Tuesday, 9 October 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr Sinclair having given a notice of motion-- Mr SPEAKER —I think the honourable member realises that the notice is out of order. It is a frivolous notice of motion. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the public is concerned about the basic economic issues of employment, lower inflation, lower interest rates and economic growth, and (2) congratulates the Government for its outstanding achievements in these economic areas. Mr GROOM(Braddon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move , and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) will second: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the mounting evidence that Tasmanians clearly remember the way the Prime Minister, in 1983, destroyed their constitutional rights, and (b) that Tasmanians will soon have an opportunity to again express their disgust, and (2) condemns the Prime Minister for stopping construction of the Tasmanian dam against the clearly expressed wishes of the Tasmanian people. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes that- (1) the week of 21 to 28 October 1984 is being recognised in more than 20 nations around the world, including Australia, as the Week of Prayer for World Peace; (2) this week of prayer for world peace introduces a year of prayer for world peace, and (3) at noon on every day of that week, millions of people throughout the world will be praying for, or reflecting on, in their own personal or collective way, true peace through disarmament for our planet. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) that more than 10 per cent of New South Wales is under investigation for military training purposes; (b) the very responsible recommendations of such bodies as the NSW National Trust, that the Singleton district could provide the areas to meet Army requirements with minimal disruption to local residents, and (c) that substantial areas of Crown land are available for military training purposes; (2) recognises the deep concern of hundreds of landholders and their families in the many areas now under investigation, particularly those in the Electoral Division of Gwydir; (3) calls upon the Government to put an immediate end to these unsettling investigations which are threatening the security and livelihoods of hundreds of families. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes that the Euromoney magazine has seen fit to award the Treasurer an award as ''Finance Minister of the Year'', and (2) calls on the Government to apply for listing in the Guinness Book of Records as Australian records, the highest and second highest Budget deficit on record, the highest level of taxation in Australian post-war history and the highest level of Government expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product in peacetime. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom) will second: That this House condemns the Prime Minister for his actions in 1983 in totally ignoring the genuinely held views and feelings of ordinary Tasmanians and for callously trampling on Tasmania's basic State rights. Mr PORTER(Barker) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes that on 8 December 1983 the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs introduced into this House for adoption a resolution outlining fundamental principles of Aboriginal Affairs; (2) expresses its concern that after 10 months the resolution has not been brought on for debate; and (3) condemns the Government for failing to clarify whether the 5 non-negotiable principles, outlined in that resolution, are to be the basis of uniform land rights legislation to be imposed on the States by this Government should it be re-elected on 1 December 1984. Mr Bilney having given a notice of motion- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has already indicated that he realised that that notice was out of order. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the Government promised at the beginning of June 1984 to consider the establishment of a select committee to look at Senator G. J. Evans' hard-core pornography guidelines; (b) that on both occasions when the matter has been debated in the House of Representatives the debate has been brought on in the middle of the night while the media slept; (c) that the latest debate was not brought on until 3 days prior to the rising of the House, and (d) that all parliamentary committees are dissolved at the issuing of the writs , and therefore the 17-day inquiry into pornography will be the shortest ever inquiry held under the Westminster system during the 20th Century, and (2) condemns the Government for refusing to act on the calls of thousands of Australians, the Opposition, and some members of the Labor Party who have requested that a moratorium be placed on the importation and sale of this hard- core pornography, until the inquiry made its findings. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that Commonwealth Government funding for the Australian Opera will be reduced by almost 20 per cent over the next 3 years, and (2) condemns the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment for presiding helplessly over this disastrous policy. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government's policies- (a) towards property owners, where their land may be acquired for a second Sydney airport; (b) towards those whose livelihood depends on land, to be taken for a military firing range; (c) which support the Government of NSW in regard to coal owners' property rights, and (d) towards Aboriginal land rights, and (2) calls on all owners of property to reject the socialist land grab mentality of the present Government. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns- (a) the Tasmanian Liberal Party for starting and fuelling rumours that the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme is under threat, and (b) Tasmanian Liberal Party members for undermining confidence in the scheme, the Inter-State Commission and the Tasmanian economy; (2) notes that during the recent visit by the Minister for Transport to both Launceston and Hobart, no fears were raised by the community and industry representatives that the Scheme was under threat, and (3) calls for an end to the rumour-mongering and the constant undermining of the Tasmanian economy by the honourable Member for Franklin. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, lest this crucial matter be lost from public view, I shall move: That this House- (1) recalls and deplores the cut in funding for science and technology in the 1984-85 Budget, and in particular the CSIRO and the Australian Research Grant Scheme, and (2) condemns the Government for their putting at risk, despite attention of the Minister, Australia's internationally recognised effort in science which is a foundation stone of the long-term economic health of Australia. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that Commonwealth funding for public hospitals in Queensland increased from $93 million-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member to start his notice again. I could not hear him because of the noise in the chamber. Mr WELLS —Thank you, Mr Speaker. This sort of thing bears repetition: That this House- (1) notes that Commonwealth funding for public hospitals in Queensland increased from $93 million in the last full year of the Fraser Government to $ 184 million under the first Medicare package, and (2) calls on the Queensland State Government to give an account of how this doubling of funds has been spent, and explain, particularly, why public hospitals in Queensland are still suffering from chronic staff shortages. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the action of the Government in failing to call on for debate notice of motion No. 821 standing in the name of the honourable member for Denison and relating to the Boulevard Hotel incident of 21 February 1982. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. There is too much noise from both sides of the House. The place is an absolute disgrace at the moment. I call the honourable member for Burke. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the excellent annual report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation and its optimism about the future of Australian industry, and (2) in view of this report, condemns the Opposition policy of disbanding the AIDC as a public body. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that even after an agreed reduction of speakers for the pecuniary interest debate on 8 October 1984, the Government gagged the debate when it got too hot for Government Members, and (2) calls on the Government to admit that this action was a ''shut up'' to a '' put up''. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the former Member for Moreton, Sir James Killen, on his excellent article in the Melbourne Herald on 8 October 1983, and (2) commends Sir James for his erudite exposure of the lack of propriety and integrity of the present leadership of the parliamentary Liberal Party. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its grave concern that 27% of the total area of Tasmania is now controlled under National Park and National Estate listing; (2) urges the Government to curtail listing of areas to the National Estate in view of the fact that 190,000 hectares have been added to the list during the past 18 months, and (3) is of the opinion that listings to the National Estate are placing the timber and forestry industries in Tasmania in jeopardy. Mr HICKS(Riverina) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) will second: That this House- (1) notes the magnitude of the mosquito menace along the river systems of New South Wales and in particular, within the Murrumbidgee, Colleambally and Murray River Irrigation areas; (2) reminds the House that some varieties of mosquitoes in those areas are carriers of Ross River virus, dengue fever and encephalitis; (3) notes that during the 1983-84 summer many people in these irrigation areas suffered from the debilitating effects of Ross River virus, and (4) calls on the Federal Government to increase its expenditure above the pitiful amount provided in the 1984-85 Budget for the monitoring and control of the mosquito menace. Mr PORTER(Barker) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for failing to- (a) table the Coombs' Report into the National Aboriginal Conference which he received 5 months ago; and (b) indicate to the Parliament and the people of Australia the future of the NAC, and (2) calls upon the Minister to immediately table the report and identify which of Dr Coombs' recommendations are to be accepted by the Government and which are to be subject to further consultation with Aboriginal people. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Government for its failure to solve the question of high penalty rates in Australia that inhibit employment and stop jobs being created, especially for young people; (2) deplores the inaction of the Government, and particularly the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, for failing to call the conference promised by the Minister at the Economic Summit, and (3) challenges the Government to call that conference on penalty rates before the election. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the Attorney-General's guidelines for the classification of videotapes allow M-rated videos to include depictions of ''sexual violence, e.g. rape, only if very discreet'' and R-rated videos to depict ''discreet sexual violence'', and (2) calls on the Attorney-General to explain his concept of ''discreet sexual violence''. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that in calling the unnecessary early election in December 1984, the Government has been so rushed for time that it has proposed that nominations will close on 6 November 1984; (2) reminds the Government that 6 November 1984 is Melbourne Cup Day, and (3) calls on the Government to state whether Australian Electoral Commission staff in Melbourne, required to work on that day, will be paid overtime. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) rejects the Prime Minister's words that the people 'trust them on their record'; and (2) endorses the statement of the Prime Minister 'that the very circumstances of the calling of this panic election reek of fraud and deception'. Mr HUNT(Gwydir) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and my colleague the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) will second: That this House- (1) notes the failure of the Government to grant a 2-year moratorium on payment of a new 2.4 cents per kilogram tax on beef exports, in direct opposition to the very sound arguments of the industry; (2) demands the immediate withdrawal of the 26% rise in export inspection charges on the oyster industry, compounding the 1000% increase in 1983-84; and (3) urges the Government to recognise that these and other primary industries affected by heavily increased export charges are competing on hard-fought overseas markets. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes and congratulates Sir James Killen a former Minister in the Fraser Government on his perceptive article in the Courier-Mail and Melbourne Herald on 8 October 1984 condemning the Parliamentary Liberal Party for its attitude and behaviour relating to what he calls the tolerating and accepting forms of accusation, inquiry and proof which are absolutely alien to people whose varied history encompasses centuries of struggle and sacrifice for freedom, justice and orderly process. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern at the Government's positive and deliberate discrimination against, and attack on, the small business sector in Australia; and (2) calls on the Government to honour its 1983 pre-election tax promises to small business and to recognise that small business is the backbone of the economy and the major job generator. Mr LUSHER(Hume) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes that following the redistribution of electoral boundaries , the number of Medicare offices in the electoral Division of Hume has been reduced from 2 to 1 and that major towns like Yass, Harden, Temora, Grenfell, Cootamundra, Gundagai, Tumut and Junee still have no Medicare office. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney- General. I ask: In the light of the widespread concern being voiced over the remarks of the Premier of New South Wales concerning the future of the New South Wales Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Clarrie Briese, will the Government rise above its political reliance on Mr Wran and tell the Premier that his remarks are damaging to the administration of justice in New South Wales? Will the Government convey to Mr Wran the concern of those involved in the Federal jurisdiction that New South Wales magistrates are charged with the administration of Federal laws and that his remarks can only harm that administration? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Even the Leader of the Opposition would know that Mr Wran's name has been mentioned in the Senate inquiry in circumstances which gave Mr Wran no chance to defend himself. In fact if one looks at that inquiry, one sees that it is not a judicial inquiry; it is a political inquiry of the Senate which is costing the taxpayer about $20,000 a day and which is admitting, by way of evidence, all sorts of allegations against people who are facing trial at present. It is about time the Senate had a look at the sort of committee it has set up and the sort of evidence that is being admitted. Mr Howard —This is interesting; keep going. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, it is interesting and I will keep going. The only thing that will limit me will be time. Mr Howard —Go on, keep going. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has more excuses than section 16 of the Income Tax Act. The other day he was at the committee hearing and he would have heard evidence tendered which was complete hearsay against a person who is facing trial. That is a denial of natural justice if ever there was one. The Senate ought to have a look at itself when it sets up this sort of farce to pillory people who have yet to be placed on trial in the courts of New South Wales. I think the point is well made in notices given here today that Sir James Killen accurately assessed-- Mr Spender —Your Chairman has the casting vote. