Labor Government. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(11.58) —I think the cynical and sarcastic speech that we have just heard from the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth) will put paid to any chance that the Australian Labor Party may have thought it had of winning seats in Tasmania. I am quite certain that people in Tasmania listening to this broadcast and hearing the cynicism that has just been put forward by the honourable member and his colleagues would have no doubt as to where their votes should go at this coming election. In that regard I thank the honourable member for his contribution, having put paid to any chances that his candidate colleagues may have thought they had in Tasmania. The Bass Strait Sea Passenger Service Agreement Bill 1984, which has been outlined by my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), provides essentially for an agreement between the Tasmanian and Federal governments to provide $26m for the purchase of the vessel Nils Holgersson as ostensibly a replacement for the Empress of Australia to conduct the passenger service across Bass Strait. The intention of this agreement is for the Tasmanian Government, having received that money from the Federal Government, to purchase the vessel and operate the service. I give credit to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), who is at the table, for having shown sufficient confidence in the Tasmanian Government's ability to operate that service more efficiently and more effectively than the Australian National Line has done in the past. I share that confidence in the capacity of the Tasmanian Government to operate that service in a way that will best suit the interests of Tasmania. I am quite certain that Mr Gray and his Government will be able to provide that service very effectively. While I compliment the Minister and the Government on providing $26m for the purchase of what will, I believe, be a very good and very capable ship for that service, I must admit that I have some reservations about subsequent matters that have occurred. My colleague the honourable member for Denison mentioned that the Australian National Line has now given notice that it intends to continue the operations of the Empress of Australia on the Bass Strait run. As I read the Minister's second reading speech, there is little doubt in my mind that the $26m being granted to the Tasmanian Government for the purchase of this new vessel was at all times intended to be used for a replacement for the Empress of Australia. I pose this question to the Minister: If it was the intention of the Minister and the Federal Government to use this specifically for a replacement for the Empress of Australia, what is the Federal Government's attitude towards the ANL maintaining the Empress of Australia on the existing run? Is it the intention of the Federal Government to spend a huge amount of money refitting the Empress of Australia, which under Federal law must be refitted by 1985, so that it can continue its operations? If that is so, that amount of money will have to be spent in addition to the $26m that is presently being granted. I wonder what involvement the Federal Government may have had in causing the Australian National Line to come to the conclusion that it should maintain the Empress of Australia. I wonder whether that conclusion was reached in conjunction with the Federal Government or whether the Australian National Line reached that conclusion in conjunction with the unions. The involvement of the combined maritime unions on Bass Strait shipping gives me great cause for concern. The honourable member for Flinders in his contribution mentioned that successive Federal governments have provided a substantial amount of money for Bass Strait shipping by way of subsidies to the Australian National Line. But what the honourable member did not mention was the reason for that subsidy. I remind him that the major reason that subsidy is necessary is the unrealistic demands by the combined maritime unions over such things as staffing levels, maintaining manning levels on the vessels, the amount that these people are paid, their amount of time off and all the rest of it. These things, which cause exorbitant running costs for these vessels, are the reasons why we have to have taxpayers' funds subsidising the Bass Strait operations. It is not because of any factors in Tasmania, or any lack of passengers or freight; it is simply because of the unrealistic demands by unions and their ever avaricious demands for more and more pay and better and better conditions. That is why Bass Strait shipping is so expensive. The other thing that concerns me about the involvement of the unions-I can vouch for this from my own involvement with shipping prior to my entry into this Parliament because I worked as an executive with a shipping operator in Tasmania-- Dr Everingham —Were you on an award? Mr BURR —No, I do not want an award. I just happened to work for the Holyman line, which has had many years of experience of shipping to Tasmania. We found from our experience on that operation that it was always the combined maritime unions' intention that the Australian National Line should have a complete monopoly of shipping across Bass Strait. They made absolutely no bones about it. They pursued that objective with great vigour and never let up on it. It worries me greatly that at the moment the Federal Government is making $26m available to the Tasmanian Government to purchase a new vessel. That, we assume, has been done in conjunction with and with the co-operation of the Australian National Line. But suddenly we find the Australian National Line reversing its apparent co-operation in this matter and announcing that it intends to maintain the Empress of Australia, which will effectively be in competition with this new vessel. I am concerned that that may have been done with the provocation of the combined maritime unions because it may well be the intention of those unions to cause such industrial disruption for this new vessel that it will be unable to compete economically with an old and outdated ship such as the Empress of Australia. I will be very interested to learn what involvement the Minister and the Federal Government may have had in that decision to retain the Empress of Australia. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House for overly long. My colleague the honourable member for Denison has already mentioned the freight equalisation scheme. We are conscious that the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme is at present under investigation by Mr Justice-- Mr Groom —It is under threat. Mr BURR —Yes, as my colleague from Braddon said, it may well be under threat, but it is also under investigation by Mr Justice Everett. Mr Groom —And the Inter-State Commission. Mr BURR —And the Inter-State Commission; the honourable member is quite right. While we accept the proposition that the freight equalisation scheme should be regularly reviewed and we have every confidence in Mr Justice Everett to conduct that review very fairly and to come up with a most adequate report, we still feel that there is some reason to be concerned in Tasmania that it may well be the first stage of the freight equalisation scheme being scrapped. I remind the Minister that the freight equalisation scheme is extremely important for the Tasmanian economy because it has enabled Tasmanian producers to compete on the mainland markets on a fair and equitable basis, and not to be constantly impeded by the cost of Bass Strait shipping. I thank the Minister for the allocation of $26m that has been made available for the purchase of the Nils Holgersson. I am sure the Tasmanian Minister, Mr Groom, and the Tasmanian Premier, Mr Gray, would also want to pass on their thanks to the Minister. I express my confidence in the capacity of the Tasmanian Government to operate this service very efficiently and very effectively. I am sure that in the long term, provided that it is given a fair opportunity to show its worth by the union movement, this vessel and the way in which it is operated by the Tasmanian Government will prove very beneficial to Tasmania. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(12.08) —I wish just to correct a couple of items before commenting on the Bass Strait Sea Passenger Service Agreement Bill. Earlier, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) indicated that Tasmania is entitled to exactly the same privileges as are enjoyed by every other State. I suggest that if that were the case it would rapidly become a terrible backwater. Tasmania requires more than that and it always has done. I also wish to comment on the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. It is true that the scheme has been referred to the Inter-State Commission, which is examining it to see whether it is doing what it was intended to do. I do not believe that it is proper to adopt the rather paranoid approach indicated on the other side of the House by implying that somehow or other this will result in a deliberate disadvantage to Tasmania. That is quite appalling. It is an appalling indictment of the Commission and of the Minister and I do not think those sorts of implications sit very well with the other side of the House. The third matter is that of the Australian National Line challenge, as it was put. I would have thought that, as the upholders of the private enterprise system, members of the Opposition would have clamoured for the challenge. It is interesting that the Hobart Mercury and the Launceston Examiner both accept as desirable the possible continuation of a competing ship for ANL, especially for those times during the year when ferry services are extremely important. We cannot have a socialised private enterprise remaining a private enterprise. It is a case of competition, and that is fair enough. This is what the Hobart Mercury stated in an editorial on Wednesday, 3 October: The Tasmanian Government, which purports to support free enterprise, can only welcome the news that the Australian National Line is considering challenging its rights to rule the tourist waves on Bass Strait with its new ferry, the Nils Holgersson. I think that is extremely good. The Examiner made this comment: What the ANL is now considering is exactly what the State Government was begging of the Federal Government last year-to provide another ferry for the Bass Strait crossing during the hectic six months when space prevents thousands of would be tourists from making the trip. That is true; it has. Tourism is a tremendous industry to Tasmania. I also believe that tourism is a tremendous industry to my electorate of Ballarat. I have great faith in the development of the tourist industry. Tasmania requires as much as it can get. It requires as many berths across Bass Strait as it can possibly get. It has been stated that the purpose of the Bill is to approve an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Tasmania to provide a grant in excess of $25m to enable the Tasmanian Government to acquire the German ferry , the Nils Holgersson. In the long term the ferry will replace the Empress of Australia and will provide the opportunity for a much improved Bass Strait sea passenger service and freight service between Tasmania and the mainland. The grant will enable the State Government to purchase the ferry and to make necessary modifications to it and to terminal facilities in both Melbourne and Devonport. The Tasmanian Government has given an assurance that it will accept all the responsibility for the operation of the vessel for a period of not less than 10 years. The Government is quite certain that the ferry will run profitably. That statement by the Tasmanian Minister for Transport, Mr Groom, was reported in the Hobart Mercury on 31 August. In addition, he is reported as stating that the financial viability was such that it would withstand competition, provided that ANL continued to operate the Empress of Australia. He really believes that it will be a financial success and, of course, we wish the venture well. It will be a great boon to Tasmania to have the Nils Holgersson. It will also enable Tasmania to adjust the service across the Strait as it sees fit. The Tasmanian Liberal Party members of this House say that the Hawke Government neglects their State. That is nonsensical. My colleague the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Chynoweth) detailed the sorts of assistance we have given and will continue to give, and that statement could not be further from the truth. The problem of a modern and adequate passenger transport service between Victoria and Tasmania has existed for years. It was obvious long ago that the Empress of Australia could no longer meet the demand on its own and provide the level of comfort and convenience required by modern tourists. I congratulate the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) on his concern for the welfare of Tasmanians and his willingness to come to grips with this problem of the inadequate Bass Strait passenger service. The fact that little was done over the seven years of the previous Government to speed up the response to the needs of tourists is an indictment of that Government and also of the Tasmanian members. The Opposition does not appear to have a uniform policy on the welfare of Tasmania, and my colleague the honourable member for Flinders has pointed that out. The anti-Tasmanian statements of a number of members of the National Party of Australia over the past few months-that includes the Opposition's spokesperson on transport, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher)-probably partly explains why Tasmania did so badly during the seven years of the Fraser Government. I commend the Tasmanian Government for taking over the responsibility for the ferry. As we know, the ANL is moving out of this enterprise until such time as it determines whether it will maintain a service. It could not have done it alone. The assistance of the Commonwealth Government was essential, even though not all Tasmanian politicians will accept that. For instance, many people do not recognise that the honourable member for Franklin-I must repeat this because I think that Tasmanians certainly need to understand it-sometimes speaks without giving sufficient thought to the consequences of his statements, and I am being kind to him. I repeat what he has said: We in Tasmania realise that we have to be sensible and have to realise, once and for all, that we cannot be continually propped up by the mainland. I believe the words 'propped up' are most inappropriate and inexact. Of course the service will constantly require subsidisation. We know that, so let us not get ourselves lost in that maze of fiction. I believe that the service will require Federal assistance for many years to come, and I suggest that the island State would become a very sad social and economic backwater if it did not receive assistance. This action by the Federal and State governments will help to avert that fate for Tasmania. According to the advice received by the Federal Minister from his counterpart in Tasmania, the ferry should commence operations in March 1985. I hope that that time schedule is kept. The 900 passengers and 440 cars capacity of the ferry is twice the capacity of the Empress of Australia and should greatly assist the country. I must say that had this debate been held last night the only Opposition representative on the speakers list was the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Hume, who is not here today. Not one Tasmanian politician was prepared to make one comment in support of this cross-strait ferry. Mr Groom —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. In fact on our list on this side there were three Tasmanian speakers. I am happy to talk today if the honourable member wants to hear me. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! There is no point of order. I would like to make a comment regarding the frivolous points of order which Opposition members have been taking this morning. I refer honourable members to Standing Orders and ask them not to abuse them. The form of a point of order is to raise a legitimate mistake by an honourable member who is not sticking to the Standing Orders. They are being abused and I ask honourable members to cease abusing them or the Chair will have to take action. Mr MILDREN —I will bring my speech to a close. There will be good representation from Tasmania following the next election. The new members will be Vicky Buchanan in Bass, Greg Peart in Braddon, David Llewellyn in Lyons, John Devereux in Franklin, and Kaye Spurr in Denison. Mr Groom —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member has now sat down but what was the relevance-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. Will the honourable member please be seated and in future take note of the comments of the Chair. Mr Groom —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I make my point? My point was that the honourable member who has just sat down read out the names of the Labor candidates in Tasmania. I ask you: Was that relevant to the Bill we are debating ? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Groom —Do you suggest that that is relevant to the-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Franklin. Mr Groom —What an absurd ruling! Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Braddon will not reflect on the Chair. I ask him to act maturely, observe the courtesies of the House, and not act in such a kindergarten manner. It reduces the level of debate in this House. I call the honourable member for Franklin. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(12.19) —I was going to thank the Minister for Transport ( Mr Peter Morris) for doing a good job in negotiating with the Tasmanian Minister for Transport. I will not do that because he has turned this debate into a cynical political exercise. Time and time again he has deliberately tried to take the mickey out of me. Today I reckon he has things organised in his file to talk about what B. J. Goodluck did about the Australian Trader. There may also be something about the Tasman Limited. Mr Chynoweth —Pardon? Mr GOODLUCK —I tell it straight to the honourable member for Flinders: I am not ashamed of anything that I have said about Tasmania. I love it; I live and breathe for it. Even Dorian Gray, the Prime Minister, will probably use the suggestion during the next election campaign that Bruce Goodluck was ashamed to be a Tasmanian. I was ashamed to be a Tasmanian when the great white god went down there and stupid Tasmanian people flung their arms around him after he had got rid of the dam. That is why I said it. Mr Chynoweth —You have said it again. Mr GOODLUCK —I am not ashamed to repeat anything that I have said about Tasmania . I shall go into the next election campaign and do my best to represent Tasmania. This is a great thing for Tasmania. The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), prompted by the Minister, brought out a notice of motion during the week to the effect that Tasmanian members were frightened, too timid, to say anything about the National Party and the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher). We are not a bit responsible for him. He, tongue-in-cheek, can say what he likes about Tasmania. We work with him. We are not ashamed of what he has been saying, because he probably said it tongue-in-cheek. What prompted my notice of motion was the suggestion by the honourable member for Grayndler that we were too timid to resurrect it. My notice of motion has probably upset the Minister. I am not a promoter of rumours in Tasmania about the freight equalisation scheme. I have not said a word about it in public. It is everywhere in Tasmania. I am afraid that it has been referred to the Inter-State Commission. Of course people talk-but let it not be said that it came from me or from the other Tasmanian members, because it did not. We cannot help it. If honourable members opposite want a political fight on this issue, we are quite prepared to give it to them, at any time and in any place or forum. None of the five of us can be ashamed of what we have tried to do. Admittedly, we have not always got our own way, but we have done fairly well for the people of Tasmania, and they know it. It all started with Billy Snedden. He was the architect of a plan for Tasmania. We have tried to the best of our ability-- Mr Burr —And we have been successful, too. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, but we do not talk about that. It is silly for Government members to try to be cynical about certain things that we have said and done, such as my talking about whether Tasmania needs to be propped up. Mr Milton —You did say it. Mr GOODLUCK —Of course I said it. We want to be independent of the crowd over here. We do not want to be dependent on the greenies and the other trendies that walk Australia. We want to make our own decisions. We want to be on our own two feet. I repeat: If we in Tasmania could survive without some of the subsidies, we would love to do so. We would like to be independent. We did not want the interference in the dam matter. Government members know that they made a bad mistake with that, because they have re-elected five members in Tasmania. We shall get elected again, because the people of Tasmania will not allow them to forget that they trod on our rights and interfered with what we wanted to do. We shall remember. That is why I said what I said. We want to be independent and to try to make our own way. That is all that we ask. It is only automatic that we fight for a slice of the cake. We are normal politicians representing our electors to the best of our ability, and we want what we can get from the cake. I come now to the ship. We are depending on that ship. It will be a great advantage to Tasmania. We are a tourist isle. Thank goodness the Tasmanian Government and the tourism authorities have woken up to themselves in Tasmania and are using the hook once again-the apple. We are the Apple Isle. We shall always remain that. It does not matter what some trendy journalists and socialists say about things, that we should be this or that; we want to have the heart of Tasmania, once again, as the Apple Isle. We shall attract tourists. We can talk about the lovely parts of Tasmania. As a result of that, people from the mainland will visit Tasmania. The ferry is very interesting. I refer to today's Hobart Mercury. Of course, my name is not mentioned in it, again. Mr Chynoweth —Oh, bad luck! Mr GOODLUCK —That is absolutely right. The more that one tries in this world, the less one is thought of. Does the honourable member not agree? The Hobart Mercury has given Steedman two articles, two full pages. He has had more publicity than I have had all the year. I have tried for Tasmania; I try, try, try. But that fellow is brought down and is given all the publicity. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I ask the honourable gentleman to return to the terms of the Bill. Mr GOODLUCK —Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. But that is what it is about really. Anyway, the Hobart Mercury has written a very good article. It states: The new Bass Strait ferry, Nils Holgersson, will have to carry 150,000 passengers in the first year of operation to make a profit. Last year the Empress of Australia carried 125,000 people and had to have a multi-million dollar Commonwealth subsidy. I think that it ran at a loss of about $2.3m, from memory; so it needed assistance. It could not survive by itself. It will save the taxpayers of Australia X amount of dollars if the ferry can run economically and efficiently and be self-sufficient. That is our hope. We need people to visit Tasmania. Because of the downturn in our industries, we definitely need tourism. We need the spin-off that comes from people visiting Tasmania. They buy local products and stay in the hotels there, and we are geared for that. They are essential. For that reason, I welcome the ferry to Tasmania. I am sure that it will be successful. We in Tasmania will give it all the support that we can. Some of the tourist officers do not seem to promote Tasmania as I should like them to do. Even the air hostesses put on their overcoats on arrival in Hobart and say: 'My word, it's cold'. It is a lot colder in Melbourne and in Canberra. Mr Hodgman —My word it is. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes. That is a factor. We must be absolutely positive about Tasmania. We must talk about it; about the beauty and about what people can get when they go there. We must talk about the tranquillity. That is what we want. Mr Milton —Sunburn. Mr GOODLUCK —One can get sunburnt in Tasmania, too, in summer. The beaches are the best in the world. Tasmania has everything going for it. Mr Chynoweth —Oh! Mr Groom —He has never been to Tasmania. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member has never been to Tasmania? Mr Chynoweth —I have been to Tasmania several times. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman will speak through the Chair. The honourable member on my right will not speak at all. Mr GOODLUCK —I hope that the Minister has a tab on everything that I have said. I hope that you tell the people of Tasmania what a bad boy Bruce Goodluck is, what he has done for Tasmania, what he has said about the ferry and what he has said about the Tasman Limited. I see that he has got it already. Mr Peter Morris —Here is my handkerchief. Mr GOODLUCK —I do not cry. I never cry in public. Mr Peter Morris —You could have fooled me. Mr GOODLUCK —It is not good to cry in public. Mr Milton —You froth at the mouth sometimes. Mr GOODLUCK —Sure, I froth at the mouth. Anyway, I think that I have said enough about the ferry. I hope that I have defused the Minister's political onslaught. The Minister's advisers can smile. They have probably docked everything about me . If they have, bad luck-it is Goodluck. We welcome the ferry. I thank the Minister for his work with the ferry in co- operation with the Minister in Tasmania. Mr Burr —The ANL! Mr GOODLUCK —Perhaps the Minister will give us a few answers about the Australian National Line. Mr Peter Morris —Leave it until after this. Mr GOODLUCK —The Minister indicates that the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), has already asked the questions. We need to know what the ANL will be doing in the future so that we can be prepared to support as much as possible the advent of this ferry, which will be of great advantage to the people of Tasmania. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(12.28) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the honourable member for Flinders ( Mr Chynoweth), the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr), the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) for their contributions to the debate and for the kind remarks expressed by a number of them. I shall take on board for consideration the serious parts of the contribution by the honourable member for Franklin. I do not believe the belly- aching and the bleating do anything to advance the cause of Tasmania. Tasmania has serious transport disabilities. We have sought to address those positively and constructively. The belly-aching and the bleating do not do Tasmania any justice; nor do they provide any assistance. The honourable member for Denison raised the question: 'What if the service is not a success?' Let me repeat that the agreement provides for independence and control of the new vessel by the Tasmanian Government. The financial responsibility is that of the Tasmanian Government in respect of the operations of the vessel for a period of 10 years, which is its expected economic life. As to whether the service is not a success, that is the view being put by the honourable member for Denison. On the basis of the information provided by the Tasmanian Government, and in its judgment, the service should be a great success and a financial success. In respect of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme, I deplore the rumour- mongering coming from the Tasmanian members of the Liberal Party in this place on that issue. It is doing serious harm and damage. It is being spread around Tasmania only by the Federal Liberal Party members in this chamber; let there be no mistake about that. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Newman) is missing. If it continues, all it will do is create instability and undermine confidence in a State that needs every assistance it can get and every strengthening of confidence it can get. This Government is determined to give it that confidence. We will not have a bar of the rumour-mongering and mischief that are coming from Opposition members. The Inter-State Commission which is carrying out the review of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme is led by an eminent Tasmanian, Mr Justice Mervyn Everett. Are the members of the Liberal Party opposite suggesting that the Commission is not doing its job, that there is some incompetence or irresponsibility? I hope they are not suggesting that. I know that they will be rejected by the Tasmanian people if they are suggesting that. The Government is putting to the Tasmanian people and to Tasmanian industry the following question : Please tell us your views, your aspirations, and what you see as the needs of a freight equalisation service or a freight subsidy. That course has to be followed. It has had wide support in Tasmania; it has had a positive effect in that people have a forum in which to put the facts. Having watched the Press coverage it has received in Tasmania, I know that the work of the Inter-State Commission is being supported by the mass of Tasmanians and certainly by Tasmanian industry. It will report to me by 31 March. Mr Burr —I can see the honourable member for Herbert laughing behind you. He knows what happens in these matters. Mr PETER MORRIS —If the honourable member for Wilmot wants to throw cold water and be negative about everything related to Tasmania, then no doubt he will go ahead, but I hope that he will stand up and be counted. We are doing something positive for Tasmania. There is a concern about the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme expressed by members of the Opposition, and it comes from the National Party. I deplore the attacks made on that subsidy and subsidies in general for Tasmania which are coming from the National Party, particularly the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). As I have said on a number of previous occasions, I think it is time those members who presently represent Tasmania stood up in this place and put a case for Tasmania and did something about the denigration of those subsidies and assistance that is coming from the National Party in this place. Let it not be suggested to me that the Government is not acting positively on the freight equalisation scheme. The present Government is doing something that the previous Government did not do. The previous Government could not get its act together; it would not review the scheme and would not update the application of the appropriate provisions to Tasmania. I do not know what the objective of the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) was in seeking to attack the Australian National Line and its intentions for the Empress of Australia after it comes out of service. The legislation under which the ANL operates had the unanimous support of this chamber and the other chamber . It gives ANL greater responsibility and greater independence in its operations . It requires ANL to exercise a much greater degree of commercial judgment in the operation of its services. The Australian National Line, like any other shipping operator, is looking at the services it provides. It will exercise its own commercial judgment in what it does in respect of services across Bass Strait. Let it be clear that the provision of services across the Strait is unrestricted. Section 92 of the Constitution prevents the regulation of services across the Strait. It is simply a matter for the commercial judgment of a firm or organisation or the judgment of a government as to what services might be operated or withdrawn and what are to be the prices of those services. Opposition members should not do Tasmania a disservice by confusing the picture. I want to look at the matter from a much more positive angle. The Government appreciates the co-operation that has been received from the Tasmanian Minister for Transport in the negotiation of this arrangement. Between that Minister and me there has been straight dealing and forthrightness and we have reached a satisfactory conclusion. That is to the benefit of both Tasmania and this nation . Under this arrangement this Government has given Tasmania its greatest chance in history to develop its tourist industry and to provide a better quality of sea passenger service across the Strait. We have given the Tasmanian Government the freedom and independence to determine what the frequency of service should be, what the charges should be-and along with that goes the responsibility of bearing the costs and earning the profits that will derive from that service. That commitment, the provision of $26m and the passage of this legislation are evidence of the positive commitment of this Government to the people of Tasmania . In addition, I remind the House that there is Federal transport assistance to Tasmania of $2m per week for road and rail. Added to that sum of $2m per week in terms of road and rail and the freight equalisation subsidy is this additional amount of $26m to put the Tasmanian sea passenger service on a proper footing and give Tasmania the independence and the commitment to carry out the services that Tasmanians most need. I hold strongly to the view that who better knows the potential of the Tasmanian tourist industry than the Tasmanians themselves. Who is in a better position to develop that potential, and who is in a better position to know the transport needs of Tasmanians generally across the Strait than the Tasmanians themselves. We have accepted that proposition during the negotiations, and we wholeheartedly support it. The vessel is being provided with the goodwill of this Government and with our determination to give a better service to the people of Tasmania. I appreciate the kind remarks expressed by some honourable members. I hope that there will be an end to the rumour- mongering in regard to the freight equalisation service and the actions by the National Party against the subsidy rather than the service. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of this chamber when I wish the vessel well in service and wish all those who work in it and who travel in the vessel a safe journey. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Peter Morris) read a third time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Bill returned from the Senate with a request. Ordered that the request be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House forthwith. Senate's requested amendment- Page 6, after clause 6, insert the following new clause: Allowance payable to Solicitor-General ''6A. (1) On and after 1 January 1985, there is payable to a person- (a) who holds the office of Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth; (b) whose principal place of residence was, at the time when the person's appointment, or first appointment, as the case may be, to that office took effect, at a place outside, but not in a part of New South Wales that is adjacent to or in the vicinity of, the Australian Capital Territory; and (c) whose headquarters for the purposes of payment of travelling allowance are in the Australian Capital Territory and who, in accordance with a requirement made upon the appointment of the person to that office, has established the person's principal place of residence in the Australian Capital Territory or in a part of New South Wales that is adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Australian Capital Territory, an allowance at such rate as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal for the period in which the person maintains the principal place of residence established as mentioned in paragraph (c). ''(2) An allowance payable by virtue of sub-section (1) shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly.''. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(12.38) —I move: That the new clause requested to be inserted be so inserted. The purpose of the amendment is to authorise the payment to the Solicitor- General of a Canberra allowance to assist him in making his working headquarters in Canberra. At present this type of allowance is given to High Court justices. The arrangement with the previous Solicitor-General was that the Solicitor- General should retain his principal place of residence in Sydney and commute to Canberra three days a week. Conservatively, this arrangement involved expenditure in the order of $20,000 per annum and was subject to parliamentary criticism. The proposed Canberra allowance for the present Solicitor-General is proposed to be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, but the rate which is currently determined for justices of the High Court is $9,900 per annum. Given that the present Solicitor-General lives in Melbourne and, were he not to shift to Canberra, would have to be paid travel allowance expenses for approximately 40 trips per annum of four days each, a saving, as I said, of over $20,000 would be involved. A number of movements in the Solicitor-General's entitlements approved by Parliament indicate a clear intention to equate the Solicitor-General with judges of Federal courts. The most recent was the amendment to the Law Officers Act last year which gave the Solicitor-General the same entitlement to salary, in lieu of long service leave, as High Court and other Federal judges have. I commend the amendment. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(12.41) —Any remarks I have to put to the Committee on this clause are not, of course, to be construed as being any criticism of Dr Griffith who is the new appointee to this important position in the structure of government. However, the matter is not nearly as reasonable as it is made out to be by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) because this amendment proposes to re-establish, by way of payment of special allowances, a form of disability allowance for living in Canberra. That seems to revive the old system which used to operate, I understand, some time ago when it was considered to be an enormous disadvantage to live in Australia's capital city. In an age when Canberra has developed to the stage where half a billion dollars is being spent on Capital Hill to provide a new Parliament House, one would think of Canberra as one of the finest cities in Australia and not deserving of being regarded as part of an underdeveloped Territory. Therefore, it seems to me and to the Opposition that we ought not be in the business of providing special allowances to enable people who occupy top positions to live in Canberra as though they were suffering a disadvantage by so doing. This amendment is not the same as the amendments made to provide the $9,900 per annum allowance for justices of the High Court of Australia. This situation is not the same at all. In the latter case a specific allowance was given to enable justices of the High Court to live outside Canberra on the basis that they ought not to become separate from the general Australian community. Mr Hodgman —Centralised. Mr STEELE HALL —It was designed to enable them to continue to know of and to partake in the activities of normal citizens in the community so that in their adjudication as justices of the highest appeal court in the land and in interpreting the Constitution they would be subject to normal public opinion and attitudes. That allowance was given on the basis that they could live away from Canberra. The $9,900 was to be paid to them in lieu of travelling allowances. This allowance is quite the reverse. It is an allowance in prospect to be worked out by the Remuneration Tribunal to enable the Solicitor-General to live in Canberra where he is performing his job. That situation is quite different. As I understand it, and I think it is quite certain, High Court justices who live in Canberra do not receive that $9,900. I think one or two of them do live here but most of them choose not to, yet fulfil their role. They do not receive a sum for living in Canberra. Mr Young —But it is absolutely essential, in our opinion, that the Solicitor- General live in Canberra. Mr STEELE HALL —That is fair enough. I am not quarrelling with the Minister's direction. It may or may not be necessary for the Solicitor-General to live in Canberra. If the employer wants him here that is fair enough. That can be stipulated in the arrangements. But I believe that the error in the Government's appointment lies in its negotiation of the conditions of that appointment. When this matter was raised in the Senate in response to Senator Durack's protest at the return to the old method of regarding Canberra as a second rate city and meeting that view with special allowances, the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) responded to a reference about the way in which the new Solicitor-General was appointed by saying that Dr Griffith was delighted to be appointed Solicitor-General but the trouble was that he just woke up the next morning to what was involved. It appears that these matters were in no way settled by the Government in its discussions with the new Solicitor-General. It seems to me that the Government has made a mess of the arrangements. That is the basis of the problem. The Government should have discussed the situation with Dr Griffith and looked at all aspects of it. It should have look at his relocation and, because of the requirement that he live in Canberra, established a salary package on the basis of a normal attitude that Dr Griffith is an Australian citizen and is looking forward, no doubt, to a long term in his high position in Canberra. He should do that in a normal way, with a normal salary, as most other people do, and he should not have to rely on a yearly payment from the Remuneration Tribunal, especially for the purpose of relocation. If relocation is a consideration, it should be included in his salary. In that way the situation would be normalised. Therefore, the Opposition does not view this amendment with high regard at all. As I have said, it believes that the Government has muffed it. It has simply failed to negotiate properly the conditions of Dr Griffith's appointment. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —I ask the honourable member whether he has much more to say. If he does I will have to interrupt the debate. Mr STEELE HALL —Acknowledging that the pressure of time is somewhat great I will not repeat myself as some of us are apt to do when time is more freely available to us. I make the point that this situation is not at all the same as that of High Court justices. It re-establishes an old principle. I do not believe that a special payment should be made which will then be demanded, and quite rightly demanded if it exists, by other appointees to senior positions. It will open up a bottomless pit in the future. The protests made in the Senate are also valid in this House. The Opposition will not move to try to defeat this motion in some symbolic way in this chamber with its inferior numbers. To do so would seem to be an attack on a person for whom I am sure all of us have the highest respect. There is no way that we intend to be involved in such action. However we want to protest emphatically that this amendment, if agreed to, will lead to most undesirable practices in the future, by a distortion of salary packages, and to a false expectation by future appointees to the office. Madam DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I thank the honourable member for Boothby for observing the restricted time and cutting his comments short. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Sitting suspended from 12.48 to 2 p.m. Motion (by Mr Hawke)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Prime Minister moving forthwith a motion congratulating the Australian Mount Everest ascent team. Mr SPEAKER —There being no dissentient voice, I declare the motion carried by an absolute majority. Motion Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(2.01) —Mr Speaker, I am indebted to the House. I move: That this House congratulates the Australian team who successfully completed their ascent of the north face of Mount Everest and commends the dedication, courage and initiative of those involved. All Australians should indeed be very proud of the achievements of the Australian mountaineers who conquered Mount Everest on Wednesday. As we all appreciate, Tim Macartney-Snape and Greg Mortimer were the first Australians to achieve this feat. Their success, quite tremendous in itself, was magnified by the fact that they were the first climbers of any nation to scale the north face in the post-monsoon period and that they were the first to climb the face without oxygen. There is no need to speak at length on this because I know that we are all at one. As Australians we can take pride in this achievement in yet another area of endeavour by an Australian team. It adds yet another accomplishment to the long list of Australian triumphs in sport and other fields of endeavour in recent times. I suppose the other one which comes very much to mind is the achievement, just a year ago, of the Australian team in Australia II . As patron of the expedition and one who has been kept in touch through correspondence from that intrepid journalist and correspondent, Simon Balderstone, I take particular satisfaction from this demonstration by an Australian team of its capacity to meet this great challenge. There are so many differences of opinion across the House but I know that this is an occasion when we are at one, when I speak for every member in this House-indeed, I believe I speak for all Australians-in congratulating not only those who were involved directly in this magnificent achievement but also the sponsors, the Channel 9 Wide World of Sport, and all who in any way contributed to a truly magnificent achievement. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.03) —The Opposition joins the Government in congratulating the Australian team on what I think the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has described, certainly in words akin to it, as a history making assault on Mount Everest. On Wednesday, through the courage, skill and daring of Tim Macartney-Snape, Geoff Bartram, Greg Mortimer, Andrew Henderson and Lincoln Hall, Australia reached the top of the world. Tim Macartney-Snape and Greg Mortimer joined one of the most exclusive groups in the world, those who have stood on the summit of Everest. This feat was achieved with a minimum of backup personnel, but a wealth of careful planning. Of course, it is a testament to these five young Australians. As the Prime Minister implied, it is cause for national celebration and reflection on what extraordinary individual effort can achieve. These are the first Australians to reach the top of Mount Everest. As I understand it, they reached the top in lightning fashion, without oxygen and without great support-a feat which must be the envy of all those who dare to climb the world's great mountains. I also congratulate Simon Balderstone of the Age who acted as a member of the small support team along with two Sherpas. Australia's first conquerors of Everest overcame severe weather difficulties while blazing a new route to the top via the treacherous north face of Everest. I know that I speak for all Australians when I say to the Australian Everest team members, their families, friends and supporters: 'Well done on your magnificent achievement'. May I say in the same spirit as the Prime Minister that it is unfortunate that it is only on great occasions such as these that the House comes together. I am pleased to join with the Prime Minister and I commend him on bringing this motion forward. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(2.06) —On behalf of the members of the National Party I support those mountaineers who with such distinction have been able to climb to the roof of the world. All of us who cast our minds back on recently recorded achievements of man remember the climb of Sir Edmund Hillary and the great pride it gave to all of us in this part of the world that somebody from the southern hemisphere and from our sister nation across the Tasman had been the first to make that great ascent. Since then we have had the pioneers into space. However, I think in terms of physical achievement there are few who reach the distinction of climbing Mount Everest, the highest of all the mountains of the world. To those who participated in the expedition I think we all owe not just our congratulations but also commendation for showing that face of Australians that so many might do well to aspire to. There is little doubt that the achievements of Tim Macartney-Snape and Greg Mortimer who actually reached the summit, and those others, Andrew Henderson, Lincoln Hall and Geoff Bartram who accompanied them, were really outstanding in every way. Mountaineering is a team sport. It requires an incredible amount of physical endurance. To achieve, as they have, the climb of the north face of a 8,848-metre mountain without oxygen is a tremendous tribute to their own initiative, enthusiasm, determination and co- ordination. To the support crew-small as it was-of, as I understand it, two Nepalese cooks, four film crew of the Channel 9 Wide World of Sport and journalist Simon Balderstone of the Age, I also extend my commendation. All members of the House would realise that Simon Balderstone received his training as a wombat on Doug Anthony's 1983 election campaign. No doubt it was from there that he achieved much of the distinction that saw him to the top of the world in 1984-as I have no doubt we on this side of the House will when we rise in the election polls within the next few weeks. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —I believe that the motion was carried unanimously. I will ensure that the resolution of the House is conveyed to the members of the team. Mr CARLTON —Did the Minister for Health base his case for Federal control over doctors' contracts with public hospitals under section 17 of the Health Insurance Act on the allegedly rapid rise of costs of diagnostic services? Did he attempt to back up his claims for such an increase with figures submitted by the Department of Health to the Penington Committee of Inquiry into Rights of Private Practice in Public Hospitals? Has he now been informed by the Penington Committee that his figures were false and that there had been no rapid increase in the use of diagnostic services? Does the Minister acknowledge that the dispute that led to the first doctors' strike in Australia's history was caused by his failure to establish the facts in the first place? Will he immediately table the report of the Penington Committee to enable the matter to be debated before the House rises next week? Dr BLEWETT —Even the honourable member for Mackellar knows that the dispute over section 17 of the Health Insurance Act was based on a much more wide-ranging set of issues than were involved merely in the question of to what extent doctors using public hospital facilities should be accountable for the services they deliver to private patients. That is not an issue which is related to a single set of figures. Taking up the particular issue raised by the honourable member, the figures provided were not incorrect. However, it is true that the whole series of issues about the interpretation and implications of those figures have been argued by all sides appearing before the Penington Committee. I assure the honourable member that this Government, unlike his Party when in government, is committed to open government practices. Mr Tuckey —Table the report. Dr BLEWETT —In answer to the honourable member for O'Connor, we will be tabling the Penington Committee report in the next week of Parliament so that this whole issue can be fully debated. Mr TICKNER —I ask the Prime Minister: What is the Government's attitude to suggestions that the National Crime Authority Act ought to be amended? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Hughes for this question because it is very timely. The Government has indicated that it will respond sympathetically to any suggestions that may come from the National Crime Authority for any changes to or strengthening of the Act. In the House on Tuesday I said: The attitude of the Government to the Authority's powers and to any necessary extension of those powers has been made abundantly clear. But in case there should be the slightest doubt on this point I give a formal undertaking to the House that I will respond quickly and sympathetically to a request for any such extensions from Mr Justice Stewart and his fellow members of the National Crime Authority should they feel it necessary. The NCA has already raised two matters at an official level, not at a ministerial level, about amending the NCA Act. The two amendments suggested by the NCA were, firstly, for the Inter-Governmental Committee to give reasons to the NCA where it does not approve a reference sought by it and, secondly, to provide Commonwealth agencies exempted under section 20 of the NCA Act from providing certain restricted information with a discretion to refer to the Authority evidence disclosing the commission of relevant offences. The Government is giving urgent and sympathetic attention to the proposed amendments to the NCA Act. Having repeated the clear position of the Government, I say that we have also noted the amendments moved by the Opposition in the House yesterday. This will come as a matter of very great interest, not only to all members of this House but also to the people of Australia, faced with the clear, incisive, knowledgeable involvement and interest on the part of the Opposition. Some very strange things happened yesterday. The Government finds it difficult in the circumstances to take seriously any aspect of the Opposition's position on fighting organised crime. Our attitude in this respect was reinforced yesterday by the fact that the Opposition sought to amend two sections of the Act which do not exist. That is not a bad achievement-to seek to amend two sections of the Act which do not exist! It compounded the matter further by moving an amendment to a different section, the effect of which would have been to render that section meaningless. In those circumstances we find it impossible, as does the Australian public, to take the Opposition seriously, particularly, as I remind the House, in view of the fact that when the legislation was originally before this place the Leader of the Opposition exhibited his intense interest by failing to speak. Mr CADMAN —I follow up that question by addressing a question to the Leader of the Opposition. I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question relating to the Bill he introduced yesterday to amend the National Crime Authority Act 1984. Can he give the House any further information regarding his proposed amendment to section 11 of the principal Act, contained in clause 5 of the Bill? Mr PEACOCK —I thank the honourable member for his question. I shall try to be as brief as the Prime Minister is when he is questioned about any matter other than the deliberate and systematic destruction of effective crime fighting agencies in this country, which has had the effect of protecting criminals. Before touching on the honourable member's specific question, I might say that the Prime Minister referred to amendments moved by me yesterday that did not even relate to the Act. That shows how much time the Prime Minister spends in the Parliament. That was the first draft by a staffer. I looked at the principal Act , saw that there was an error, changed it, and when I came into the House those proposed amendments were not even moved. In answering my question, let me therefore be direct. I will be somewhat more direct and straightforward than the Prime Minister has been when he has been asked questions inside and outside this House about why Costigan was prematurely terminated and why he has backed away from his original call for a tough Authority. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should come to the answer to the question. I remind honourable members that in questions of this nature there are restrictions. They are a matter of House of Representatives practice. The Leader of the Opposition has a right to answer the question. I ask him to proceed. Mr PEACOCK —Clause 5, which was referred to in the question by the honourable member for Mitchell, goes a considerable way to creating an effective body, which we do not have at the moment, free from political interference and free from interference from any State government, which would be willing to take effective action and work in the way in which the Prime Minister's rhetoric indicates it ought to work, but for which it is not empowered. Without a reference the National Crime Authority is confined only to its general non-coercive powers. By this amendment we are breaking the dichotomy between general and special investigations. At present the Authority, without any references before it, cannot hold a hearing, cannot call for documents, cannot summons witnesses, cannot execute search warrants or cannot compel answers to questions. This is the Authority presently functioning. It cannot do any of those things. If the Government were to support my amendment, which has been referred to by the honourable member for Mitchell, the National Crime Authority could start immediately, and with the sort of coercive powers to which I have referred. It would be able to hold a hearing, call for documents, summons witnesses, execute search warrants, or compel answers to questions. For the life of me, I really cannot understand how the Government can argue that the Crime Authority is effective if it cannot at this stage do those sorts of things. Because of an amendment to the Act by the Government, members of the Authority or its staff-unless they are police officers, which none of them are-cannot even interview suspects. A major feature of the Bill presented on behalf of the Opposition yesterday, if it were enacted, would enable the Authority to act of its own volition to investigate any organised criminal activities arising from breaches of Federal law. The powers we are seeking in our amendments, in particular the breaking of the dichotomy which flows from the clause referred to by the honourable member, would establish this Authority as an effective body. The fact that the Bill is not being supported by the Government renders as a lie the claim that the Authority is effective. The opportunity is before the Government now to amend this toothless Act by supporting our amendments and giving the Authority the sorts of powers to which I have referred. The Bill, particularly the clause referred to by the honourable member, is designed to ensure that organised crime involving a breach of Federal law-- Mr Morrison —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 144 and seek your guidance. It states: Questions cannot refer to-(a) debates in the current session . . . I ask for your ruling on whether the question and the answer relate to such a debate. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. With these matters, when questions are asked on private members' Bills, we have been down this path before. There are restrictions. In this case, however, the Bill is before the House. There has been a second reading speech and the honourable member for Mitchell is entitled to ask for information on a specific clause. There is precedent for that ruling. Mr PEACOCK —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Honourable members can see the importance of the clause to which the honourable member for Mitchell referred. All the amendments put to the House are of importance to give the Authority the sort of teeth that I think the overwhelming majority of Australians would wish to see it have. In fact, the amendments we moved in the Senate gave it the only teeth that it has. This will give it far more effect than it has at present. In conclusion, the section referred to by the honourable member is designed to ensure that organised crime involving a breach of Federal law, for example, in New South Wales, cannot be protected by bureaucratic or political obstruction. I think it is relevant at present to bear that in mind. This Government, the Hawke Government, has never been willing to act on this problem. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly made plain, he stands 110 per cent behind Neville Wran. Certainly the Prime Minister and his friend, the Premier of New South Wales, have nothing to fear from the present National Crime Authority. Mr Cunningham —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. What relevance does this clause have to the Premier of New South Wales? Mr SPEAKER —I understood that the Leader of the Opposition was concluding his answer. Mr PEACOCK —I was winding up and saying that certainly the Prime Minister and his friend the Premier have nothing to fear from the present National Crime Authority. They have been at one in refusing to take any action about the New South Wales situation. The Prime Minister may hate organised crime as he has said; but he loves and, until recently at least, has needed Neville Wran even more. The Bill that I have introduced into this House hopefully will play a part in putting a stop to what has become a political alliance which has had the effect of protecting the major criminals in this country and the drug pushers and pedlars of New South Wales. Mr O'NEIL —My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. Is the Government planning a mini-Budget early next year involving a repudiation of promises it will make in the forthcoming election context? Mr DAWKINS —I have seen suggestions to this effect which have ranged from the fatuous to the ill-informed. I am delighted to have the opportunity that this question provides to nail this furphy once and for all. What is drawn on in making this suggestion is some further continuing reforms which we are making to the Budget process. These are two-fold. I should say, first of all, that we recognise that the system we inherited, whilst we have been doing a very good job with it, does have some inadequacies. We have, as revealed in the Budget reform paper and through other decisions, embarked on a program of reform of the Budget process. The most recent decision that has been taken is to require an enhancement of the Forward Estimates for the next three years. These Forward Estimates have always been produced at the end of the calendar year, as they will be on this occasion. But they will be enhanced so that the Government will be in a better position to look earlier at the Budget process and the prospects for 1985-86. As well as that, we are requiring that staffing estimates for 1985-86 be made available to the Government in early 1985 so that again we can take decisions about next year's Budget in a proper context. We recognise that it is important to commence the planning for 1985-86 as early as possible and with the most up to date information that is available to us. This suggestion is particularly baseless and particularly hard to understand when we look at the record of this Government and compare it with the record of our predecessors. We find from the record of our first Budget in 1983-84, the results of which are well known and publicised, that our outlays were $21m below those estimated at Budget time. If we compare that with the record of our predecessors-the discredited former Treasurer might like to ponder on these figures-we find that our predecessors overshot their expenditures by $244m in 1980-81 and by $463m in the following year. In their last year, their piece de resistance, they exceeded their budgeted outlays by nearly $2 billion. The further they went the worse they got. So on the basis of our record we not only brought in our outlays below that which was predicted at Budget time but also were able to bring in a deficit which was below that predicted at Budget time. It is interesting that members of the Opposition and others should be spending so much time concentrating on next year's Budget because they know that not only that year's Budget but also the Budgets well into the future will be something over which this Party will have a monopoly. I suggest that the next year and future years will provide us with even greater opportunities for the Treasurer to win more international awards as the greatest finance Minister in the world. Mr CARLTON —My question, once again, is directed to the Minister for Health. When did the Minister receive the report of the task force on the categorisation of private hospitals? Why has the Minister refused to keep his promise to make the report available to the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association of Australia? Is it true that the report questions the whole basis of the categorisation system? In order to lay at rest suspicions that the Minister is covering up his embarrassment in this matter, will he table the report in this House? Dr BLEWETT —I received the report from the task force some time in September but offhand I cannot say on what date. That task force report was designed to suggest ways in which we could improve the categorisation system which we use in relation to private hospitals. I say again to the honourable member that, whatever leaks he has managed to get, the report does not challenge the fundamental basis of the categorisation system which has been approved by the responsible private hospital organisations and the private health funds. But we are, and always have been, prepared to say that if we can improve and refine these measures we will do so. That report makes a number of suggestions as to how we can have a better categorisation system for private hospitals. Again let me assure the honourable member that we have given consideration to that report. I will be releasing that report for public discussion next week. It will be sent to the private funds and to the private hospital associations and it will be released to this Parliament. We will get a response from them so that we can work out a refined private categorisation policy for next year. Mr STEEDMAN —Can the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism inform the House whether he is under extreme pressure to introduce leap-frogging as an Australian national sport? Has the Minister also been under pressure to have leap-frogging introduced into the next Olympic Games? Can the Minister inform the House whether he has made a decision on this matter? If so, when will he be making an announcement? Mr JOHN BROWN —It is a well known fact that this Government, in its short period in office, has revolutionised the funding of sport in Australia. I will not go into the details, except to say that funding has increased from about $12m to about $60m in two years, which says something about how we have used sport as a social welfare matter. It is not generally known that we have also funded the recreation area very generously for the first time ever in Australia, So that we now have Australians involved in all sorts of useful recreational pursuits, such as playing chess or bridge, being members of marching girls teams, baton twirling or bush walking, getting funding from the Government. I am sad to say that we have never considered the subject of leap-frog, which is a great Australian tradition. I think it is quite important that we recognise why the honourable member for Casey asked this question. The honourable member happens to be recognised as probably one of the greatest leap-froggers this nation has ever produced. In fact, his skill in this House is unmatched, with the possible exception of the honourable member for Kennedy and the honourable member for Boothby, who have exhibited great skills in leap-frogging from one political party to another over their long and colourful careers. The more important aspect of this question is that the honourable member for Casey has also had a long and abiding interest in the affliction of deafness. He has asked this question for me to bring attention to the fact that on 15 November, the Victorian leap-frogging championships will be held with all funds being donated to the Victorian Deafness Foundation. I think it is one of the understated qualities of the honourable member for Casey that he does have a very strong and compassionate view about the affliction of deafness, which is probably the affliction which is least sympathetically treated by Australians who do not suffer from hearing impairment. The week before last was Deafness Awareness Week in Australia. The Prime Minister's wife, Mrs Hazel Hawke, lent her services to a campaign to make Australians aware of this great affliction of hearing impairment. In fact, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, John Howard, who has a very severe hearing impairment, lent himself to that advertising campaign, as did the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who suffers from deafness, as does the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. It is an affliction which is spread right across the Australian community and is very rarely recognised and very little sympathy is applied. I was glad that the honourable member asked this question so I could make the House aware of the problems of deafness and some of the things that are being done not only to bring attention to it but also to provide some funds. To this extent, the honourable member for Casey will be having an Australian leap- frogging team in Canberra next week-a group of very attractive young women called the Leapettes who will be giving demonstrations of leap-frogging. We will be asking some members of the House to join in. We hope that the media will look sympathetically upon this as a way of exposing to the Australian public the great problem of deafness which is very rarely recognised. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. I refer the Minister to recent allegations made by Stephen Bazley and to statements by the Acting Premier of New South Wales that Federal police have supplied New South Wales police with material covering the alleged involvement of New South Wales police in drug dealing. Have Federal police expressed concern to the Minister or his staff that co-operation with the New South Wales police in matters related to the Bazley allegations and drug dealings is complicated by the fact that sections of the New South Wales police are allegedly corrupt? Has the Minister taken any action to cope with this problem of possible corruption when the Australian Federal police is dealing with sections of the New South Wales police? Has the Minister expressed any concern to the New South Wales Government about the problem of police corruption in New South Wales and the failure to resolve the allegations contained in the tapes passed to New South Wales police over 15 months ago? Mr YOUNG —Firstly, it should be clearly understood that I am not responsible for the New South Wales police, nor for the police force of Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia or the Northern Territory. It is implicit in the question that we take responsibility for the police forces of the States. Constitutionally we cannot take this responsibility. Certainly the States do not want us to take this responsibility. We have a responsibility for the Federal police. If the Leader of the Opposition is making allegations about malpractices or corruption in the Australian Federal Police, we do have a responsibility. I take it from the question that he does not do that. Mr Peacock —No, that is not what I asked. Mr YOUNG —No. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition that Mr Bazley did approach the Federal Police, as has been reported, on 28 March 1983, saying that he was in a position to provide certain information on organised crime. A proviso which he attached as a prerequisite to supplying information was confidentiality regarding his identity. An AFP investigation into the matter concluded on 30 May 1983 that all guarantees which Mr Bazley sought should not be met and, in the light of general allegations which he made that New South Wales police officers were implicated in corruption, it was appropriate that information be passed on to the New South Wales Police Commissioner. That was done on 7 June 1983. Mr SIMMONS —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the claim was made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that some departmental papers relevant to the Black Inquiry into Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration by the Special Minister of State were not tabled. Is this correct? Will the Prime Minister agree to table any remaining departmental papers? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question. I regret that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has gone down the same path of misrepresentation so ingloriously blazed by the leader he so loves. The Government has been completely open about this matter from the start. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —We always get the hyena laugh, but it is very interesting that Opposition members have not learnt yet who laughs last in these matters. As is well known, the report of the Black Inquiry was published as soon as it was received and at an early opportunity all the supporting papers relevant to the Black Inquiry were tabled. Mr Speaker, I want to remind you and the House of what I said on 5 September in regard to the documents relating to the inquiry. I stated: . . . transcripts of the inquiry conferences, documents listed in appendices E and F of the inquiry and departmental papers concerning the making of the declaration and leading to the establishment of the inquiry . . . That is very specific. They were all tabled. It should come as no surprise-I know it would not to you, Mr Speaker-that there exists other departmental papers which could be described as relating to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition more broadly called the Young affair. For example, in various departments there are letters I wrote to the Governor-General and Ministers about Mr Young's overseas trip and the administrative questions concerning the running of the Black inquiry. I am also informed that there are even papers in one department on the riveting issue of who should meet Mr Young on his return. When faced with the vaguely defined request submitted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, my Department examined the various documents it had and made decisions in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. As I said yesterday and as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware, he may appeal on that decision if he wishes. Always wanting to be of assistance to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to help him to decide whether to make that appeal I mention to him that the document to which he was refused access primarily comprises a departmental analysis of the Moore-MacKellar colour television affair. The preparation of this analysis was requested by me to refresh my memory of the extent and nature of the conspiracy engaged in then by the two Ministers to cover up a clear breach of the law. Mr SPEAKER —I think it might be wise if the Prime Minister withdrew the word ' conspiracy'. It does engender an imputation. Mr HAWKE —I am quite happy to withdraw it, of course, Mr Speaker. I am happy to provide the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with a copy of the document. I do not think he would be silly enough to want me to table it. Mr PEACOCK —I will follow up that answer with a question to the Prime Minister. It relates to the matter just mentioned by the Prime Minister. Yesterday he felt that the question impugned his integrity, and this does not. The answer raises a very important question of conventions in this country. In the matter referred to by the Prime Minister, I assume that the Prime Minister simply had a document produced by public servants. His reference to elements such as getting the details of a conspiracy by previous Ministers raises a question as to whether documents that relate to the previous Administration or any other previous administrations are not available to an incoming government. That is something that we scrupulously adhered to when in government ourselves. I would like to know-- Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition has provided a reasonable preamble, but I would like him to get to the crux of the question. Mr PEACOCK —I was not implying that that had been done. I was pointing out the contrast because, in fairness, the Prime Minister had said 'a document'-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Of course, the Leader of the Opposition was entitled to that preamble, but he should get to the question. Mr PEACOCK —I want an assurance from the Prime Minister that material relating to matters pertaining to the previous Administration are not called for by him frequently or at all. Mr HAWKE —I think the members of this House, at the end of proceedings last Tuesday, had come to the conclusion that it was literally impossible for the Leader of the Opposition in this House to do any worse than he had done on that day. But we find that here today our expectations in that regard have again been shattered. Added to the incompetence then displayed is apparently a total incapacity to understand the simplest of propositions. He seeks, in the simplest of matters, to raise questions of impropriety where no impropriety on any reasonable basis can be seen to exist. Mr Groom —You just made an allegation yourself. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member's shouting will do him no good because the facts simply are that anyone who listened to what I have just said in this House will understand quite clearly what I said. There was no suggestion or implication that I or anyone else involved in this matter had sought to go into the documents of the previous Government. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that afterwards he get the Hansard greens and calmly read what I said. He will see that there is not a vestige of a basis upon which he could have started to go down this track again. There is no suggestion in this instance that that was done. This Government at all times has adhered to the proprieties of government. We have done it at all points to the present and we will do it in the considerable number of years into the future that we remain in government. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that he will do himself and the people behind him a very great service if at last he can get himself out of this gutter mentality and understand that this Government, as distinct from himself and those behind him, acts at all times with propriety. Mr KEOGH —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism will be aware no doubt of the importance of the tourist industry to my electorate which includes the Moreton Bay islands and the Redlands Shire. Is it a fact that the Australian Tourist Commission is currently involved in an intensive advertising campaign in the United States of America and that this campaign is aimed at attracting more Americans to holiday in Australia? Can the Minister inform the House of the likely impact of this campaign on the Australian economy? Mr Shipton —Tell us why Club Med is not coming because of penalty rates, while you are at it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest the honourable member take up the queries about Club Med with the Minister outside the chamber. The Minister already has a question to answer. I call the Minister. Mr JOHN BROWN —I can deal with the honourable member for Higgins if he can sit there and suffer the embarrassment. I think it is fair to say that since this Government has been in office the tourism industry has found its proper place in Australia's commercial atmosphere. It always was the biggest industry in Australia, but the previous Government did not have the wit to recognise it. In 20 months we have turned what is the biggest industry in Australia, albeit the most fragmented, into what is now a co-ordinated, impressive, co-operative and profitable industry, the biggest in Australian employing something like 400,000 people. I do not know whether the shadow Minister has yet recovered from the embarrassment he suffered a week or so ago when he attended the first annual tourism awards which were held in Sydney. He had to sit there and suffer the ignominy of the remarks of speaker after speaker. I refer in particular to someone very closely attached to the National Party in another State. He observed that, having spent a life in the tourism industry and having seen what has happened to it in the last 18 months to two years, he hoped that this Government stayed in power for the next 20 years. He well realised how the industry was ignored by the previous incumbents. Mr Hawke —Who said that? Mr JOHN BROWN —I cannot say; I do not want to embarrass the man. Mr Sinclair —We have a different story in Queensland. Mr JOHN BROWN —I do not know. Every time I go to Queensland I am almost embarrassed at the sorts of functions I have to attend at having members of other political parties making the same statements. In the last Budget we introduced a faster depreciation rate to help the production of more hotels, motels-- Mr Shipton —Tell us about penalty rates. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Higgins. The honourable member for Casey will cease interjecting. Mr Steedman —I have not been interjecting. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Casey. I call the Minister. Mr JOHN BROWN —The Treasurer has passed me a note reminding me of the fact that we increased the depreciation rate on tourist buildings from 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent in the recent Budget. The good news that I am giving the House now about the amount of development going on in Australia at the minute will be even greater when the change makes its full impact. At present there are $7,000m- worth of tourist developments going on in Australia-hotels, motels and resorts- which is an enormous turnaround in that very short period. These developments in fact account for 220,000 man years in the construction stage and 42,000 permanent jobs at the finish of the construction stage, which says something about how this industry is going. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations was talking yesterday about increases in the labour force and the new jobs created in Australia. I am very proud to tell you, Mr Speaker, that the tourist industry has accounted for 40,000-odd new jobs in 18 months, which is far and away the best result of any industry in Australia. I defy anybody in this House to find any other industry that has this capacity. All it needed was a government like this to co-ordinate this industry. We now have the very happy spectacle of the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments of differing political colours and the industry all pulling together as they are in this advertising thrust now going on in the United States. I come to the specifics of the question of the honourable member for Bowman who has a very deep interest in and knowledge of the tourism industry, particularly as his electorate includes the very pleasant resort of Moreton Island. We now have Paul Hogan, the ambassador of culture, operating for us in the United States of America. I received a telex today from the United States telling me that in the one month period over which this campaign has been running on the East Coast the advertisement has produced a response of 100,000-odd calls on the toll line. One hundred thousand East Coast residents have rung up wanting the book on Australia. Of course, the cynics will say: 'So what'. I will tell them what the survey also shows. Information supplied to me by International Airlines in the United States is that more than half of those respondents will travel to Australia within the next five years. So we will have 50,000 new visitors coming to Australia. Mr Shipton —Ha, ha! Mr JOHN BROWN —The shadow Minister laughs. The shadow Minister should realise-- Mr Shipton —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek the guidance of the Chair. The Minister constantly refers to me. I am under a warning from you, unable to interject. I ask for your-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. That is quite right; you are under a warning from me. I suggest that the Minister should avoid provoking the honourable member. Mr Shipton —Mr Speaker, I ask you to withdraw the warning to give me a free rein to meet the Minister-- Mr SPEAKER —No, there is no way-- Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member is a joke in the small business area and a joke in this area, and the quicker he realises it the better. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to continue with the answer. Mr Shipton —Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I have great respect for you. I am under warning and I accept that but the Minister is constantly provoking me without giving me the opportunity to reply. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr SPEAKER —I remind honourable members that their opportunity to take part in the proceedings of the House is when they get the call from the Chair. I suggest to the Minister that perhaps he round off his answer and cease provoking the honourable member. Mr JOHN BROWN —Out of a sense of mercy I will no longer refer to him. The 50,000 extra visitors that we will get out of this one-month advertising campaign will mean something like $50m extra revenue if they spend only $1,000 each, and of course they will spend more than that. To sum up, the advertising campaign we have run has been an absolutely spectacular success. Paul Hogan is now a superstar in America, as he should well be for a man of his sophistication, culture, personality and great Australian characteristics. He has now become a cult figure in the United States and we are very lucky that he has provided all of this service for us for nothing. We have been very lucky to have the services of this very great Australian. Now 40,000 kids in Australia have jobs that they might not have had had we not been able to get the services of Paul Hogan, for one thing, and had the Government not had the good wit to bolster a good industry. Mr HOWARD —I ask a question of the Prime Minister which is supplementary to that asked by the honourable member for Calare. Does the Prime Minister recall saying on the Sunday program of 28 July that the Government had referred new information on the Young affair to Mr Black, QC? Why has the Prime Minister consistently refused to reveal the new evidence that led to the establishment of the Black Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Making of a Customs Declaration? Did Mr Black consider this new evidence or was this material not examined because it was ruled to be outside the limited terms of reference imposed on the inquiry by the Prime Minister? Did the Government give Mr Black terms of reference that were so limited as to prevent him from examining the new information which the the Prime Minister said on 28 July was the very reason for the establishment of the Black Inquiry? Mr HAWKE —I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his question and for the way in which it was put. It was not appropriate for me to refer to the information. We did all that was appropriate-I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would agree-when we got that information. If I can recall the dates, the Minister made his statement on, I think, 20 July, which was a Friday. The Minister became aware of the new information, I think, on Tuesday 24 July. He conveyed it to me on the evening of 24 July. We immediately took steps then to check on what had been put and in the light of what we checked we then initiated the inquiry. I assure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that all the issues that had come to our attention were referred to Mr Black. He had the opportunity of considering all those matters and the decision which he made and which was published was made on the basis of that information being available to him. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I address my question also to the Prime Minister. Will decisions be taken in the near future on special employment creation projects in Tasmania following the agreement reached between the Commonwealth and Tasmania on compensation for the cessation of the Gordon below Franklin dam project? In particular, when will the Commonwealth respond to Tasmania's request for a further $3m for the upgrading of the Hobart Airport? Mr HAWKE —When we settled the arrangements with Tasmania for dealing with the consequences of the cessation of the Gordon below Franklin scheme we decided that $3m out of the $15m that the Commonwealth would be providing for employment purposes should be spent on upgrading the Hobart Airport for wide bodied jets. That work is proceeding. The Tasmania Government then asked for a further $3m to be allocated from post-Gordon below Franklin funds for upgrading to allow fully laden B747-200 flights. After careful consideration of all the factors, including the attitude of the aviation industry and, more broadly, our responsibility to ensure that funds are spent in the best interests of Tasmanians, we have decided to agree to that request. I have advised the Premier accordingly today, which I hope will be welcomed by all Tasmanian members of this House. I have also informed the Premier that the Commonwealth is looking at other possible projects for the remaining $9m of the employment creation funds. I expect to be able to put to him our proposals for the expenditure of that additional $9m by the end of the coming week. As I understand it, the Premier of Tasmania is also developing his own proposals. I look forward to receiving his proposals as soon as possible. When those proposals have been received our two governments will be able to consult as a matter of priority so that decisions can be made as to the projects which will be of major benefit to the people of Tasmania. I conclude by saying that it is certainly the Commonwealth's strong wish to see the remaining funds committed to worthwhile projects and for work to commence as quickly as possible. I welcome the co-operation that we have received to this point in what has been a difficult series of discussions and I look forward further to co-operating with the Government of Tasmania to get the most beneficial results for the people of Tasmania. Dr BLEWETT —I wish to correct an answer that I gave to the honourable member for Mackellar. I originally received the report of the task force on hospital recategorisation in late June. As I said when replying to the question, my off the cuff memory was that it was in September. The reason for my thinking it was September was that in early September there was a full discussion of the policy options for the Government flowing from that paper. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Act 1978, on behalf of the Prime Minister I present a report by the Australian Science and Technology Council on Government purchasing and offsets policies in industrial innovation. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr GOODLUCK —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr GOODLUCK —This morning the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), in attempting to move a notice of motion, grossly misrepresented me. Although the honourable member's notice of motion was twice ruled out of order the honourable member made allegations in the House which were broadcast and which I must now deny because that notice has been accepted. He suggested that I was the source of the rumour that the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme would be abolished by the Government if re-elected. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Franklin that that notice of motion was ruled out of order. It does not stand as part of the proceedings of the House. Mr GOODLUCK —Sir, with the greatest of respect, I have had calls from Hobart from people who said: 'Bruce, you never spread rumours'. Mr SPEAKER —I accept the factor that the proceedings were being broadcast. I will allow the honourable member to proceed with his personal explanation. Mr GOODLUCK —The honourable member for Grayndler suggested that I was the source of the rumour that the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme would be abolished by the Government if re-elected. Mr Speaker, I deny absolutely that I started that rumour. The fact is that the rumour is widespread in Tasmania. Many leading businessmen are now worried that the Government wants to abolish this scheme. Mr Peter Morris —This has been debated at length. Mr GOODLUCK —The Minister started the rough stuff. He can try to take the mickey out of me as much as he likes but he will not. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin will resume his seat. The Minister for Transport will cease interjecting. I remind the honourable member for Franklin that personal explanation is restricted to explaining where a member has been misrepresented. He has proceeded to debate the issue. If he continues I will have to sit him down. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but this matter is terribly important. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Franklin that it is not for the Chair to judge what is important and what is not. It is for the Chair to allow honourable members the call under the practices and Standing Orders of the House. Indulgence is granted for a personal explanation where a member has been personally misrepresented. It does not allow him to debate an issue. Mr GOODLUCK —I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I apologise to you. I was just trying to outline the steps. The honourable member for Grayndler went to great lengths-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin will resume his seat. He is defying the Chair. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes indeed, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Speaker, during the debate to which the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) has just referred, the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in his concluding remarks alleged that the Tasmanian members who had spoken in the debate-that is me, the honourable member for Franklin and the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr)-had in some way impugned the impartiality of the Inter-State Commission, headed by His Honour Judge Everett, which is currently reviewing the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. I make it quite clear that no such imputation was ever made. Concern was expressed about what this Government, if it got another term in government, would do to the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1984. Bounty (Tractor Cabs) Amendment Bill 1984. Bounty (Computers) Bill 1984. Automatic Data Processing Equipment Bounty Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984. Bounty (Electric Motors) Bill 1984. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Hawke Labor Government's inequitable assets test on pensioners which continues the Government's piecemeal attack upon the retirement security of Australians. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.06) —There are several fundamental reasons why the great majority of Australians are opposed to the Hawke Government's assets test on pensioners, as indeed they are to Labor's 31 per cent slug on lump sum superannuation. The case against the assets test, and incidentally the lump sum superannuation rip-off, is overwhelming. This is why the Coalition has opposed the assets test and the lump sum super tax since Labor began its attack on the elderly well over a year ago. The Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia are committed to scrapping Labor's assets test and its 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation immediately after we return to government. The depth of public feeling against this Government's attacks on the retired and the elderly was further revealed in a recent poll in the Age newspaper. In that poll 62 per cent of people surveyed said that Labor's second Budget did not do enough for pensioners. On the contrary, the Budget signalled the Government's determination to go ahead with its assets test. The Vice-President of the Retired Persons Association, R. W. Parry, said that this Budget was the worst ever for pensioners. After more than a year of twisting and turning, causing widespread confusion and anxiety, the Government finally revealed its shabby assets test. The current assets test has much in common with its predecessors. Labor's assets test is, firstly, intrusive; secondly, manifestly unfair and inequitable; and thirdly, complex and costly. Those major shortcomings are inherent in any assets test. They are the reasons why the previous Coalition Government scrapped the assets test in 1976. Let me look at the assets test under each of those headings, the first of which is intrusive. Regardless of the propaganda-that is largely what it is-put out by the Government, ordinary Australians are not deceived. Ordinary people will not be fooled by the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that the assets test means only that millionaires will no longer get the pension. That is nonsense. The truth is that at least 500,000 Australians are now in the process of receiving unwelcome forms and letters about the assets test from the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Some 99 per cent of these people are not rich by any standard. They are people whose only mistake was to work, save and plan ahead for a secure and moderately comfortable retirement. They are not living in mansions or attempting to fiddle the system. They have worked a lifetime and paid their taxes. The Government will hear a lot about this matter throughout the election campaign. Australians will not forget that it was the Hawke Labor Government which penalised people for putting aside a nest egg. That generation which is faced with the assets test today has lived and worked in Australia with the notion that it was right to have a nest egg for their retirement. The Government has penalised them for it. It has gone against the hopes and aspirations of ordinary Australians. Sir Colin Hines, the New South Wales President of the Returned Services League, said recently: It is a national disgrace that our members are being penalised for having carefully accumulated assets for their future . . . The Government has employed an additional 1,500 public servants to process the assets test forms. Let us look at those supposedly harmless forms, as the Government had people believe. The assets test form comes with a covering letter which contains more disinformation. It says: The assets test only affects a small number of people. That is rubbish. It affects everyone who gets a letter and a form. It affects their families. It causes confusion and concern. The form poses 17 questions. The Government wants to know everything about pensioners. It wants to know whether they have life insurance and, if so, the policy number and the amount. It wants to know what they have in the bank, their account number and the current balance. It wants to know what they have in a building society or a credit union, and whether they have any bonds or shares and, if so, specific details about them. It wants to know whether they own a car and, if so, the make , model and year; and the same for boats and caravans. In case the Government has overlooked anything, there is a catch-all question on 'Any other assets'. What right has a government to insist on all this information from people who have worked hard and have put something aside and are now being told that they have to reveal everything about themselves to a government? No Liberal Party or National Party government would involve itself with that sort of stuff. The Government wants to know whether people or their spouses have disposed of any assets since June 1984. Farm families come in for special detailed scrutiny. The Government wants to know all about the farm, the livestock, machinery and values . Having looked at what Labor wants to know about what are rightly the confidential details of people's lives, can anyone now, can this Government, still cling to the nonsense that the assets test is not intrusive? Of course they cannot. The truth is that Labor's assets test strips bare the pensioners' lives. Although the Government does not like to admit it, there will be penalties for those who do not divulge all information required or who fail to co-operate. For farm families and for those who own large bush blocks, the Government has made available the valuers of the Australian Taxation Office to value the family farm or the hobby farm. Country people will not welcome these visits. It must not be overlooked that the intrusion is an ongoing process. Assets information will have to be updated regularly. The bottom line on the assets forms was spoken two days ago by a panel of accountants brought in by the Adelaide Advertiser to examine the form. The accountants said that the assets test form is 'daunting in size', 'a horrible thing to hit them with', and 'worse than a tax return'. So much for Labor's empty claims about there being no intrusion. Next, I refer to the unfairness and the inequity. This assets test is especially unfair to a number of groups of the elderly. I give some examples. First, the assets test is highly unfair to people who take their superannuation pay-out as a lump sum, people such as the thousands of servicemen and women who retire from the defence forces in their forties and fifties. These Australians are now the victims of Labor's triple dipping tax grab. They pay tax on the money that they earn in the defence forces or in other occupations; they then have to pay this Labor Government the 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation pay-outs; and what is left is subject to Labor's assets test. That is straight triple dipping. It is no wonder that the Returned Services League National Congress last month in Melbourne passed a resolution rejecting the assets test. Secondly, farming organisations and the Opposition have pointed out the unfairness of the assets test to the 170,000 farm families who live on small but highly efficient family farms. Exempting the farmhouse from the assets test but not the productive land puts the future of family farms at risk. The land cannot be gifted to sons and daughters, and the so-called pay-as-you-die scheme, the grisly scheme that the Government has introduced, is an insult to those who have made considerable sacrifices to build up a farm over two or three generations. Thirdly, the severe gifting restrictions are highly inequitable and are outright cold-blooded. The limits are $2,000 a year for single pensioners and $4 ,000 for couples. These restrictions mean that, for example, a pensioner who becomes frail and wants to give his or her car to a daughter cannot do that without risking loss of part of the pension. It is an absolute disgrace which highlights the inherent injustice of assets testing. Finally, I come to the cost and the complexity. This is the area in which the Government has revealed its intentions for pensioners and the assets test after the coming election should it be returned. Since the Government began its to-ing and fro-ing about the assets test over a year ago, a string of figures has been bandied about by the Prime Minister, by the Minister at the table, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), and by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes ) and other Government spokesmen about the supposed savings of the assets test. There has been one element of consistency about these figures. Each new claim has been less than the previous one. The figure has gone from $310m to $100m, to $70m, and to the $45m in the Prime Minister's statement of June. But even that figure is so uncertain that the Minister for Health now refuses to verify it. Regardless of the ever-dwindling savings estimates of the assets test, what we know is that social security fraud is costing taxpayers $310m a year. But this Government is not interested in stopping cheats and bludgers. It is determined to squeeze people who have worked hard towards a secure retirement. What we know is that the start-up costs of the assets test, the 1,500-plus extra public servants, the equipment, the forms and the letters, all of this red tape, will not save one penny during the first year of the assets test. Mr Donald Cameron —Disgraceful! Mr PEACOCK —Absolutely disgraceful-because, on the contrary, not only is there no saving in the first year of the assets test, but imposing the test will cost taxpayers an additional $30m-plus in this year. The complexity of it all is enormous. This Government has made the squeezing of pensioners a major industry. The Government's inability to tell the public what the assets test will save and the fact that the estimated savings figure has always moved downwards are clear warnings to all Australians. The Hawke Government is not concerned about what the assets test will net it in the short term. It ought to come clean on this matter now before an election. It is what will happen after the election to make the assets test bite harder which is uppermost in the minds of Australia's elderly. The Government has got the assets test on the books with only the Liberal Party and the National Party opposing it, because Labor was joined by the Australian Democrats in voting for the assets test legislation. There would be no assets test legislation in place had the Democrats stood with us and rejected this measure. When I hear Democrats spokesmen talk about justice for the elderly, I shall remind them, day after day , that apart from Mr Hawke and the Labour Party, who introduced the assets test, the Democrats must also share the blame because they could have killed it by voting with us in the Senate, but they chose not to do so. Now that the Government has the assets test legislation on the books, it will be easier for the Government, in the unlikely event of its return, to tighten the screws by toughening the regulations and restrictions of the test. People will be aware of what this Government has in store for pensioners should Labor be returned. Australians have a clear choice on this issue at the coming election. The Liberal and National parties will scrap Labor's unfair assets test and, indeed, will scrap the 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation as one of our first acts after this early election. We will give the elderly a fair deal and end the piecemeal attacks which are one of the most deplorable features of the Hawke Government. I said earlier, and it is a point worth noting, that the Government, in its ruthless drive to introduce this assets test, overlooked this element. I have talked about cost, about unfairness, about inequity, and about intrusiveness. There is one other element to be borne in mind. There are those, particularly the aged pensioners-this assets test applies to the overwhelming majority of pensioners-who are of a generation who were brought up not only to work and strive for a nest egg but also to save for a rainy day. On many occasions during their lives it was probably raining like hell, but they chose to grit their teeth and go on in the belief that on their retirement they would have access to funds they had generated during their working lives. They have no right to suffer a penalty by the present Government turning that notion on its head in an outright attack-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition's time has expired. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(3.20) —I suppose at least one should congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) on returning to some real issues in politics after his futile and contemptible effort to link the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) with crime. Having fallen flat on his face in that issue, having failed completely either to put up or shut up, the Leader of the Opposition now turns to some real issues-for that he should be congratulated-and not the fantasies on which he has concentrated in the past fortnight. That is about the only mark of congratulation one can note because his speech itself further undermines the limited credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. Let me say, and I say it quite honestly, that there was a period in which I believe the Leader of the Opposition was held in this society and in this Parliament as a man of considerable integrity. He was prepared to say tough things and to advocate tough decisions in the interests of this country. But all that has ceased as he has become an increasingly desperate politician faced with electoral defeat. It is a test not of our credibility but of the credibility of the Opposition. I go to a statement that will be repeated in this election day after day. On 9 September 1981, when the Leader of the Opposition was in the governing parties, he made this honest comment: In future, I would prefer to see a budget framed on the basis of its being as economically and socially productive as possible . . . By 'socially productive' I mean a budget which caters for carefully identified areas of genuine human need and avoids a situation in which those who do not need Government assistance are given help at the expense of those who do. He went on to say: The Government-- he was talking about his own Government-- needs to re-assess its approach to spending, concentrating on areas of genuine need, cutting out expenditure to those who do not need assistance. That is the very principle underlying this Government's assets test. There are two things that have been forgotten by the Leader of the Opposition since he was in government. One is that he has always supported a needs based welfare system. In government he was always an advocate of that system. The question he must answer to the Australian people is: If an old person's nest egg is in income and not in assets, why is that person's income subjected to the various tests and the pension reduced? We all accept that; the previous Government accepted and practised it. Why, however, if the nest egg is in the form of assets, should it not be subjected also to tests so that the old person with the nest egg in income is treated in exactly the same way as the person who has the nest egg in assets? If we are to have a needs based welfare system-not one Opposition member has been prepared to say that we do not need a needs based welfare system in this country, given the demands on the public purse-the Opposition will have to explain the inequity as to why a nest egg in assets should not be treated in the same way as a nest egg in income. That is the first question Opposition members have to answer. The second point the Leader of the Opposition has forgotten is that it is easy to make critical comments about the short term effects of this policy, but this is a government which, in its first 18 months, has clearly indicated to the Australian people that it is prepared to make decisions in the long term interests of the country. All the decisions on superannuation, Medicare, the assets test, which are so easy to attack in the short run, are made in the long term interests of this country. As we have pointed out time and again, the growth of the aged population itself will simply mean that the returns from this decision will grow to whichever party is in government in future years. Instead of recognising the position he held in Opposition, the present Leader of the Opposition has simply abandoned all those arguments and has surrounded himself with the bully boys of the National Party and the lunatic fringe of his own party. For example, he has the fanatic from Denison-I suppose he could be referred to as the gold tooth fanatic-and his absurd remarks about old ladies and their rings. That is the kind of nonsense that has become the subject of debate by the Opposition. Fortunately, there are still honest and genuine people on the conservative side of politics. I would be the last to say that any individual or political party has a total monopoly on wisdom, but it is a disgrace to the institution of parliament, to good government and to the people of Australia that no honest, effective alternative voice is being put forward by most members of the Liberal and National parties. I believe that will be one of the main reasons why, come the election, the electorate will judge them so harshly. Let us look at a few of the conservative figures in politics who have been prepared to face up to the real question of the assets test. Let me take first the National President of the Young Liberal movement. As the Liberal Party is busily disowning the future, I suppose it will probably disown him. I quote an article about him on 18 June this year: . . . it was unfortunate that the parliamentary party was opposing the assets test for pensions. He said the Young Liberal movement would strongly oppose any moves by the Opposition to adopt a universal age pension policy because it would require an increase in taxes and because it would give the same benefit to the rich as to the weak and needy. It went on to say: The debate over assets tests and income tests is a further example of the influence that can be wielded by the well-educated and the wealthy in this society. Let me also turn to the past of the Liberal Party-the real past-and take the former Liberal Prime Minister, Sir William McMahon, speaking on 3LO in June this year. He said that the Government's assets test was right in principle. So both the youth of the Liberal Party, the Young Liberal's President, and the aged in the Liberal Party argue that the assets test was right in principle. One can even cite in this context contemporary members of the Opposition, such as the current member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar). I quote his words as published in the Gympie Times of a month ago. He was responding to queries from Gympie pensioners in the light of comments by the Leader of the Opposition who had said notoriously, as we all know, that under the Government's assets test legislation inspectors would have the right of entry into pensioners' homes. I congratulate the honest member for Wide Bay and quote what he said in that newspaper. Referring to the Government's position, he said: The official position is that there would be no intrusion into people's homes but the reality would be-if there were grounds to suspect a false declaration had been made-that there could and would be. If there is a law and someone suspects it is being broken then it would be quite logical to expect that there would be some follow-up. The follow-up is supposed to be by mail or telephone but if this proved unsatisfactory then one would imagine that more direct approaches would be used. That seems to me to be a legitimate debating point. Mr Spender —Do you agree with it? Dr BLEWETT —I will come to that in a moment. It is not the kind of tactic used by both the front and back benches in this House, whose occupants have simply tried to scare aged pensioners rather than argue the issue in detail. The article in the Gympie Times then went on: However, Mr Millar said he dissociated himself from the comments by Mr Peacock. He was referring to the scare tactics by Mr Peacock. He continued: But I do accept that there is no way to meet the social welfare bill without trimming expenditure somewhere. Therefore, on the premise that there is not enough to go around, those not in the most urgent need must miss out. This year the Government has increased its social welfare budget by 9.8 per cent on last year's and will outlay 18,047 million dollars. This expenditure is 28.2 per cent of the Government's planned spending this financial year. These are comments by an Opposition member. He continues: I'm certainly not saying that the assets legislation is just, but the reality is that if spending has to be cut somewhere then it cannot be at the lower end of the scale to allow people to die in the street. These views have been put forward by a Young Liberal, an old Liberal and an honest member of the National Party. At least those three men were able to put forward an honestly held opinion. However, the Opposition parties and its leadership do not have any sort of taxation policy. They have no sort of health