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not talking about my Chairman, I am talking about the Senate. The honourable member for North Sydney, Mr Spender, as a Queen's Counsel , would know if he was there-and I think he was-that the Committee is admitting all sorts of evidence in a fashion that will damage people and has already damaged a number of people. I make the point that several of those people are now facing trial in New South Wales. Is it any wonder that Sir James Killen said that this was a denial of natural justice? He said it was about time the Leader of the Opposition dissociated himself from that sort of manoeuvre. Let us make it very clear: One of the reasons that the Committee was set up related to the question of tapes which, of course, as a result of the first Committee were deemed not even to be authentic. On that Committee was the former Attorney-General, Senator Peter Durack. It is worth while noting that the same Peter Durack had before him for more than 12 months the question of committing Morgan Ryan for trial and he did not do it. Why did the Attorney-General in the Liberal Government not commit Morgan Ryan for trial? What representations were made to the Government of the time not to commit Morgan Ryan for trial? It was this Government that sent Morgan Ryan for trial. How is it that Peter Durack, the Attorney-General in the former Government, was able to get himself put on a Senate committee purporting to investigate the authenticity of the Age tapes? If one looks at the Temby report one sees that the Age tapes interception was done by a New South Wales police officer who was an informer for the Federal Police. Who was in charge of the Federal Police at that time? Honourable members interjecting- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is not false; it is in the Temby report. Money was paid to the informer. How is it that when the Opposition was in government there was the illegal interception of the telephone, there were the tapes, and there was a paid informer who cannot be found now? He has retired on the grounds of ill health and is allegedly sailing a yacht in the Mediterranean. Is it any wonder that anybody whose name is dropped like confetti in the Senate complains about the denial of natural justice and about the fact that this is not a court of law ? Let us make it very clear; this inquiry is not a court of law. The point has been emphasised over and again that this should be the first and last Senate takeover of justice in this country. The performance there is a travesty of justice. Material which is not evidence has been admitted. Names have been dropped without any rhyme or reason whatsoever and people who are facing trial in this country now have to overcome the difficulty of doing so having been pilloried in front of this Committee which has no power except to report back to the Senate. That is all it has to do. It had no right to take unto itself the laws of this country. It had no right to admit as evidence accusations and allegations made against a number of people. When any Premier, irrespective of whether he is from New South Wales or anywhere else, objects to his name being mentioned before this Committee he is fully entitled to do so. Ms MAYER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. In view of the deliberate campaign of fear and misrepresentation being waged by the Opposition about the pensions assets test, can the Minister advise the House of the measures taken by this Government to improve the wellbeing and security of pensioners and beneficiaries? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Chisholm for her question. I think it can be confidently asserted and positively proved that in 18 months this Government has done as much, if not more, for needy pensioners and beneficiaries than the previous Government managed to do in seven years. Of course, if one reads the notices of motion from members of the Opposition one can be quite clear that they are incapable of distinguishing needy pensioners and beneficiaries from wealthy pensioners. Despite the difficulties that this Government has faced because of the budgetary situation which it inherited, in 18 months this Government has done some positive things for pensioners and beneficiaries. First of all, we have continued to provide for six-monthly indexation of pensions and benefits. In the last Budget we provided a $2.50 a week increase in the single pension and a $4.20 a week increase in the combined married rate. That increase more than compensated for the effects of Medicare on the consumer price index and contrasts quite clearly with the attitude of the Opposition when in government. When there was a low increase in the CPI the former Government simply postponed six-monthly indexation and instead introduced 12 monthly indexation. Moreover, the decision relating to 1 November is part of the Government's commitment to increase the rate of the pension over three years to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. In December 1975-that is, when Labor fell from power -the pension rate represented 24.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. By the end of the seven years of Fraser rule the figure had descended to 22.9 per cent. As a result of decisions made in this Budget we will raise it to 23.8 per cent. We will continue our commitment to raise it to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. But that is simply the start of what this Government has done for pensioners and beneficiaries. Since March 1983 we have increased the single adult rate of unemployment benefit by over $20 a week, or 30 per cent. Mr Cadman —I raise a point of order. I wonder whether the Minister has read the assets test claim form which even asks pensioners how much money they have in their pockets. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is not raising a point of order; he is making a statement. If he raises a point of order in that manner again he will be named immediately. Dr BLEWETT —This increase of 30 per cent in the rate for the single adult unemployed makes up for the discrimination that the previous Government practised against that group since 1978. We have also increased the rate of supplementary rent assistance for pensioners and beneficiaries by 50 per cent to $15 a week. That increase equals in 18 months what the previous Government did in seven years. Let me take my own area. Report after report over seven years told this Government it could have no adequate policy for the frail aged unless it was prepared to have a proper assessment system. That Government did nothing. In 18 months we have put $6m into approving assessments for aged people in this society. Report after report over seven years told the previous Government that it had to develop a home and community care program for the aged. Nothing was done by that Government. In this Budget we have laid the foundations for a rolling program to achieve that objective. Report after report over seven years told the previous Government that it had to enable old people to be able to leave nursing homes for periods to stay with their relatives so that respite patients could come in to relieve those people who looked after their aged care relatives. Nothing was done over seven years. There is legislation before this Parliament now to achieve both those objectives. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The Minister was asked a question in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. He said in his answer that he would now deal with his own area, which is health. He can only answer for one Minister at a time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Minister may continue. Dr BLEWETT —If the honourable member understood most of the points I had recently made, he would know that most of the policies I am talking about now are shared with the Department of Social Security. Mr Sinclair —Come on! Make a statement. Do not abuse Question Time. Dr BLEWETT —Finally, let me satisfy the right honourable member for New England- - Mr Sinclair —Do not abuse Question Time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members will remain silent. The Minister has indicated that he is winding up his answer. Dr BLEWETT —The right honourable member for New England provides an incentive. Let me conclude by saying that, if he were to examine our record in the past 18 months in social welfare measures to beneficiaries and pensioners in this country, he would see that in 18 months we have done as much if not more than the previous Government managed to do in seven years. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister representing the Attorney-General. In view of the deepening concern over the threats to the integrity and impartiality of the magistracy and judiciary in New South Wales and public disquiet about serious disclosures affecting a member of the High Court of Australia, will he ask the Attorney-General to consult with the Chief Justice of that court to indicate that it is the view of a significant number of members of this House that a member of his court should stand aside until, through the failure of this Government to refer the issues to a royal commission, matters now before the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge are finalised? Mr Peacock —What is the Prime Minister saying to the Deputy Prime Minister? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Nothing. He was referring to the issue as one involving the integrity of Mr Justice Cross, which we think is unblemished. The Leader of the Opposition invited me to say what was mentioned. Mr Justice Cross who headed the Special Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations by the Right Honourable Ian McCahon Sinclair must make the right honourable member for New England blush at the moment. Let me make it very clear that in the view of the people of New South Wales there is nothing wrong with justice in New South Wales. Let me make clear a point that has already been made. The appointment of Mr Clarrie Briese as Chief Stipendiary Magistrate was made by the Chief Justice of New South Wales and other members of a committee, a point which honourable members opposite seem to have overlooked. Honourable members opposite also ought to know full well that Morgan Ryan was sent to trial by this Government and was convicted in New South Wales but was successful on appeal. What did they do about that matter when in government? They talk about justice. The only thing the right honourable member for New England ever did about it was to make an unfortunate speech to the National Party of Australia in which he accused a number of people of doing all sorts of illegal acts. When the right honourable member was interviewed by the police he could not substantiate his claims. When the report of Mr Justice Cross, a distinguished member of the New South Wales judiciary, was tabled, the right honourable member said what he thought of Mr Justice Cross. That is how much he thought of the justice in New South Wales as it applied to him. So his question today is not of an unbiased nature; it is an example of a professional politician trying to denigrate somebody else because he has the privilege of this Parliament and is exempt. But when he is outside this Parliament, when he is asked to face up and name people, he is unable to substantiate his claims. That has been the big allegation made here in recent weeks. If any Opposition members have any names that they want to drop they should do so, but they have not been able to produce any evidence. The point I am making is that in the Senate Committee a whole number of names have now been given to that Committee which have severely damaged the people named. Mr Ruddock —By judges. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Judges are no different from anybody else if hearsay evidence is given. That is the point. Mr Peacock —Are you attacking the judges too? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I am not. I just said that they are no different from anybody else. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest the Deputy Prime Minister resume his seat. While this nonsense is going on on my left, I do not intend to allow him to continue. Mr Peacock —He is spraying the judiciary. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not spraying the judiciary. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the Deputy Prime Minister not to respond to the interjections from the Leader of the Opposition. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —But sometimes interjections are very damaging and they have to be answered. Mr SPEAKER —I realise that. I am trying to maintain order so that the Deputy Prime Minister can be heard in silence and we can all hear what he is saying. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —To follow on from what I have been saying, I will quote Sir James Killen. He said: This country is doing great damage to itself, to its institutions, to its people, to its liberties and to its future by tolerating and accepting forms of accusation, inquiry and proof which are absolutely alien to a people whose history encompasses centuries of struggle and sacrifice for freedom, justice and orderly processes . . . That is the point. In the issue at the moment, justice in New South Wales will continue to take its course. Two people who are facing trial there unfortunately have had a denial of natural justice because of evidence given in the Senate inquiry-evidence that would not have been admitted in any court of law, accusations that are without substantiation. Where do they spring from? I said that they came from illegal interception of telephones and were within the knowledge of the previous Government. That Government did nothing about it at the time. Mr Spender —What! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. Mr Temby, on page 9 of the 'Report of Special Prosecutor, Ian Temby Q.C., into the Age materials', states that Detective Superintendent Lamb said that he acknowledged receipt of sound tapes from Jock Hawthorn, a serving member of the New South Wales Police; that certain cash payments were made to Hawthorn; and that Hawthorn was registered as a Federal Police informant under the code name 'Irish'. There we have the start of this conspiracy against the people now facing the problems of that Senate Committee. These same police apparently gave the tapes to Mr Bob Bottom, who gave them to the Age newspaper over a period of years. All that evidence was within the knowledge of Senator Durack in the time that he was Attorney-General. The former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said that representations had been made to him about the matter over a period-that is, the matter of Morgan Ryan. So it is about time this Opposition got back to its responsibilities of looking at the economic conditions and asking questions that relate to the prosperity and the difficulties that this country might have to face in the future, instead of getting into a muck-raking exercise. No wonder its popularity is down to 14 per cent. No wonder every time the right honourable member for New England asks a question we remember his accusations against Mr Justice Cross. He is a damaged politician because of his lack of understanding. If the Senate had any wisdom, it would wind up its Committee and let justice take its course in New South Wales. Mr REEVES —Is the Treasurer aware that the Country Liberal Party Government in the Northern Territory has confiscated the casino complexes owned by Federal Hotels Ltd? Is the Treasurer concerned about the adverse effect this move will have on private investment in the development of the Northern Territory, despite the hilarity expressed by some honourable members opposite? Mr KEATING —I am aware of the confiscation being mounted by the Country Liberal Party Government in the Northern Territory and I am very concerned about it. In recent weeks a number of business people, both in Australia and overseas, have expressed their concern to me at the ruthless and bloody-minded behaviour of the Northern Territory Government. The Commonwealth Government is interested in growth, and the Northern Territory is a very important economic part of Australia. One of the foundation stones of growth is private investment, and to promote private investment the Government has fostered a better climate in Australia. Particularly in respect of public infrastructure in the Northern Territory, it has started a number of programs which will be of particular benefit to that area: The Tindal Royal Australian Air Force base, $176m; the Darwin Airport, $96m; the new power station, $480m; the all-weather highway from Adelaide to Darwin, $27m, ultimately part of a $200m program; and Aussat and remote area telephone program, which will give the whole Territory access to television, radio and telephones, at a cost of $400m. In other words, the Government is not just promoting economic growth but is setting down the infrastructure upon which can be built a higher level of private sector investment in the Northern Territory. What Mr Everingham, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, has done, is extremely tragic. As a result of that policy of confiscation in regard to Federal Hotels-which had a 15-year agreement with the Government of which he was Leader and which now, after five years, without explanation has simply had confiscated from it these assets it had built up-there will be a tragic decline in confidence for investment by all investors in the Northern Territory. What investor could take the punt upon the whim and caprice of the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory that any long term investment, which would be a front-end loaded investment with a long payback time-that is, substantial, worthwhile private investment-would ever be allowed to come to fruition and that proper earnings could be reaped from it? Mr Everingham has tugged away at the total fabric of confidence for investment in that place. One does not know what he hopes to gain from it. Apparently this very day he is resigning his place in the Northern Territory House of Assembly to contest the Federal seat of the Northern Territory. That will be a waste of his time. He has already conceded that this Government will win an increased majority. The people of the Territory will dismiss as humbug his rhetoric about private enterprise and private investment when he has done such a damaging act to the whole fabric of confidence that surrounds investment in the Territory, despite the fact that this Government is continuing to build the basic public infrastructure. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party of Australia-those 'great supporters of private enterprise'-have not said a word of condemnation about the fact that Federal Hotels has had its assets ripped away. Not one penny of compensation has been offered to Federal Hotels. All one can assume is that the Opposition supports the confiscation which has taken place in the Northern Territory. The Leader of the Opposition, his Deputy and the Leader of the National Party, by their silence, indicate support for this policy of bloody- minded confiscation of private assets in the Northern Territory. This Government will have no bar of such procedures in any part of Australia where its realm is important. I indicate that my colleague, the honourable member for the Northern Territory, will make quite clear there where this Government stands on this issue. I have no doubt that the good sense of the electors of the Northern Territory will dismiss the candidature of Mr Everingham for the national Parliament on the basis that he has destroyed the fabric of confidence for investment in the Territory which can only hold the prospect of ever seeing a true move to statehood. Without high levels of private sector investment, the Territory will never make statehood. I believe the people of the Northern Territory understand that and will reject Mr Everingham and his policies for whatever Parliament he may wish to nominate. Mr COLEMAN —I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question relating to the Bill he introduced on 4 October 1984 to amend the National Crime Authority Act 1984. Can the Leader of the Opposition further explain clause 4 of his National Crime Authority Amendment Bill-- Mr Young —Couldn't you understand it when he first explained it? Mr COLEMAN —You wait until you hear the answer. Can the Leader of the Opposition further explain clause 4 of that Bill which amends the definition of 'relevant offence' in section 4 of the principal Act? Mr PEACOCK —One of the difficulties with the National Crime Authority Act that this Government legislated for is that the Authority is restricted as to the type of criminal activities it can investigate by the narrow definition of the term 'relevant offence'. This definition is presently restrictive because to be a relevant offence an offence must contain all of four separate elements. For instance, the Authority at present cannot investigate whether a member of a State government had sought improperly to influence a witness before a Federal tribunal. Of course, that is a concern and would be such at any time, but it is a deeper concern at present because there have been allegations, and further allegations over an extended period, that via others the New South Wales Premier sought to influence the trial of a Federal offence. Mrs Darling —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer you to Part 14 of the House of Representatives Short Description of Business and Procedures and point out that in the relevant section it says: Questions to a Member who is not a Minister can only relate to a bill, motion, or other public matter connected with the business of the House of which that Member has charge. Such a question, however, must not anticipate discussion. I point out that when I answered a similar question when I was in opposition that was interpreted to mean that I should not discuss or debate that Bill in any way but that I should only give details of points of fact. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Over the last two sitting days, I have patiently tried to make the distinction. May I make the distinction. When a member is in charge of a Bill which is only on notice on the Notice Paper, the questioning of that member is very restricted because to take it further than the procedures means anticipating discussion. However, in this instance the Leader of the Opposition is in charge of a Bill which has been presented to the House, which has had a second reading debate and which is before the House; so questions seeking information about that legislation are in order. Mr PEACOCK —I referred to the problem of the Authority not properly investigating and not having the power to investigate whether a State government , for example, sought improperly to influence a witness appearing before a Federal tribunal. I mentioned that there is a deepening concern because of the further allegations of the New South Wales Premier in seeking to influence the trial of a Federal offence. On the weekend, by his actions in seeking to silence Mr Briese, the New South Wales Premier and Federal President of the Australian Labor Party demonstrated that he was certainly capable of such underhand and illegal misbehaviour and gave credence to the allegations that have been around for months and months concerning his interference in the administration of justice in New South Wales. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the Leader of the Opposition should relate this to the question. Mr PEACOCK —My Bill would substantially broaden the definition of 'relevant offence'. Government supporters-My Bill! Mr PEACOCK —I am much encouraged by the noise from Government supporters. My Bill would substantially broaden the definition of 'relevant offence' and make it possible for the National Crime Authority to investigate all of the allegations, which it cannot do unless the Government is prepared to accept the amendments which are before the House in my Bill. Whether, of course, the Prime Minister would allow his mate, Mr Wran, to be so investigated is another matter. But at least we should learn that after the Bill receives the support of this House and, hopefully, the Senate. I introduce this element as to whether the Prime Minister would interfere because of his mate, Mr Wran, and I presume it is legitimate because it is an activity from which the Prime Minister at present refuses to distance himself. For no other reason we need a crime authority beyond the reach of this sort of abysmal behaviour and cover-up by the current Government. Mr SAUNDERSON —Can the Minister for Trade inform the House whether there is any substance to reports that his recent visit to Italy gave cause for increased optimism with respect to Australian exports? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. On 26 September in Italy we signed an economic and technical co-operation agreement with the Italian Government. That agreement will help trade between our two countries. The trade is of a substantial nature at present, but it has declined in recent years because there has been an inability to follow up good opportunities whereby there could be an extension of the trade in a number of areas, not the least of which would be in regard to coal. At present we sell some coking coal to Italy, but its steel production and technology are increasing and it can certainly assist us by taking more orders for coking coal. In regard to electricity generation, it proposes to convert from oil fired to coal fired generators, which would give us a marvellous opportunity to increase steaming coal sales to Italy. The Italian ministry is very anxious to visit Australia. Minister Corti will be here this week as a guest of my colleague the Minister for Social Security, Senator Don Grimes. He will be here to talk about a social security agreement. It is worth noting that there are one million Italians in Australia. They are splendid citizens. I think it is appropriate, in view of the technical developments by engineers and scientists in Italy, that we have an agreement so that there can be an interchange and an interface between Italy's engineers, scientists and managers and their equivalent in Australia. I propose to set up a working group of Australians that can match the Italian group. I think it would be to the utmost advantage of trade between our two countries. In regard to steel technology, the Italians are well advanced and have a capacity now to talk about the conversion of iron ore into steel by a direct reduction process. This would be of undoubted advantage to Western Australia, particularly the Pilbara. The Italian Minister interested in this process is coming to Australia, I hope in the next two months. A visit to the Pilbara region will certainly be arranged for him because a joint venture could be arranged between the Italian Government and the people who own iron ore deposits in that region. The energy resources of North West Shelf gas, of which at present we have a surplus, could be used in what is called iron sponge production and this would be of undoubted value to both Italy and Australia. All in all, what the honourable gentleman is seeking is an answer as to what are the prospects. I think they are brilliant from the point of view of developing trade. If joint venture operations could be arranged in respect of our own technology, particularly computer software, there would be an opportunity for us, not only in the Italian market but also in the European market where the Italians have a right of entry. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Does the honourable gentleman agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the current Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge inquiry, involving Mr Justice Murphy , should be wound up? Mr HAWKE —I endorse the answers that have been given today in the House by the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —My question, which I address to the Prime Minister, relates to the youth of Australia. Can the Prime Minister advise the House of the impact of the Government's economic policies on youth employment? Mr HAWKE —The increasing of employment and the reducing of unemployment has been this Government's No. 1 priority. I refer to some of the major instruments that the Government has employed in this regard. We have pursued moderately expansionary budgetary policies. We have had central as an instrument in this regard the prices and incomes accord. Of course, there have been specific employment programs such as the community employment program. Those policies are working. We have created a quarter of a million new jobs. The unemployment rate is down by one and a half percentage points from its peak. Of course, the major point of the honourable member's question related to youth unemployment. We have reduced youth unemployment. Let me put before the House the facts, as distinct from the consistent pattern of misrepresentation which everyone in this country has come to expect from the other side of the House. The unemployment level among 15- to 19-year-olds looking for full time work has been reduced, in seasonally adjusted terms, by 15 ,700 or by 10 per cent between March 1983 and August 1984. The unemployment rate among this group has fallen, in seasonally adjusted terms, from 27.4 per cent in March 1983 to 25 per cent in August 1984. No seasonally adjusted figures for total youth unemployment, including part timers, exist. But, if we use the unadjusted figures, the same story emerges-a fall in total unemployment among 15 - to 19-year-olds between March 1983 and August 1984 both in absolute terms and in terms of the unemployment rate. Having pointed to the fact that there has been a reduction in youth unemployment under the policies of this Government, let me say-I hope that in this respect there is no dispute-that despite that success youth unemployment in this country is still too high. At least under this Government the figures are moving in the right direction. As well as the general economic instruments of policy to which I have referred, we have substantially boosted support for pre- apprenticeship courses and for apprentice training. We have substantially expanded special youth employment training programs and we have improved education opportunities under the participation and equity program. In addition to that, we have strongly boosted funding for the community youth support scheme . That is what has happened under this Government and that is how we have reversed the trend under the previous Government. I remind honourable members of just what did happen under the previous Government. When these figures are understood, perhaps the people on the other side will be quiet. These are the facts of what occurred in this country under their Government: Between February 1976 and February 1983 total unemployment amongst 15-to-19-year-olds rose by 107 ,400; that is, under their administration it more than doubled. The rate of youth unemployment rose from 15.6 per cent to 25.8 per cent, over 10 percentage points, under their administration. If they want to talk about youth unemployment, I wish they would direct themselves to the facts and recognise that there was a disastrous record under their administration. Under the effective administration and imaginative policies of this Government we have reversed that disastrous trend. Under this Government now, and when it is re- elected on 1 December, we will continue that improving trend. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. In view of the public disclosure provisions of the electoral funding legislation and its objective of impartiality in public funding, will the Minister terminate immediately the blatantly political multi-million dollar advertising campaign for Medicare? Dr BLEWETT —The decisions in relation to Medicare advertising are, of course, made by the Health Insurance Commission, which is responsible for the operation of Medicare. Of course I have had discussions with the Health Insurance Commission in relation to this matter. It was always a part of the Health Insurance Commission's program that if necessary-this was dependent on the type and kind of advertising waged against Medicare by the private funds-there would be a supportive campaign towards the end of 1984. In the six months from January to June $3.5m was spent by the private funds in their campaign. Some of that advertising was responsible but much of it was devoted simply to knocking, denigrating and attacking Medicare. Indeed, some of that private fund advertising was so blatantly misleading that there were protests to the various commissions responsible for fair advertising. In view of that $3.5m campaign from January to June-we are advised that it has continued at roughly the same level-it was decided that a supportive campaign would be developed in relation to Medicare. The cost of that campaign, for the information of the honourable member, is: In relation to television, $690,000; and in relation to the Press, $250,000. That compares with a campaign of at least, known, $3.5m, much of it deliberately misrepresenting Medicare. If the Opposition bothered to look at that advertising it would find that it is much fairer to the private funds than much of the private fund advertising is to Medicare. Mr Hawke —I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr Hodgman —What about the Boulevard? You will not even debate it when I have laryngitis. You are a gutless craven coward. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Kerin —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I overheard that comment and I ask the honourable member for Denison to withdraw it. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison will withdraw that remark. Mr Hodgman —When you debate the Boulevard incident. I have got-- Mr SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for Denison. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member for Denison be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 46 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cohen, B. Morris, AllanCross, 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.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. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. Lusher, S. A.Cadman, A. G. McArthur, F. S.Cameron, Donald McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ian McVeigh, D. T.Carlton, J. J. Macphee, I. M.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. O'Keefe, F. L.Cowan, D. B. Peacock, A. S.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Rocher, A. C.Fife, W. C. 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.Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER —This being the honourable member's second suspension during the year , the suspension is for the remainder of this day and the next seven consecutive days. The honourable member for Denison thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members, I table the exchange of correspondence between myself and the Governor-General relating to the elections to be held on 1 December 1984. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) — Pursuant to section 14 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, section 140 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the corresponding provision of the statutes relating to recoupment tax, sales tax, bank account debits tax, pay-roll tax, estate duty, gift duty, Australian Capital Territory stamp duty and tax, wool tax, tobacco charge and stevedoring industry charge, I present the sixty-third report of the Commissioner of Taxation dated 9 October 1984. Ordered that the report be printed. Personal Explanations Personal Explanations Personal Explanations Personal Explanations Personal Explanations Personal Explanations Petitions Petitions Petitions Petitions Petitions Petitions Mr KEATING —Now that the motion has been carried the paper is covered by parliamentary privilege. When the motion to print was agreed to the paper was in the process of being circulated. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 44 (1) of the Prices Surveillance Act 1983, I present the first annual report of the Prices Surveillance Authority. This report reviews the operations of the Authority from 19 March 1984 to 30 June 1984. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members, I present an advance copy of the Department of Defence annual report for 1983-84. Limited advance copies of the report are available from the Bills and Papers Office, Senate Records and the Parliamentary Library. I expect the final version of the report to be available from the Australian Government Publishing Service in the near future and I will ensure that copies will be made available to honourable members. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 6 of the National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Act 1978, I present copies of an agreement with Queensland for the provision of financial assistance for the Burdekin Falls Dam. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Communications interim annual report for 1983-84. Limited copies of the report are available from the Bills and Papers Office, Senate Records and the Parliamentary Library. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal ex- planation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr GOODLUCK —I do, for the second time in a week. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr GOODLUCK —In giving a notice of motion soon after 2 p.m. today the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), a man who is twice my size and who looks twice as old, again grossly misrepresented me by alleging, firstly, that I was spreading rumours that the freight equalisation scheme in Tasmania is to be abolished and, secondly, that I am undermining the economy of Tasmania. What a lot of rot! These claims are totally false. I have never spread rumours about the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme, although there are many rumours about it in Tasmania. I have never undermined the Tasmanian economy. In fact, I think it is well known in this House that I have always tried to talk up the economy. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He has now pointed out to the House how he has been misrepresented. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —My attention has been drawn to an article in the Bulletin magazine of 9 October 1984. The article was written by Bruce Stannard and it deals, if I may say so, in a very sensitive manner with the problems of some politicians' families and personal family difficulties. In the course of the article the New South Wales Minister for Transport, Mr Barrie Unsworth, was quoted. The article stated: Unsworth said both he and his wife had been appalled at the attitude adopted by Peacock and his deputy, John Howard, after Mrs Hawke had gone on television to explain her daughter Rosslyn's addiction. 'They are- I am quoting his words- parents,' he said, 'and they should realise that nobody-and I don't care who it is-is immune from the risk of drug addiction. I would like to point out to the House the response that I gave, and I know that in giving that response I totally reflected the views of my Leader. In giving my response, in answer to a question on the AM program, I said: No. I did not know about it then. I subsequently learned something about the problem and like Andrew Peacock, on a personal level, I am, and I am sure everybody in the Parliament and the community is personally sorry for the family sadness that the Prime Minister is suffering. I went on in a political vein to deal with issues of substance. I want to make it perfectly clear that at no stage have either I or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in any way attacked the family of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or sought to involve that family in any of the debates or any of the differences of opinion in recent weeks. It was the Prime Minister's decision to intrude those matters into the debate. I offer no comment on that except to record that fact. I simply conclude by saying that I telephoned Mr Unsworth for whom, despite our political differences, I have some personal regard and, sympathising as I do with the problem that he suffered with his family, I explained my position. I make it plain to the House that, as a parent of young children, I do not regard myself as immune from the sorts of problems that other people have suffered and I have every sympathy with the principles stated by Mr Unsworth. I deeply regret that he, or the author of the article, misrepresented completely the views and the positions of Andrew Peacock and me. 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 petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Cadman,Mr Carlton,Mr Drummond and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Charles and Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; 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 the Australian people 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 Millar. 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,Mr Moore and Mr Ruddock. 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 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,Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan, Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry 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 31st March 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully 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 and Mr Ruddock. 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 the the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe,Mr Simmons, and Mr Sinclair. To the Right Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled; should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that: The Attorney-General enforce 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/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board; Censors more appropriately reflect responsible attitudes; Further measures be taken in association with States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and That, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: that Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs ( Cinematographic Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully shows: That we, electors of the Commonwealth of Australia, view with extreme concern and express forthwith our complete abhorrence of the relaxation of the former Federal laws concerning censorship classifications to allow publication and importation of hardcore pornography. Therefore we, the undersigned, do fervently request the Federal Government to repeal the ''A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance'' as they affect publications and videos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron and Mr Moore. 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 Fisher and Mr Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- 1. The concern at the presence of foreign military bases in Australia being first strike nuclear targets in the event of both limited and total nuclear war. 2. The concern at the Government providing port and docking facilities for nuclear armed warships and allowing the landing of aircraft which may be nuclear armed. 3. The concern with the danger to all Australians of a policy of alignment with any nuclear armed nation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament shall: Not renew the leases of any foreign military bases when these leases expire. Not allow nuclear armed or powered warships to enter Australian ports nor allow the landing of aircraft which may be nuclear armed. Legislate for Australia to peruse a policy of armed neutrality without alignment with any nuclear armed nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beddall. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that there are unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the development of nuclear power, in particular: (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated. Your petitioners most humbly pray that: (1) No new uranium mines be commenced; (2) No new contracts for the sale of uranium be approved; (3) Uranium mines presently in production cease with the fulfilment of current contacts; (4) No new uranium is supplied to countries making or testing nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. 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 and therefore its price, eliminates the opportunity for public or parliamentary debate on a tax increase , perpetuates inflation, reduces job opportunities in the hotel and brewing industries, And your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: immediately repeal those legislative provisions that automatically increase the excise on beer when the C.P.I. increases. 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: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the A.B.R.D. fuel levy when the C.P.I. increases, perpetrates inflation, increases the cost of goods to country people, reduces the living standards of all Australians, short changes motorists as the extra funds raised are not spent on roads. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Give Australian motorists a better deal and immediately repeal those legislative provisions that automatically increase the price of petrol when the C.P.I. increases. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, recognizes that the flag is 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 is contemplated that the question be put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They remind the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of his statement in the House on March 7, 1984 that ''There is no discrimination evident in any part or aspect of Australia's immigration programme.'' Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That he reviews the discrimination applying to an application by Mrs Marion Morely of Legana in Tasmania whereby she has sponsored her sister, Mrs Cynthia Westbrook from the U.K., under the provisions of the Family Reunion Programme. 2. That he recognises the application upholds eight of the nine Principles underlying the Government's Migration Policy. 3. That he is aware of the sponsored person's financial situation which guarantees no liability on the Australian community. 4. That his Department is aware of thirteen members of the family unit already well established during the previous 20 years in Australia. 5. That he recognises the humanitarian reasons behind these applications, which are now three in number since March 1983, and honours the Government's alleged commitments to Family Reunion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives in the 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 humbly 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 citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the 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 Australia 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 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 Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : In view of the multi-cultural nature of the population of the Riverina area of New South Wales, especially around Griffith, the extension of the multi-lingual television services provided by the Special Broadcasting Service through television channel 0-28 to the Riverina area would satisfy a need in that area for such services especially among the older ethnic members of the community. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that the television services available through channel 0-28 be extended to the Riverina area of New South Wales. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the intentions of the Australian Film Institute to dispose of the State Cinema in Hobart. Your petitioners declare that this cinema provides a unique and crucial service to the cultural life of Hobart by being the only outlet for independent, experimental, short feature and student films. Your petitioners seek to remind the parliament that the cinema was originally purchased with a special Commonwealth Government grant through the Film, Radio and TV Board of the Australia Council. Your petitioners call upon the Minister for the Arts to prevent, through the Australian Film Commission, the selling and closing-down of the State Cinema in Hobart. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in view of the considerable residential development of the area known as Pine Hill Estate and surrounding areas in the municipality of Doncaster and Templestowe, there is a need for a sub-post office to serve the community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That realising the valuable service that the existing business on the Estate known as the 'Pine Hill Milk Bar' of 2 Pine Hill Drive, gives to the community it serves, we request that a licence for a sub-post office be given to the owners Messrs H & A Kasapidis to enable them to provide the additional community facilities that are urgently required. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peacock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That the legislation and regulations associated with Medicare are repugnant to natural justice and humane medical practice, and more appropriate to a police state than to Australia; That the said legislation and regulations are being administered so as to oppress and demoralise the medical profession, and without regard to the interests of the sick; That altogether disproportionate penalties are being imposed, through administrative action, on medical practitioners for minor infringements of the Medicare rules; and That, unless reforms are instituted, the quality of Australia's health care system will decline. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government legislate to make possible in Australia a health care system in which efficiency and innovation are not repressed, and humane medical practice is again possible without harassment. 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 humble petition of we, the undesigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of Medicare has not resulted in a cheaper, fairer system of health care as promised by the Federal Government. Rather, it is an expensive, bureaucratic scheme, depersonalising medical services and conducive to medical mediocrity. While recognising the responsibility which exists to assist those in need, we humbly request the Government to review this system which moves towards the nationalisation of Australian medicine. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. The Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements, and 2. The Government's proposed assets test legislation, presently under re- examination, 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. Totally abandon its proposed assets test legislation. 2. Either institute a broad inquiry 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 inquiry, 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 Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 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 to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Authorities in Australia shows considerable concern that the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program Levy, at 2 cents per litre on petrol and diesel, was indexed in the 1984 budget, but that funds raised from indexation of the levy will go into consolidated revenue, and not specifically into expenditure on road funds. It has been estimated that indexation of the levy will raise $491 million over the next six years to 1988/89, of which Local Government could have expected to receive $58 million. This is a further denial of funds to Local Government, following $13 million lost this year from Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will amend the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act, such that funds raised through indexation of the levy will be placed in the Trust Fund, and used for much needed road construction work. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. Petitions received. Assent to the following Bills reported: Australian National University Amendment Bill 1984 Canberra College of Advanced Education Amendment Bill 1984 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Hawke Labor Government's sustained assault on ordinary Australian taxpayers . 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)(3.30) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure every Australian would agree that we live in an overtaxed nation. Personal tax is crippling individual initiative; yet when we look at the record of this Labor Government we find that it has done nothing to lighten the tax burden shouldered by ordinary Australians. On the contrary, it has added to the tax burden. In the process the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has failed to keep his promises to the electorate. Honourable members will recall the promise of immediate tax cuts for 99 per cent of the community. Mr Rocher —A broken promise. Mr PEACOCK —Yet another broken promise-one of more than 100 that I will detail outside this House today. Instead of genuine reform of the tax system, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) brought down in August this year a Budget which featured a shabby tax trick. The hard fact is that under this Labor Government the average wage earner's position is already $22 a week worse than it was in February 1983 under the previous coalition Government. I repeat: Ordinary Australians were $22 a week worse off under Labor before the Budget. The so- called tax cut in the Budget has to be judged in that context. The Budget was framed at a time when individual ordinary Australians were $22 a week worse off than they were before this Government came to power. It brought in a Budget which offered some Australians $7.60 a week and most a lot less, leaving people worse off than they were 19 months ago. It is not a tax cut to take away $22 a week and then months later give back less than $8 to some. Australians are not being fooled by this. What a deceitful method this Government has used-a short term cosmetic shuffling of the tax rates. The hard fact is that even after these phoney tax cuts the average wage earner stays in the 46 cents in the dollar bracket-47c counting the Medicare levy. Average wage earners are now paying to Canberra nearly half of every extra dollar earned. Should Labor be re-elected, leaving this tax rip-off in place, hundreds of thousands more Australians will move into the 46c tax bracket and over a million taxpayers will move into even higher tax brackets. Did we think the day would come when people on average weekly earnings would lose half their overtime pay to this Government by way of taxes? It is not only a national disgrace; it strikes at the very effort that we have sought for decades to generate in this nation. We have to provide incentives to get people to work more, rather than deter them from working harder by making them shovel so much of their earnings in to the tax man. This is happening. Just as Labor's attack on the elderly through the assets test, which will go after the next election, and its 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation, which will also go after the next election under us, penalise those who work a lifetime and put aside a nest egg for retirement, so too the Hawke Government's personal tax impositions penalise those who work to get ahead. This Government is clearly stamping out individual initiative. There is little incentive to work overtime when one is paying nearly half of every overtime dollar earned to Canberra. It is precisely this will to work hard and be rewarded for it that made our country great. Now we have a government which says to ordinary Australians: 'You can work hard, you can work back, but we are taking half of the money you earn'. It is hardly the way to encourage people; it is hardly the way to lead to growth in this country; and it certainly strikes at the encouragement for people to work and get ahead. It goes against the aspirations of ordinary Australians. While Labor will not index personal income tax scales, it has had no hesitation whatsoever in indexing taxes on petrol, beer and tobacco so that they go up automatically every six months. That is what has happened with taxation in just 19 months of a Labor government. Taxes on basic items such as petrol and beer now go up automatically. They will go up automatically again and again if this Government is returned. Of course, in the Budget the Government added wine to its tax take, imposing a 10 per cent tax on wine. What is the value of phoney tax cuts in the face of this? As I have already said, we should get the context right; $22 a week has been taken from Australians and less than $8 a week has been given back, and as well we have all these further imposts that I have just mentioned. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister can continue to dissemble and to avoid the realities of their assault upon the wages and salaries of ordinary Australian men and women but they cannot hide the facts. The fact that Australians will have uppermost in their minds during this unnecessary election campaign is that the Hawke Labor Government is already the highest taxing government in Australian peacetime history. Some record in 19 months! Under this Government, even if one is earning, say, $17,000 a year-- Mr Keating —That is a lie. Mr PEACOCK —It is a what? Mr Keating —It is another lie. Mr PEACOCK —Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that the Treasurer withdraw. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will withdraw. Mr Keating —I will withdraw 'lie', Madam Deputy Speaker, and insert 'untruth'. Mr PEACOCK —The Treasurer has been spending too much time with the Prime Minister and by a form of osmosis uses the same words. Under this Government, even if people are earning $17,000 a year, which is well below the average wage, their living standard has fallen. When we look at the spending record of this Government, the highest taxing government in peacetime history, there is little to show for all the additional money taken. There is no additional assistance to encourage families-as I have said in this place, a word not in the Prime Minister's vocabulary. Quite apart from his vocabulary, where is the assistance to Australian families? It does not exist. There has been no increase in family allowances, no increase in the spouse rebate and little increase for child care. Pensioners, who have suffered more than any other group under Labor, were promised substantial pension increases. Yet this Government gave them a miserly 45c a week above the Government's Medicare fiddle. None of the extra tax take has gone to honour Labor's list of promises to small business. The tax incentives promises to small business just have not been honoured. These are just three groups which have received nothing from Labor's big taxing program. It is the highest taxing peacetime government and it cannot even meet the needs of families, of the elderly and of small business. It does not meet the undertakings it has given but, worse than that, it has broken approximately 118 promises in just 19 months. What about families, the elderly and small business? It is all right for the Government; it leaves them out in the cold while it cuddles up with its colleagues in the trade union movement, which tells the Government what it can do about any foreign banks that come in and which it gives confidential information. The Government stopped orders for defence supplies because the trade union movement told it to. Does the Government have discussions with the Australian community before a Budget? No, it has discussions with the Australian Council of Trade Unions alone and does whatever it dictates. It displays no sensitivity at all to the needs of groups in the community such as families, the elderly and small business who are deserving, under the highest taxing government in this nation's peacetime history, of some regard and who are not to be treated with contempt. The contrast between Labor's tax record and the policies and record of the coalition could not be sharper. We are committed to fundamental tax reform that will reduce the burden of personal income tax. We are committed to rewarding those who have worked to get ahead. We are committed to encouraging families through tax incentives, and we will scrap Labor's 31 per cent tax on lump sum superannuation payments and its assets test for the elderly. Tax will be in the news throughout this election. The Government cannot be the highest taxing government in the history of this nation in peacetime without people being reminded of it. Mr Howard —It will get worse if they get back too. Mr PEACOCK —It will get infinitely worse if the Government gets back into office , but it will not get back because Australians will have a clear choice between Labor's big taxing record and its future new tax plans and the coalition's positive determination to get the tax man off people's backs. The hard fact of this Government is that it is not looking at lessening taxes. It is not looking at ways in which ordinary Australians can pay less tax. It is not willing to give any commitment either to less tax or to a fundamental restructuring of the taxation scales. This is the Government of more tax. The statements of the Government and its Ministers during the past 12 months bear that out. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), who has always had a special interest in taxation as long as it is somebody else's, is on the record as advocating the introduction of new capital gains and wealth taxes. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is also involved. As he said: A capital gains tax should be imposed in combination with estate and gift duties. Senator Button is also on the record as having said he would 'take every opportunity' to ensure that the Government imposed a capital gains tax. We know that the Prime Minister has been talking up the issue. We have in the House the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), the man who after the last Budget so disarmingly said: What I say; if you are talking about a three year Parliament, without any possibility of an early election, it means that in that three year Parliament you can spend money, you can raise money perhaps by increasing taxation, or funding new sources of taxation to do things that are expensive that you would not be game to do, you would not be keen to do, three or four months before an election. The true voice of Labor, laid on the line days after the Budget, said that after the election it would deal with the ordinary Australians, the worker who wants to get on, the people in small businesses, the people who are the heart of the Australian economy, the people who work, who make modest improvements, who save to get a decent life, who dedicate their lives to improving family farms and then hand them over to their sons and daughters. They will not have a bar of this nonsense because we have smoked out the Government. There has been an indication by the Prime Minister and other Ministers that capital gains taxes will be introduced, and the Minister for Science and Technology has indicated that there is more to come. We know what is to come-not only a wind-up in the income tax area, but also capital gains taxes, death duties and wealth duties. As the Prime Minister is not in the chamber-he never is-I challenge the Treasurer here and now to give the Australian electorate an unequivocal assurance that Labor has no plans to introduce a capital gains tax or death duties. He will not give it. We will get the usual woolly rhetoric when he rises. He will not give a firm commitment. The Treasurer belongs to a party of big spenders and big taxers; it is the record-breaking taxing government in the history of this nation. Mr McVeigh —What about Barry Jones? Mr PEACOCK —It is not only the voice of the Minister for Science and Technology. I read out the views of other Ministers who are in favour of capital gains. As certain as night follows day, those taxes would come in if this Party were to be returned to government; but it will not be. Not only the Minister but also the whole Centre Left and the Left will roll the creature of the Right from New South Wales, the Treasurer, junior Marmaduke, who is now in the House. Those factions are bankrupt of ideas other than those involving big spending and big taxes. Those factions would run this Prime Minister, if he were to be returned at the next election, into capital gains and death duties. The Government will not hide the tax issue in this election campaign. It cannot hide or avoid its tax record of being the biggest taxing government in Australian peacetime history. Australians have a choice on tax. The coalition offers ordinary people genuine tax relief. It is an