policy and no coherent economic policy. They have increasingly resorted to smears and scares. What a joke and fraud the Opposition has become. It has not succeeded in these kinds of tactics in respect of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, racism or the assets test. That is simply demonstrated by the editorial from the Australian Pensioner of 11 September 1984. I am not saying that that organisation agrees with our policies but at least it is prepared to say quite frankly what it thinks about the Opposition and its tactics and policies. The editorial stated: Opposition politicians, certain sectors of the media, and certain so-called pensioners' representatives have resorted to just about everything in their campaign against the assets test-even to the point of suggesting that a type of social security Gestapo will be created to body-search pensioners and ransack their homes to make sure they are not hiding any valuable assets. That particular scare tactic has been heard on the floor of this Parliament. The editorial continues: The Australian social security system has never operated this way and there is no reason to believe that it will start to do so now. So how do those opposed to the proposed test justify their hysterical outpourings? They do it, they say, in the name of pensioners' rights. Well, pensioners do have rights, and the first right is the right to be told the truth; the right to be informed, not misinformed. If those opposed to the assets test have a legitimate case to put, then let them put it honestly and openly. Don't play on the ignorance, fear, and insecurity of this most vulnerable group. No Opposition which sets out to win a point by creating such anxiety in a community can ever be regarded as worthy of governing that community. I think that is a pretty fair response to the behaviour and the tactics of this Opposition. I have quoted the Leader of the Opposition. I quoted his position when he was a back bencher of the previous Government, when he was prepared to look honestly at the issues of a needs based welfare system and the real challenges we have in this area over the next 30 years. I have quoted honest men from the conservative side of politics-Young Liberals, the ex-Prime Minister and the honourable member for Wide Bay. I have looked at serious and responsible publications and their editorials to show what a total fraud, hypocrisy and humbug this whole Opposition attack is. The Leader of the Opposition asked: What about the response of ordinary Australians? I will leave the final word to an ordinary member of the public, a Mrs Ellis from North Melbourne, who wrote to the Minister for Social Security in the following terms: I have read all the information about the assets test and listened to the debate in parliament. I have come to the conclusion that the introduction of an assets test is a just and sensible measure. Politicians opposing the test keep saying that people's savings are to be attacked by the test, but I have always understood that the lucky ones who were able to, saved during their lives to protect themselves in their old age, not so they could put away all their savings and leave them to their children, and then live themselves on the rest of the community in their old age. . . . . Low income earning pensioners or pensioners without any income should also support the assets test and stop having the wool pulled over their eyes by the wealthy and greedy in the community who want to have their cake and eat it too. The funds available to the Minister for Social Welfare are limited and therefore the fewer pensions he has to pay, the more money there will be available to pay to those pensioners who are on the base rate, without their own homes, and are therefore in greater need. It is certainly not their fault they are in this position, many of them went through the depression or the dislocation of the last war so were unable to put aside assets that would create an income large enough to live on in their old age. To get the amount of even the base pension would have been very difficult for people who earned about sixteen dollars a week as an adult wage for most of their lives and had no hope of owning their own house. I think that will be the kind of response from ordinary, honest Australians when they look at this issue. The people of Australia have great faith in the Hawke Government. We are determined to repay that trust. Their distrust of the Opposition Leader and the Opposition parties on this and every other issue will be amply displayed at the next election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The discussion is concluded. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present an information paper of the Committee inquiry entitled: 'Invalidity Provisions of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme', together with the minutes of proceedings, and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the paper. Leave granted. Mr LEO McLEAY —The subject of superannuation, together with its extent, format and cost of its coverage, has drawn wide attention in recent times. Much of this attention has focused on public sector superannuation schemes, some in New South Wales and some within the Commonwealth service. Reviews relating to various aspects of public sector schemes have recently been conducted in several States. At the Commonwealth level there has been an examination of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. Given the degree of interest shown in the Commonwealth superannuation scheme and its charter to review areas of government spending, the Expenditure Committee decided that an information paper focussing on the extent and cost to the taxpayer of invalidity retirement through the Commonwealth superannuation scheme should be prepared. The paper outlines the invalidity provisions of the scheme and summarises the available information on the level and cost of invalidity retirement and the factors underlying trends in their magnitude in recent years. The cost or extent of invalidity retirement is not insignificant. As at 30 June 1983-the date at which the latest figures are available-the total annual pension liability of the scheme with respect to invalidity pensions in force was $268.8m, representing 46 .4 per cent of the scheme's total annual pension liability. In 1982-83, about 39 .1 per cent of all exits, excluding resignation from the scheme, resulted from invalidity retirement compared with 36.2 per cent due to age retirement, with early retirement and death accounting for the remainder. Moreover, although there has been a sharp decline in invalidity retirements from 1979 on, the acceleration of invalidity retirements in the immediate period following the introduction of the scheme in 1976 has altered the composition of the pensioner populations and the annual pension liability of the scheme to the extent that, even if a downturn in invalidity retirements were to be experienced, it would take some years before the proportion of invalidity pensioners in the pensioner population would be reduced. The Committee believes that the paper raises sufficient issues to warrant further inquiry. Those issues will be taken up by the Committee at the end of its current work schedule. In conclusion I would like to record my appreciation of the work of David Worthy and Helen Fleming of the Committee secretariat in the production of this paper. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the interim report of the Committee on the Aboriginal Development Commission, together with the minutes of the proceedings, the transcript of evidence and submissions authorised for publication. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LEO McLEAY —by leave-This interim report on the Aboriginal Development Commission reflects the findings of the Standing Committee on Expenditure to date. It is expected that this report will be followed by two further reports- firstly, a detailed report which explores further the issues raised in this interim report and other matters within the term of reference and, secondly, a confidential report to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) which will take up a number of matters that have been drawn to the Committee's attention but which are beyond the Committee's terms of reference or its expertise. The Committee has taken the step of preparing this interim report to put on record the Committee's belief that the Aboriginal Development Commission has an important role to play in the promotion of Aboriginal development and self- management. The Committee was prompted to make this early report by its belief that in some quarters its inquiry was being interpreted as a mechanism for bringing about the demise of the ADC. While supporting the concept of the Aboriginal Development Commission, the Committee has found in the course of its investigation that the ADC has had some significant weaknesses during its brief history. Some of the weaknesses described by the Committee stem from the normal establishment difficulties of a new organisation. Others are more serious and need to be corrected if the Aboriginal Development Commission is to fulfil its potential to promote Aboriginal self-development and self-management. A significant conclusion reached in the preparation of this interim report was the importance of the word 'development' in the Commission's title and the need for the Aboriginal Development Commission to address the issue of development with greater vigour, planning and administrative control. The Committee is pleased to note that in the course of its inquiry a new chairman and administrator have been appointed to the Commission and that this new top level management team recognises the weaknesses in the organisation found by the Committee during the inquiry and has begun to implement necessary changes to the administration and conduct of the ADC. I thank the members of the Committee. In particular I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Mountford, who as a member of the Committee gave a lot of your time and effort to attend hearings and inspection tours throughout Australia. The Committee believed that it was important for us to go out and talk to Aboriginal people as well as to the bureaucrats to find out the people's thoughts on what the Aboriginal Development Commission should do. I think that the effort the Committee put in to talking to widely disparate groups around Australia was one way of ensuring that it got the best sounding for the recommendations that we have made. I am pleased to see that the Minister is in the chamber this afternoon as he has taken an interest in the Committee's work. In conclusion I put on record my appreciation of the efforts of the Committee secretariat in the preparation of this report. The Committee secretariat worked long hours and was somewhat harassed by me and other members of the Committee to ensure that we got the report out on time. In particular I praise the work of Bruce Boell, on secondment to the Committee from the executive development scheme, the Committee secretary Sue Harlow, Chris Paterson and Betty Williams for the work they did in the preparation of this report on the Aboriginal Development Commission. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-I congratulate the Standing Committee on Expenditure on providing the House with this interim report on the Aboriginal Development Commission. Needless to say, the Government will study its findings and recommendations closely. As is customary with all parliamentary committee reports, the Government's response will be provided in this place as soon as possible. I note that the report is an interim one and I am grateful that the Committee has provided advice of this kind to the Parliament without delaying for a final report which, I understand, will take some time to complete. For some time now we have seen in the Press a campaign of denigration of Aboriginal people and a belittling of their efforts, after such long oppression, to achieve self-reliance and self-management. It is a matter of regret for me as Minister that so much publicity is given to the difficulties that Aboriginal people face and so little credit is paid to the many significant achievements that have been made in recent years. Members of this Committee have had an opportunity to come to that conclusion for themselves. The Aboriginal Development Commission was established by this Parliament during the life of the former Government. We have been happy to continue to support the work of the Commission because the statute under which it was established gives significant expression to the aspirations and hopes of Aboriginal people to manage their own affairs. It is they who have told us so many times that they want to be free of government paternalism and government direction. The Aboriginal Development Commission is the body which has the seeds of hope within it for the achievement of these goals. Not unnaturally, as with any new agency established by government, there have been teething troubles and administrative difficulties. I trust that the Committee's interim report and, when available, the final one, will assist the Commission and the Government to consider ways in which the delivery of services to Aboriginal people can be improved. I can inform the House that the present Chairman of the Aboriginal Development Commission has told me of her readiness to follow up the various suggestions and proposals contained in the report so far as it lies within her capacity to do so . I appreciate the opportunity of addressing the House on this matter today. I commend the Committee for its work and I look forward to studying its recommendations closely in the near future. I know that all honourable members wish to see the delivery of services to Aboriginal people achieved in the most efficient and effective way. I shall certainly do what I can to ensure that the recommendations in this report are given consideration with these objectives in mind. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —by leave-I commence my remarks on the Standing Committee on Expenditure report on the Aboriginal Development Commission by giving my congratulations in a general sense to the Chairman of the Expenditure Committee, the honourable member for Grayndler, Mr Leo McLeay. If I have a criticism of him it is his enthusiasm and the number of references he is prepared to take on at any one time. I admit to being one of the less energetic members of the Committee because I could not manage, with my other responsibilities, to keep up with all of them. The honourable member for Grayndler has shown a great enthusiasm for this particular inquiry. I congratulate him from the heart. I took quite an interest in this inquiry because in the time of the previous Government I was a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Also, I lived for 25 years in a community in which over one-third of the people were of Aboriginal descent. Contrary to some of the views held in this place, I have a great interest in what I consider to be practical solutions to the problems that exist for Aboriginal people. I use those words advisedly. Of course, it is also a fact that I disagree with many honourable members on both sides of the House as to how those solutions should be achieved. In regard to the Committee report, the first recommendation is to the effect that the role of the Aboriginal Development Commission should be maintained and strengthened. I am a signatory to that recommendation. I think that was probably the question that was in the minds of many people prior to the commencement of this inquiry. Nevertheless, I still believe the Aboriginal Development Commission is under threat. As in many other operations, the institution gets mixed up with the operatives. I am sure that the theory of the institution and the legislation under which it was formed are very good in the opinion of most people. However, if at any time people do not operate such an institution properly that institution will come under criticism and could be lost. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) made reference to public opinion in this regard. It is quite pointless hiding our heads in the sand when the difficulties are identified. If we do not react to them in the normal way it will be the institution that carries the odium. In this regard I was greatly concerned some time ago at the rumours of appointment of the then Chairman of the ADC, Mr Charles Perkins, to his present role as Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Consequently, on about 16 March I telexed the Minister. That telex read in part: I wish to state that I consider this appointment-- I was referring to the rumoured appointment of Mr Perkins-- is inappropriate at this time in light of the pending inquiry by that Committee into the Aboriginal Development Commission. As Chairman of this Commission it is imperative that Mr Perkins represent the ADC in that role during the inquiry so that the inquiry is not thwarted by insufficient information and advice which Mr Perkins must provide and for which he must resume responsibility. At no time during my attendance at the inquiry has Mr Perkins acted in a way that I find satisfactory. He has constantly attempted to misinform the Committee . He has demonstrated the most remarkable lack of memory I have encountered in any person of his seniority. It is a great shame that he has caused this Committee in its summary of recommendations to state: The Committee will, in due course, prepare a more detailed report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the ADC, as well as a confidential report which will be made available to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This confidential report will deal with information and allegations of a serious nature which have come to the Committee's attention during the inquiry but which are generally peripheral to its terms of reference. Paragraph 1.10 states: A number of other matters brought to the attention of the Committee have involved serious allegations of mal-administration which in some instances may lead to criminal prosecution. I do not believe that Mr Perkins assisted us in any way that may have saved us making that recommendation. It is quite disgraceful. My concerns, as expressed to the Minister, have materialised. I am highly critical of the man and of what I believe to be his effect on the reputation of that institution. I will not go further than that, but I urge the Minister not to wait for the final report. It is my understanding that the staff of the Committee, busy as they are, will not be able to finish it in the life of this Parliament. The Minister has an obligation to acquaint himself with the information and take some steps in the interests of the ADC and its present management, which I agree, on the evidence presented to date at least, is attempting to overcome many of the problems that have been visited on it and for which I blame the past Chairman. I dissented from recommendation 14, and I hope that it is some evidence of my support for the people running the Commission now. The recommendation in clause 14 is that the majority of persons employed by the Commission should be employed under the Commonwealth Public Service Act, with provision for employing a smaller number, say 20 to 30 per cent, outside the provisions of the Act. That recommendation is there in part because of the concern of other members about the administration of the old ADC and their belief that perhaps the constraints of the Public Service employment regime may have stopped some of those things occurring, if they did occur. I stress that they were allegations. I do not believe that will be the case. I believe it totally abrogates the real thrust of the ADC Act, which was to give some power and responsibility to Aboriginal people. In so doing, a responsibility was placed upon the Minister and his advisers-that group of people already employed under the Public Service Act in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. It is totally unnecessary to introduce the Public Service Board. Further, I believe it would be totally unworkable to have 70 per cent of that group in that position. Another criticism was that the promotion system could be haywire under the present arrangements, and I believe that would be so. The office boy could become director overnight if the Aboriginal commissioners so decided. It is fairly unlikely that they would, but if the office boy is one of the 20 per cent not subject to Public Service Board conditions, I presume that he can still be promoted to director overnight if the commissioners so decide. The sorts of problems that Public Service Board employment arrangements would raise would not be overcome. I think it would be much better if the Minister and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs took steps to ensure that the commissioners and others are competent, are doing their jobs, and are employing the right people. I am of the opinion that Public Service Board employment background is not suitable for the vision I have for the ADC. If I can make the comparison, the ADC to my mind has a merchant banking role for Aboriginal people. The type of expertise that is required does not necessarily reside in the Public Service to the extent that it does in the private sector. Another thought I have is that as the ADC arranges its affairs and does business with other financial institutions, it could by using polite influence, create work opportunities for young Aboriginal people outside the ADC. I do not want to take any more of the time of the House today. I am pleased with the recommendations, with the exception of the one I have mentioned. Responsibility for past actions of the ADC rests with numerous Ministers and two governments. It is up to this Government, because of its present responsibility, to deal with it promptly and satisfy the Australian people that the institution can give the service it is intended to give. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-Without pre-empting the subsequent and final reports of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I should like to make a few comments following the brief look I have had at the recommendations of the report which was tabled today. The Aboriginal Development Commission was established by the previous Government. However, our initiative in its implementation does not blind us to recognising weaknesses and even disappointments in the operation of the ADC concept as a working instrument for Aboriginal advancement and self- management. The report identifies a number of specific matters that warrant the serious and immediate attention of both the Commission and the Government. I trust that the Minister will give the report his urgent attention. Administrative efficiency has not been one of the strong points of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and I therefore urge that he promptly attend to the deficiencies highlighted by these reports-the one that has been tabled and the confidential report. I am sorry that the Minister is not in the House for this debate. It is also important that this House, the Aboriginal people and the wider community are kept informed of the progress of the consideration of the recommendations in this report. I draw attention to a number of major points raised by the report, firstly in relation to fragmentation. On page 4 the report warns of the adverse effect of undue fragmentation of the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. It states: Further fragmentation of responsibilities within the portfolio should not occur . Any new organisation experiences teething problems and requires a settling-in- period to function efficiently. Continuing changes of responsibilities and creation of new organisations militates against achieving efficient program delivery. This is a matter to which the Minister should pay particular attention because I believe fragmentation will only exacerbate the high delivery cost of programs in the Aboriginal area. This conclusion of the Committee needs to be considered by the Minister as he continues to ponder the exact nature of the proposed Aboriginal housing authority. In fact, I note with interest recommendation 16 of the Committee's report which states: The Grants-in-Aid Housing program should remain the responsibility of the Commission. I believe that the fragmentation of the delivery of funds under the various Aboriginal advancement programs is not only an inefficient and wasteful expenditure of taxpayers funds but also is confusing for the Aboriginal people. For example, I am informed that there are five agencies providing Aboriginal housing assistance in Mount Isa. Similarly, the enclave programs in a number of tertiary education institutions are funded from five different departments. I see that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is in the chamber. His Department provides some of the funds for those enclave programs. The opportunity to improve the efficiency of administration in this area is enormous. It is a facet of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs' administration of his portfolio which has not been properly addressed. In addition to recommending that the Commission should, as a matter of high priority, establish a corporate plan for its objective, this report addresses the very real need for improvements in the Commission's monitoring and evaluation of programs. I welcome this report as providing both the Commission and the Government with the opportunity to address the need for changes and improvements to the management and direction of the ADC, and indeed in the portfolio in general, in order that the positive principles of Aboriginal development and self-management envisaged by the previous Government can be realised. I thank the House. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney) —by leave-Initially the inquiry conducted by the Standing Committee on Expenditure attracted a great deal of unfavourable publicity. There was a lot of speculation surrounding one of the terms of reference of the inquiry which seemed to suggest that what was being looked at was the very principle of an autonomous Aboriginal organisation involved in the disbursement of funds for housing, land acquisitions and enterprise programs. I am pleased to say that, very early in the proceedings of the inquiry, that position was clarified by the issuing of a statement which made it perfectly clear that the Committee accepted the desirability of an autonomous Aboriginal body continuing to exist and having overriding responsibility in this area. I think it is also true to say that there was a lot of speculation in the first instance that the purpose of the inquiry was to nail certain individuals or to investigate certain allegations of corruption. Some of the statements that have been made, I think by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) today, seemed to give substance to the claim that some people involved in the inquiry had that objective but it certainly was not the view of the Committee as a whole or the bulk of its members. I believe that the ultimate outcome of the inquiry was very constructive. I think that fact is acknowledged by both past and present officers of the Aboriginal Development Commission. I could talk about a range of matters concerning the recommendations that have been made but will refer to only a few of them. Section 33 (1) of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act was considered by the Committee in some detail. On the face of it, it appears to give the ADC the capacity to employ such people as are required to fulfill its objectives. In other words, it seems to override any possible staff ceilings that might be imposed or preclude the possibility of such staff ceilings. One of our recommendations is that clarification be sought from the Government of the degree to which the ADC is subject to regulation of its staffing levels by the Government. The staff ceiling notion is no longer applicable but the broad question of the regulation of staff levels is. Another facet to which we gave some attention was the whole issue of the integration of the training role into the enterprise program. It certainly seems to be the case that those enterprises that have failed-a considerable number of them have failed-have done so as a consequence of inadequacy in terms of training. By that I mean inadequate skills on the part of those who had the responsibility of carrying out or administering and running those programs. We recommended that consideration be given to building in a very explicit training role in regard to every enterprise program under consideration. In regard to the housing program, there was some complaint that people with incomes substantially in excess of average weekly earnings were gaining housing loans with concessional interest rates. We have made a recommendation that the interest rates charge be linked to bank interest rates and also that the availability of concessional interest rates be made subject to some form of means testing. That again will certainly diffuse a lot of the criticism about the way in which these loans are being dispersed. I refer also to the proposal that the bulk of the ADC's employees he brought under the ambit of the Public Service Act. That recommendation was dissented from by the honourable member for O'Connor. I do not believe that he has begun to adduce any coherent reasons for resisting that recommendation. The fact is that he claims it would serve to vitiate the autonomy of the ADC. That is an interesting sort of complaint coming from good old iron bar Tuckey. But the fact is that ADC officers themselves confirmed the obvious view that the autonomy of the ADC is primarily embodied in the power of the commissioners to make broad policy decisions about how funds are to be dispersed. The fact that most of the staff of the ADC would be brought under the ambit of the Public Service Act does not in any significant way reduce the autonomy of that body in the areas that generally matter. Wilson Tuckey also referred-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Sydney knows the proper way of referring to another member of the House. I assume that he is referring to the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr BALDWIN —Yes, Mr Speaker, that is correct. The honourable member for O'Connor also made reference to a merchant bank analogy as far as the ADC is concerned. In some ways I guess that such an analogy exists but there are also obviously very significant points of difference between what the ADC, in its enterprise program, is seeking to do and the way in which a merchant bank would operate. There are very major and obvious differences. The ADC is seeking to achieve a range of social rather than commercial objectives. It is obvious that the ADC is not in the business of solely extracting the maximum rate of return from enterprise projects it might fund. It is actually seeking to achieve a range of social objectives. In any case, if it is believed that it is desirable to bring in outside expertise, people from outside the Public Service who might have some business acumen considered desirable to the ADC's enterprise program, the recommendation that has been made clearly makes room for that. It states that 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the employees of the ADC would be outside the Public Service Act. That is just an indicative figure. It could be higher if it was deemed to be desirable. The object of that recommendation is to make available to the ADC a greater range of expertise from within the Public Service than it currently has access to. The problem that we have had is that people who transfer from the Public Service to the ADC and subsequently gain promotion within the ADC cannot be transferred back into the mainstream Public Service with those promotions. Clearly, that acts as a significant disincentive to people wanting to do that. It clearly restricts the ability of the ADC to gain access to such expertise as exists in the Public Service. I do not believe that any significant weight can be attached to the objections of the honourable member for O'Connor. I notice in his minority report that he refers to the risk that the capacity to employ people outside the Public Service Act would 'create the possibility of making selective appointments from outside the Public Service'. Surely to goodness, if that is a legitimate complaint, placing the whole of the staff of the ADC outside the Public Service Act would merely serve to exacerbate that problem, if indeed it is one. I conclude on that note. I again join with earlier speakers in congratulating the secretariat and all those who had a role in the preparation of this interim report. The following notices were given: Mr Lionel Bowen to move- That the following resolutions relating to the registration and declaration of Members' interests be adopted, such resolutions to have effect from the commencement of the 34th Parliament and to continue in force unless and until amended or repealed by the House of Representatives in this or a subsequent Parliament: (1) Declaration of Members' Interests-That within 28 days of making and subscribing an oath or affirmation as a Member of the House of Representatives and within 28 days after the commencement of the first period of sittings in each subsequent calendar year while remaining a Member of the House of Representatives, each Member shall provide to the Register of Members' Interests , a statement of- (1) the Members' registrable interests and (2) the registrable interests of which the Member is aware (a) of the Member's spouse and (b) of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support,in accordance with resolutions adopted by the House and in a form determined by the Committee of Members' Interests from time to time, and shall also notify any alteration of those interests to the Registrar within 28 days of that alteration occurring. (2) Registrable interests-That the statement of a Member's registrable interests to be provided by a Member shall include the registrable interests of which the Member is aware (1) of the Member's spouse and (2) of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, and shall cover the following matters: (a) shareholders in public and private companies (including holding companies) indicating the name of the company or companies; (b) family and business trusts and nominee companies- (i) in which a beneficial interest is held, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and beneficial interest, and (ii) in which the Member, the Member's spouse, or a child who is wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, is a trustee, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and the beneficiary of the trust; (c) real estate, including the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned; (d) directorships in private companies, indicating the name of the company, its activities and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities; (e) partnerships, indicating the nature of the interests, the activities of the partnership and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities; (f) liabilities (excluding short-term credit arrangements) indicating the nature of the liability and the creditor concerned; (g) the nature of any bonds, debentures and like investments; (h) saving or investment accounts, indicating their nature and the name of the bank or other institutions concerned; (i) the nature of any other assets (including collections, but excluding household and personal effects) each valued over $5,000; (j) the nature of any other substantial sources of income; (k) gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources, or at more than $100 where received from other than official sources; (l) any sponsored travel or hospitality received, and (m) any other interests, such as membership of organisations, where a conflict of interest with a Member's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise. (3) Register and Registrar of Members' Interests-That: (a) at the commencement of each Parliament, and at other times as necessary, Mr Speaker shall appoint an officer of the Department of the House of Representatives as the Registrar of Members' Interests and that officer shall also be Clerk to the Committee of Members' Interests; (b) the Registrar of Members' Interests shall, in accordance with procedures determined by the Committee of Members' Interests, maintain a Register of Members' Interests in a form to be determined by that Committee from time to time; (c) as soon as possible after the commencement of each Parliament and in each subsequent calendar year during the life of that Parliament, the Chairman of the Committee of Members' Interests shall table in the House a copy of the completed Register of Members' Interests and shall also table from time to time as required any notification by a Member of alteration of those interests, and (d) the Register of Members' Interests shall be available for inspection by any person under conditions to be laid down by the Committee of Members' Interests from time to time. (4) Declaration of interest in debate and other proceedings-That, notwithstanding the lodgment by a Member of a statement of the Member's registrable interests and the registrable interests of which the member is aware (1) of the Member's spouse and (2) of any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, and the incorporation of that statement in a Register of Members' Interests, a Member shall declare any relevant interest- (a) at the beginning of his or her speech if the member should participate in debate in the House, committee of the whole House, or a committee of the House ( or of the House and the Senate), and (b) as soon as practicable after a division is called for in the House, committee of the whole House, or a committee of the House (or of the House and the Senate) if the Member proposes to vote in that division, andthe declaration shall be recorded and indexed in the Votes and Proceedings or Minutes of Proceedings (as applicable) and in any Hansard report of those proceedings or that division: Provided that it shall not be necessary for a Member to declare an interest when directing a question seeking information in accordance with standing order 142 or 143. Mr Leo McLeay to move- That this House- (1) deplores the unfounded rumours, started by the honourable Member for Franklin, that the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme is under threat; (2) notes that such rumours may undermine the Tasmanian economy; (3) draws attention to the recent failure of the Tasmanian Liberal Senators and Members to support the Government's road tender legislation; (4) calls on the Tasmanian Liberal Party to overcome its divisions and to do something positive for Tasmanians, and (5) condemns Tasmania's Liberal representatives for their refusal to counter the attacks by the National Party on Commonwealth transport assistance to Tasmania.