offer and a commitment that the Australian people will take up. They will not have a bar of Labor's capital gains tax; they will not have a bar of its death duties; they will not have a bar of the whole range of taxes that quite clearly the Minister for Science and Technology indicated the Government would introduce, were it to be returned, when he blew the gaff on this Government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.45) —The poor Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), more to be pitied than despised, has seven and a half weeks in which to save himself from the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The fact is that, if his performance in Parliament today is any example, he will try to do as badly as possible because that will mean that the Deputy Leader will lose his seat and the problem will be solved. There is one way for the Leader of the Opposition to get the Deputy Leader off his back and that is by making sure that the Deputy Leader loses his seat. He needs only a 5.5 per cent swing in Bennelong to lose his seat. It may be worth recalling that during the last election campaign, when Malcolm Fraser was out talking about money and Reds under beds and all the other idiocy in which he was trafficking, his great ally and friend, the big, brave Deputy Leader, who has a heart like a carraway seed, was back in Bennelong because he thought he would lose his seat. He was running around doing over the parents and citizens associations, the scout halls, the clubs, the whole works. He was scared stiff that not only was the Government gone but also he would lose his seat. The chance of losing it on this occasion is much greater than on the last occasion. With the Leader of the Opposition doing his best to perform badly, it is almost like the film The Producers with Zero Mostel. In that movie the characters had to invest in a giant flop and find such a flop. The Leader of the Opposition is doing a Zero Mostel, trying to perform as badly as possible to get the Deputy Leader off his back. The fact that in today's Question Time the Leader of the Opposition for the fourth time was asked questions about his own Bill is unbelievable. What we heard more than anything else was the same old tawdry attack and misrepresentation we have heard for days. There is hardly a soul in the Press Gallery. Nobody is interested in what the Opposition has to say. The fact is that members of the Opposition keep parroting this claptrap about the Government being the biggest taxing government since the War. The fact is that the honourable member for Bennelong carries the stigma of the Treasurer who presided over the largest tax receipts to gross domestic product since the Second World War. He and Mr Fraser were in the highest taxing government in Australia's post- war history. Those are the facts. In 1981-82 receipts to GDP were 27.3 per cent; in 1982-83, 27.2 per cent; and in 1983-84 and 1984-85-the years of this Government's two Budgets-26 per cent and 27 per cent respectively. As I have said on plenty of occasions, the Deputy Leader might want to run away from his track record-I understand that-but we will not allow him to do that. That nails that misrepresentation. The other stupidity of the Leader of the Opposition is that he thinks he can just throw around a number and someone will take notice of it. He said that the Government had increased tax by $22 a week. If that had been the case, we would have another $6 billion. Instead of a Budget deficit of $6.7 billion, we would have a Budget deficit of $0.7 billion. Where did the $6 billion go? Of course, we never received it. There was never a $22 a week tax increase. There was a significant tax cut. The Leader of the Opposition compounds the misrepresentation by saying that most people do not get a tax cut. Most Australian full time workers received from the Budget a tax cut of $7.60 a week which will be delivered from the first week of November. That cut is across the income range of $12,500 to $28,000, which is where the great body of the Australian work force and the taxpayers are. Thus most Australians will receive $7.60 a week but, just as importantly, we have now introduced to the tax scales two additional steps to make them fairer and more progressive. Now, instead of paying 30c in the dollar, once one earns above $4,595, which is the threshold, there is a rate step of 25c in the dollar between $4,595 and $12,500. The Leader of the Opposition never mentions the fact that there is a 25 per cent step in the rate scales. He keeps talking about the 46 per cent rate. He said: 'Half of all that Australians on average weekly earnings receive, they now pay in tax'. I said by way of interjection that that was a lie. I changed that to say that it was an untruth. Let me demonstrate the untruth. The fact is that all Australian taxpayers, no matter where they live or what incomes they earn, get the benefit of the tax free threshold of $4,595, on which no tax is paid. They get the benefit of the new rate step of 25 per cent between $4,595 and $12, 500. That reduces their average rate of tax. So the fact is-the Opposition may not like this-that all Australian taxpayers will receive a reduction in income tax this year. That lays down that misrepresentation. Let me deal with the 46 per cent step because the Leader of the Opposition goes on about it interminably. The fact is that the 46 per cent rate begins at $19, 500. Having introduced a rate step of 25c and then 30c, one's average rate of tax is reduced. If one earns income over $19,500, whatever that income happens to be, it is taxed at 46 per cent, but because of the lower rate of tax further down, one still gets a tax cut. That is why the reduction in tax is $7.60. We have heard some selective commentary about one step in the rates scale-the 46 per cent step-and the absolutely blatant dishonesty of the Leader of the Opposition by not referring to the 25 per cent step, the new step that the Government inserted in the rates, for incomes between $4,595 and $12,500. So most Australians on full time earnings will receive a $7.60 a week tax cut, particularly those Australians whose income is between $12,500 a year and $28, 000. That is a fact. We did not do what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the former Treasurer, did in 1978. That is why he is talking about mini-Budgets. He thinks that we think as he does. He promised a tax cut in 1977. Honourable members will remember the advertisements which stated 'ring up and find out how much your tax cut will be', the 'fistful of dollars', the telephone ads. He gave the tax cuts in November 1977 and took them away in May 1978. That is the morality of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on tax. I leave aside for a moment the fact that for five years he let tax avoidance run rampant in this country. Mr Howard —I thought you would mention that. Mr KEATING —Of course I will mention it. Mr Howard —I can show you the Tax Commissioner's report on that. Mr KEATING —Yes. The honourable member will find that $2 billion of outstanding tax was lost in his time. That will straighten him up. There is no person in this Parliament with a more tawdry record on tax than the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I will nail all of the misrepresentations by the simple fact that if the Government had given indexation this year-that is, had handed back the inflationary impact on the tax scales-it would have cost $1.2 billion. In fact, the tax cut cost $2.1 billion-almost double that amount. In other words, the tax cut is real and genuine. Of course, members of the Liberal Party know all about tax cuts. They give them and take them away again. In 1982, 60 per cent of the tax relief was taken back by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the then Treasurer, in sales tax, excise and bank accounts debit tax increases. The interesting thing is that they keep talking about the Government's intention of introducing this, that and the other tax. What they do not talk about are the taxes they introduced. They introduced more new taxes than any other government one can remember. Let me run through the taxes they introduced in their time: The bank accounts debit tax; the 2 per cent revenue duty; the 2.5 per cent Medibank levy; the 1978-79 income tax surcharge, which I just mentioned, when Mr Howard took away the tax cut of 1977; sales taxes on pet food, soft drink bottles, television tubes, safety belts, oils and greases, insecticides, curtains, manchester, construction equipment, hand tools and literature; excise on off-road distillate; a 33-1/3 per cent increase in sales tax rates; increases on tobacco, petrol and beer; and, most of all, the $3 billion increase in the Bass Strait crude oil levy-the $3 billion petrol tax. They had no mandate for it and they had never mentioned it. They raced in and raised $3 billion in new taxes. The thing about members of the Liberal Party is that they have no shame. They talk about tax after their record of massive tax increases, their record of taxing inflation, their record of the $3 billion crude oil levy-all of the new taxes that I have mentioned-and, worst of all, the absolute intransigence and incompetence of the honourable member for Bennelong in letting billions slip through the Commonwealth's hands in sanctioning tax avoidance by his inaction for so long and after so much pleading by the Commissioner of Taxation. So that is the record. Another important statistic is the fact that in the seven years of Liberal government, in regard to taxation in Australia, total government revenues increased from $18.3 billion to $44.5 billion-an increase of 143 per cent. In other words, in the seven years that the Liberal Party was in government taxation went up by 143 per cent, from $18.3 billion to $44.5 billion, or, to put it in terms of gross domestic product, from 25 per cent to 27.2 per cent. That is its record. I was interested in referring to some Hansard records, to see some of the arguments of the Deputy Leader when we found the massive tax avoidance in this country. At that time, in a cowardly way he hid behind the reference in the report of the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the secrecy provisions. On 25 August 1982, as recorded at page 886 of Hansard, the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition said this: He-- that is the then Leader of the Opposition- is saying that we knew all the time what was going on, yet one of the major findings in the Costigan report is that the Income Tax Assessment Act is so structured that we cannot find out what is going on. . . . So the principal charge of the Leader of the Opposition-that is, that I either knew or I ought to have known-is not just contradicted by me . . .; it is contradicted by Costigan himself. He was saying that, because he did not know the personal names of the people, he could not act against tax avoidance. The Tax Commissioner smashed that fraudulent defence by publishing the letters, the volume of which resembled a telephone book, pleading with Mr Howard to do something about bottom of the harbour schemes. That is what we mean when we taunt him in the House about section 16, the secrecy provisions. He raced off to the United States and hid there for four weeks before coming back to face the music. He even had the hide to attack me for attacking him while he was overseas. Mr Howard —Fancy remembering things like that. Mr KEATING —He still mentions it. Every couple of weeks he says: 'You attacked me while I was overseas'. I attacked him because he let the thieves and rogues of this country get away with billions. If he is reading the Tax Commissioner's report, he should read where it shows that $2 billion is still outstanding since his time as Treasurer. It is very salutary to read it. We reject absolutely the views of members of the Opposition on taxation. They do not have a shred of credibility. The fact is that they were members of the highest taxing government since the Second World War. They introduced more new taxes than any other government that one can remember. The oil levy raised billions of dollars. That, of course, has meant that the tax burden on most Australians has been inflated over time. They left us with massive Budget deficits and now they are crying for the small Australian wage and salary earner . I do not think Mr Peacock has ever met one, much less been concerned about one . He swanned around the world for years and never took any hand, act or part in the administration of the Government. We simply reject any notion by the Leader of the Oppostion, Mr Peacock, that he has any concern for those needy Australians. We have now introduced a much more progressive tax scale which is much fairer than indexation. Under indexation a person earning $15,000 a year would have received $2.30 a week. Under our changes such a person will receive $ 7.60. That is not argument; it is fact. A person on fifteen grand a year in this country-that is, $300 a week-would have got $2.30 a week under indexation. Under our tax cuts such a person will get $7.60 a week. But the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear that he would not be giving any tax cut. He said that he preferred to have a lower Budget deficit. He wanted a lower Budget deficit and no tax cut. He is a slave to the foolish ideology of fight inflation first and all the rest of the ideological baggage about economic policy which he carries along with him in opposition. Of course, the interesting thing is that, although he comes into this House and says that, he is never again going to be the Treasurer in a coalition government. He has indicated to all and sundry that he will never take on that job again. I would like to know from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) who will be the shadow Treasurer and, if Australia were ever in such an unfortunate circumstance, who would be the Treasurer in a coalition government. The fact is that, as I said, the Opposition is more to be pitied than despised. It is hopeless and helpless and we reject absolutely the matter of public importance that it has raised. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The Treasurer's time has expired. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(4.11) —Before I deal with some of the taxation arguments raised, may I say how absolutely intrigued I am, indeed flattered, by the attention that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and, I understand at his Press conference yesterday, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have paid to my seat. I would like to say to members of the Australian Labor Party that during the election campaign they will all be welcome in Bennelong but I ask them to do me a favour and send Neville Wran along. Please send Neville Wran into Bennelong. I hope that Neville Wran spends the whole election campaign in Bennelong. I hope that Marmaduke and junior Marmaduke spend the whole election campaign in Bennelong because if they do my majority will be 10.5 per cent after the election. Neville will add hundreds of votes to my majority. All I can say is that if the Labor Party wants to have a magnificent obsession with my electorate I am not only flattered and intrigued but I welcome all its members. It is a great electorate and none would be more welcome that the Federal President of the Labor Party, the now discredited and crumbling Premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran, and the sorcerer's apprentice, junior Marmaduke, on the other side of the House. They will both be very welcome. We all know that there was a time when the President of the Labor Party and his protege were the great presidential twins. Remember when Neville Wran was the Federal President of the Labor Party and the present Treasurer was the State President of that wonderful branch with all the mates in it. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who is sitting on the front bench at the moment, knows all about the mateship of the New South Wales Labor Party. He knows all about its mateship. He has reason to long remember the mateship of the New South Wales Labor Party. I say with the greatest of good will and the greatest of delight to the Treasurer: You will all be welcome in Bennelong but please do me a favour and open your campaign with Neville Wran. He can speak in North Ryde, Lane cove or anywhere else. I can guarantee that at every polling booth Neville Wran visits my vote will go up. I think the first thing I ought to do in respect of the substance of the matter of public importance is to thank the Treasurer very warmly for raising the question of tax avoidance. Well may he raise the question of tax avoidance today and well may he presume to criticise my record when I was Treasurer in fighting the tax avoidance industry in Australia, because it so happens that in this very place this afternoon the Treasurer tabled the latest report of the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher. The Commissioner of Taxation was appointed by the present Treasurer. He was the second in charge of the Taxation Office the whole time that I was Treasurer. He is a person for whom I had the greatest regard. I thought he was a very competent, hard working and honest officer. I think he will do a good job for the present Government. I think his word can be very greatly relied on. It is very interesting to hear what Mr Boucher has to say about tax avoidance. I would like the Treasurer to listen to this very carefully because what I am about to read totally demolishes the charge that he made against me of indolence and inactivity on the subject of the tax avoidance industry. I want to quote what Mr Boucher said in his annual report that was tabled only today. Speaking of the retirement of his predecessor, Mr O'Reilly, on 30 June 1984, he said: At that time the boom in the promotion of tax avoidance and evasion schemes of the kind experienced in the late 70s and early 80s was a thing of the past. I repeat that: . . . was a thing of the past. He continued: The elimination of 'paper' schemes is one of the success stories of the last decade. I repeat that: The elimination of 'paper' schemes is one of the success stories of the last decade. He continued: They have been beaten by a combination of legislation, administration, changes in attitude and sheer hard work. They are not my words; they are not the Leader of the Opposition's words. They are the words of the statutorily independent Commissioner of Taxation. What he is saying there very clearly is that the artificial tax avoidance industry is now a thing of the past and that the beating of that artificial industry was one of the great success stories of the last decade. Who presided over that? I presided over that. I was the Treasurer during most of the time that that work was done. Here we have a man, 18 months into a new government, who still has the honesty, the decency and the objectivity to stand up to this Parliament and say: ' Whatever the Treasurer might say, I, from my vantage point and my unique experience will tell you that the former Government killed the artificial tax avoidance industry'. That totally gives the lie to all the Treasurer says about our inactivity. The fact is that I did more than any Treasurer in this nation's history to bring the tax avoidance industry in Australia to its knees. I outlawed the bottom of the harbour tax schemes; I took action to recoup the unpaid company tax; I brought in a general anti-avoidance provision; I proscribed 28 separate and individual tax avoidance arrangements; and I was responsible for strengthening the tax legislation in so many areas. What we have here is independent corroboration of what has been done there. That is not where I rest my case because not only will I rely on the independent advice of the Taxation Office to support my argument on tax avoidance but also I will rely upon the independent advice of the Treasury to support my arguments about overall levels of taxation. Incredibly enough, the Treasurer still comes into this House and says: 'Despite what my Treasury officers say in the Budget Papers, your levels of taxation were higher than ours '. I will again quote to him, as no doubt we will have to do on many occasions throughout the next two months, page 364 of Budget Paper No. 1 of this year. The heading 'Budget receipts' is there for all the world to see. The material in that part of Budget Paper No. 1 starts at 1974-75 and finishes at 1984-85. The paper contains the sub-heading 'Budget receipts as a proportion of gross domestic product'. Do honourable members know that, strangely enough, when one looks at those 10 years, one finds the year in which Budget receipts were the highest proportion of gross domestic product was not one of the years in which we were in office but this year? The second Keating Budget-the first Cliff Dolan Budget-has the largest percentage of tax collections. Not only has this Treasurer, according to his own officials, openly and publicly verified on Budget night and not challenged by him or indeed by anybody else, presided over the largest taxing Budget in this country's peacetime history but also he has presided over the biggest spending Budget in this country's peacetime history. Now he is explaining to the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) how one electorally adjusts the figures. He is trying to adjust electorally this figure. He does not like the discomfort of the cold, black print of the Treasury documents, which shows very clearly that he is the biggest taxer that this country has seen as a Treasurer since the end of World War II. He is the biggest spender. Despite his dishonest propaganda campaign about inherited Budget deficits, he has also given us the two biggest Budget deficits that we have had in our peacetime history. That is not a bad trifecta, is it? Today we have had one trifecta. We had the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) joining the Premier of New South Wales in attacking the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on Allegations Concerning a Judge and telling that Senate inquiry that it ought to be closed down, which raises questions about what they really have to hide. The latest trifecta is the Treasurer, who is the biggest taxer, the biggest spender and the biggest producer of deficits that this country has seen since the end of World War II. That is not a bad record for this Treasurer to have. No matter how much he wriggles, twists and turns, he cannot escape the cold statistical proof that indicts him, nor can he escape the cold evidence found in the report of the Commissioner for Taxation that so far from presiding over in an indolent manner the expansion of the tax avoidance industry I was responsible for the greatest success story of the past decade in that area. They are the words that will ring in the Treasurer's ears over the next couple of months. He will not be able to ridicule them because if he does he will be ridiculing his own judgment because he appointed Trevor Boucher as the Commissioner of Taxation. The Treasurer said that he was good enough for the job . He also appointed the people who wrote these Treasury documents which demonstrated very clearly that he is the biggest taxer. As far as the Opposition is concerned, we will be delighted to debate taxation during this election campaign. For heavens sake, give me Mr Wran in Bennelong. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(4.11) —What an extraordinary presentation we have heard from the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) explaining what he did, how he suddenly discovered tax avoidance and then moved in and stopped it all. The reality of the situation is that he and his Government presided over the greatest increase in tax avoidance this country has ever seen and the greatest destruction in taxpayers' morality that this country has ever seen. He is very sensitive to this and honourable members can see that because in his 10-minute speech he devoted most of his time to looking at what he did in the area of tax avoidance. Government members congratulate him. Our only concern is that he acted too late. During those times, when the Opposition was in government-it had seven years in government-what did it do in the area of tax avoidance? It presided over an increase in tax avoidance and the destruction of tax morality in this country. On the other hand, we hear the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) tell everyone that the people of Australia should pay less tax. Of course, everyone in this House believes that people should pay less tax, but we want to see constructive policies, not just platitudes issued over and over again, and more intensively as we move towards an election and the honourable member for Kooyong gets more desperate. We want to see constructive policies from the members of the Opposition. We have not seen one ounce of that. We have not heard what they intend to do, what they believe the size of the deficit should be, what projects they would cut and where they would get their increased revenue from. We have not heard anything on these matters from any member of the Opposition. They have no ideas. They are barren on the Opposition side. An issue which was raised by the honourable member for Kooyong and the honourable member for Bennelong, which I think is a very sensitive one, is their own record in the area of taxing. What a farce! To find that out, honourable members only need go into the electorate and ask the people. Although they are not economists, they are not going to be fooled by this rhetoric that has been put up by the members of the Opposition today. They know the facts because they are the ones who were paying under the seven years of the Fraser Government. Let us just go through some of the new taxes that were introduced by the Opposition. When it was in government it would tax just about anything that moved. It brought in the bank accounts debit tax. Do honourable members remember that one? It brought in the 2 per cent revenue duty and the 2.5 per cent Medibank levy. The list goes on and on. Then in 1978-79-this was its real trick-it brought in the income tax surcharge which took back the 1977 tax cuts. The Opposition is really good at giving on the one hand before an election and taking back after the election. We hear talk about broken records, but the Opposition is the expert on broken records in the tax area. Then it moved on to the sales tax on books and even pet food-even the animals-on soft drink bottles, television tubes , safety belts, oils and greases, insecticides, curtains, manchester, construction equipment and hand tools. The we had the excise on off-road distillate, the 33 1/3 per cent increase in sales taxes and the increase in excises on tobacco, petrol and beer. To top it all off, there was the massive $3 billion tax take from the crude oil levy. Now that is just part of the record of the Opposition when it was in government. Does anyone really believe that that party has any credibility with the electorate when it goes to the people and says: 'We believe there should be a reduction in taxes'. Sure, everyone believes that, but what did the Opposition do about it when it was in government? It did absolutely nothing. All it did was think up a whole pile of new taxes. That was not even a constructive way to look at tax reform. Government members, on the other hand, have ideas. They believe in tax reform and they are working on a package of tax reform Bills. The Hawke Government has an outstanding record in the area of taxation. The Budget brought down in August this year has received unprecedented endorsement from the community, the trade union movement and even from the financial community. Honourable members of the Opposition shake their heads. The problem is that they do not get out into the community and ask the people what they think about the Budget. That is essential. The tax package that was presented to us in the Budget, which brought about an income tax cut and which was accepted by the community as a whole, is an integral part of the whole recovery that this Government is presiding over. These tax reforms are basic structural measures that enhance the efficiency of our tax regime. They are not just one-off things that are thought of at the last minute to win votes. They secure a real wage environment conducive to growth. They are long term measures aimed at employees and employers dedicated to broadening and deepening the economic recovery. So they are not piecemeal. Yet what we hear from the Opposition is just criticism and more criticism. Last Sunday he heard the honourable member for Bennelong make certain criticisms about the tax cut. They are at best wrong and at worst downright dishonest. Mr Howard's Press statement of 7 October states: . . . as a result of the Budget an increasing proportion of Australians will go into higher tax brackets this financial year. That is simply wrong, and Mr Howard knows that, because as a result of the Budget and other factors around one million taxpayers will go into higher tax brackets this financial year. However 2.25 million-around one-third of all taxpayers-will move into a lower tax bracket this financial year. Mr Howard then goes on to say: . . . the so-called Budget tax cuts actually increase the marginal tax rate faced by all taxpayers earning between $540 and $690 a week. He neglects to say that the massively more numerous number of taxpayers, that is all those earning between $90 and $240 a week, will receive a cut in their marginal tax rates and a much larger reduction than the increase referred to by Mr Howard. So everyone surely will be able to understand how the Opposition has trouble getting its figures together. The members of the Opposition cannot even make true statements about the impact of this Budget on the electorate generally . This Government will go to the polls on a record of tax cuts and of looking constructively at tax reform. Most importantly, the Hawke Government has moved quickly against tax avoidance and tax evasion. Of course, we have not had any help from the Opposition in relation to that because every time we get our legislation into the Senate, what does it do? It knocks it off. But somebody has to pay the tax bill. So every time that legislation gets knocked off in the Senate it is the pay as you earn taxpayers who again have to pay more money out of their pockets. Members of the Opposition support that. They support it because they are concerned only with looking after their own mates. They forget about the ordinary wage and salary earners in this country. Our record in government has been to move in with resolution against avoidance and evasion. We have looked at foreign beneficiaries in Australian trusts, leasing by tax exempt authorities, income splitting, short term life insurance rorts and tax penalties. We have increased Taxation Office resources to increase enforcement activities and taken action to ensure recovery of taxes evaded in the bottom of the harbour cases. Therefore, we stand on our record. The Opposition's fiscal policies just do not add up. They are all words, all talk. The Opposition presents no constructive policies; it does not tell us where the money is coming from for all these marvellous cuts it talks about; it has no credibility in the electorate. When the Opposition goes to the polls on 1 December it will find that the electorate will respond in exactly the same way as it did in March 1983. The electorate will ensure that the Opposition does not become the government of this country which has responsibility for tax reform and administration. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —The discussion is concluded. Mr HAND(Melbourne) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, I present the report of the Committee entitled 'The Effects of Asbestos Mining on the Baryulgil Community', together with the transcript of evidence and extracts from the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr HAND —by leave-I have just tabled the report of the Committee on its inquiry into the effects of asbestos mining on the Baryulgil community. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) referred the matter to the Committee in September 1983 and the report is the product of an intensive investigation by the Committee. Because of the pressure to complete the inquiry in order to report to the House before its rising, only limited copies of the report are available. I have arranged for copies to be placed for reference in the Bills and Papers Office of the House of Representatives and in the Parliamentary Library. The Australian Government Publishing Service has promised that the printed copies of the report will be available before the end of the month. The inquiry was sought by the Aboriginal Legal Service acting for a number of former mine workers from Baryulgil in northern New South Wales. The terms of reference required the Committee to examine the manner in which former operators of Asbestos Mines Pty Ltd operated the mine and mill, the extent to which safety procedures were observed at the mine, and the effects of the operation of the mine on the health of the miners. We were also required to examine the effect on miners and their families, who resided close to the mine at Baryulgil Village, from passive exposure to asbestos fibre. The report deals with these matters in chapters 5 and 6. It broadly concludes that the manner in which the mine and mill were operated by Asbestos Mines Pty Ltd indicated 'that the exposure was unquestionably excessive by modern standards for the miners and in the asbestosis producing range'. The report examines the role of the New South Wales Government departments and instrumentalities responsible for securing the health and safety of the workforce. It identifies serious deficiencies in arrangements for monitoring and enforcing health and safety regulations. The departments were underresourced for their task. They were also slow in responding to knowledge of the dangers of asbestos as it emerged. It took nearly 40 years from the initial recognition of asbestos as a health hazard for a standard to be set which provided a measure of protection to workers in the industry. A critical factor, influencing the inspectorates' responses at Baryulgil, was their underlying persuasion, which was to operate by advice, help and pursuasion , and to invoke sanctions only in the most extreme circumstances. Such a policy is more easily identifiable in the case of the Mines Inspectorate than in the case of the State Pollution Control Commission. The latter failed almost entirely to discharge its responsibilities in relation to Baryulgil and it was often difficult to identify any policy governing its actions. The Chief Inspector gave evidence that there had been a maximum of probably 10 prosecutions under the Act in as many years and that none of these had, to the best of his knowledge, been brought against any asbestos mine. It is this philosophy which largely explains why the Chief Inspector of Mines, Mr Marshall, saw no objection to a policy of giving advance notice of inspections, and why the inspectors themselves undoubtedly did so. This is why the Chief Inspector viewed the idea of 'surprise' inspections with some concern, as being an attempt to 'trap' employers, when the better approach was to try to clean-up the industry by liaising more closely with employers. Mr Deputy Speaker, the parts of the report dealing with the operation of the mine involved a retrospective examination of events which took place between 1944 and 1979, when the mine ceased operation. The House will appreciate that our principal task was to examine the present condition of the Baryulgil workers and the outlook for the future. The Aboriginal Legal Service submitted that, because of deficiencies in the present law, it would be appropriate for us to recommend a special scheme of compensation for individuals from the Baryulgil community. It was important, therefore, to examine the current state of the law and the extent to which its provisions were adequate to meet the just claims of workers who could prove the contraction of asbestos-related disease. One of the legal consultants to the Inquiry, Dr A. S. Merritt, prepared a detailed analysis of the current provisions of the law. This is included as Appendix III of the report. On the basis of this professional analysis, the Committee has concluded that members of the Baryulgil community do not suffer any particular disadvantage from the operation of the law. The report does identify inadequacies in existing legal remedies. However, these apply to all prospective claimants alike. For instance, the principal disadvantage which prospective Baryulgil claimants would suffer is that the company against which the claim would be brought is a subsidiary company with no funds to meet any award of damages that might be made. Recommendations are made in the report which, if implemented, would in our view overcome these inadequacies. Any benefits from these suggested measures would, however, have general application and are not specific to the Baryulgil situation. Therefore, the Committee does not believe it appropriate to recommend any scheme to make individual payments of compensation. It believes that, subject to some technical difficulties, there are adequate avenues of compensation available to members of the Baryulgil community who contract, or have contracted, an asbestos-related disease. A very important question is the extent to which asbestos-related disease is and has been prevalent among members of the Baryulgil community. The Committee has been assisted on this aspect of the inquiry by Professor Brude Armstrong, a specialist in respiratory disease and an epidemiologist. The Committee was told by the Aboriginal Legal Service that 100 people have either died or lost their health as a result of exposure to asbestos. Exaggerated claims of this kind were constantly repeated throughout the inquiry, both to the Committee and in the media. Our medical consultant's analysis concludes that although asbestosis has occurred in ex-mine workers from Baryulgil, it is not severe in comparison with what is commonly observed in circumstances of long-term occupational exposure. There is evidence of asbestosis in the past and at least five living ex-mine workers probably have asbestosis. Others have some of the clinical features of asbestosis. We were asked by the Aboriginal Legal Service to recommend a scheme of general compensation for the community as well as a scheme for individual compensation. We have recommended the establishment of an Aboriginal medical service to be based at Grafton to cater for the general health needs of the Aboriginal people in the general area. However, we have not considered it appropriate to recommend any scheme beyond this. In our view, many of the needs of the Baryulgil community have been met by programs administered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Thus, a new settlement at Malabugilmah has been created where new houses have been provided for those people from old Baryulgil who elected to move. Through the Aboriginal Development Commission, the station property of Collum Collum has been acquired for the community. The Commonwealth has, since 1977, spent $3,343,578 on the community. Many of the needs of the people from this area are needs that they have in common with other Aboriginal communities in New South Wales and should be dealt with in the context of programs for Aboriginal advancement generally. Finally, the report deals with the position of those people still residing at Baryulgil in close proximity to the mine site. We conclude that a possible future danger of malignant disease from airborne asbestos fibre cannot be ruled out. We therefore conclude that future occupation of the old village at Baryulgil Square should be limited to the lifetime of those who chose to stay there when the majority moved to Malabugilmah; that further migration to the Square should be actively discouraged; and that measures should be taken to contain the danger from wind driven fibres. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on the Committee for their support during the inquiry. It has not been an easy task. Members have had to devote considerable time to attend meetings and hearings and to come to terms with the evidence presented. Members would also wish me to thank the consultants who assisted us during the inquiry. I have already mentioned Dr Merritt and Professor Armstrong, whose contributions are evident from the report. However, Mr Neil Gunningham, Senior Lecturer in Law at the Australian National University , who is a specialist in occupational health and safety, has made a considerable contribution in assisting the Committee to analyse the evidence. The Committee has had the support throughout the inquiry of a secretariat of officers from the committee office. I would like to thank Donald Nairn, the secretary, and David Elder, who was acting secretary when the inquiry got under way. At various times during the inquiry we were assisted by Jennifer Goodger, Peter Stephens and David Crawford as research officers. The typing and processing of the draft of this report was a mammoth task, and I would like to thank the committee steno-secretary, Mollie Cranswick, who was responsible for this difficult task. I commend the report to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-As the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) has rightly pointed out, the inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs related to the mining of asbestos at a place near Baryulgil, which is in the north-east of New South Wales near Grafton. The inquiry was related to the concern for the health and welfare of the Aboriginal community which resides in and near Baryulgil as a result of mining. That concern related not only to the miners themselves but also to their families, who live near the mine site, and to others who came into contact with the mining process. It also extended to concern for the children of the mining families, who attend a school that is quite near the mine site. The Committee had two functions. The first was to look at those who had been involved in the mining and to see what remedies were available to them and whether those remedies were sufficient to meet the needs of the people who had been affected by mining asbestos. Secondly, we had a role to look at the future protection of the interests of the community which still resides in that area to ensure that the prospect of asbestos-related disease was, if not eradicated, certainly minimised. The risks relating to asbestos are outlined by the Committee in the report in chapter 3. The main danger to health occurs when asbestos dust is inhaled. This happens in many circumstances, the most important of which include the mining and milling processes, the manufacture of asbestos products, and dealing with asbestos. As a result of exposure to asbestos dust, workers run a risk of developing several serious and sometimes fatal diseases, specifically asbestosis, lung cancer, pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, and possibly cancer of the larynx and some gastrointestinal cancers. The risk of developing cancer varies with the type of asbestos fibre, the amount of asbestos fibre inhaled, and the time since exposure began. The risk of lung cancer associated with asbestos exposure is also influenced by tobacco smoke. The inquiry, as the honourable member for Melbourne has pointed out, arose because of concern expressed in the community about the effect of asbestos mining on the Aboriginal community at Baryulgil. This was expressed in a number of reports by journalists in the different media and also by the Aboriginal Legal Service. The honourable member for Melbourne referred to the role of the Aboriginal Legal Service during this inquiry, and I support what he said. As the report says: The case has been presented on behalf of the former members and their dependants by the Aboriginal Legal Service. Aspects of the presentation have been of concern to the Committee. From the outset the Service set Hardies up as principal villains in the piece- James Hardie Asbestos Pty Ltd was the operator of the mine and is now the owner of the mine; it was owned by another company earlier- and concentrated its case on the operation of the mine and the mill. This was to place the Hardies organisation in the position of defendants in proceedings which became unduly adversarial in nature. The Committee has not been assisted by this approach. As noted earlier, by placing Hardies on the defensive the flow of information to the Committee has been restricted. The approach led to the main emphasis being on the operation of the mine and mill. Aboriginal Legal Service were less confident in presenting the argument concerning the health consequences of that operation. Representatives of the Aboriginal Legal Service were unable to support many of the wilder claims, made both inside and outside the Inquiry when pressed by the Committee for evidence to support these claims. It is unfortunate that this has created a public perception of what happened at Baryulgil quite out of keeping with the true facts. The medical evidence discussed in Chapter 7 is incomplete and equivocal in many respects but it certainly does not support the allegations of widespread death and disease among the former miners at Baryulgil. The Committee hopes that this report will have the effect of placing matters in perspective. The honourable member for Melbourne also referred briefly to the recommendations, which fall into five main categories. Firstly, as I said when I started my comments, we looked at the remedies available to those who had been involved in mining at Baryulgil and the families of those miners. To quote very briefly from the Committee's findings, we say in chapter 10, paragraph 22: The Committee does not believe it appropriate to recommend any scheme to make individual payments of compensation. It believes that, subject to some technical difficulties, there are adequate avenues of compensation available to members of the Baryulgil community who contract, or have contracted, an asbestos-related disease. However, where those technical difficulties are related to the prospective claimants' Aboriginality . . . the Committee believes that Baryulgil claimants should have the same rights of action at law as are enjoyed by non- Aboriginal Australians. We recognise that any action which may achieve this end would involve a retrospective element. It is our opinion that responsibility for damages which may be awarded as a consequence of the conferral of retrospective rights of action should lie with government rather than with the company which operated the mine and mill. In other words, if the result of discussions between the Commonwealth Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the New South Wales Attorney-General is that they consider that there were matters which have restricted the rights of the Aboriginal people because of their Aboriginality, they should consider the appropriate remedy. We referred to some common law rights, particularly the right of private nuisance for trespass on land, which may not be available to some of the Aboriginal people in that community because they are not able, under New South Wales law, to own leases in their own right and which may prevent the Aboriginal people having the standing to sue. For current residents that matter has been overcome now by the New South Wales Government. It is, therefore, our recommendation that this matter be discussed between the two Attorneys-General and that a resolution of that matter be found. If it involves retrospective legislation which would have the effect of creating rights against individuals or the company which were not existent at the time, we believe the Government ought to take the responsibility for any damages that are awarded in that situation. The second recommendation to which the honourable member for Melbourne referred is the setting up of an Aboriginal medical service in the Grafton area. The important part of that recommendation is that such a service should have expertise in the diagnosis and management of asbestos-related diseases. So we are trying to ensure that the community in that area has access to medical experts who can satisfy the concerns of the community and, indeed, identify the disease if it should arise. Recommendations 3 to 7 deal with the residents at Baryulgil Square. The Committee, again as the honourable member for Melbourne has pointed out, is concerned that there may be risks to health, although probably fairly slight, but whilst they are there we are in favour of restricting the entry of new residents. If the existing residents can be persuaded to move, we believe that that would be the better course to adopt. Recommendations 3 to 7 deal with negotiations that we recommend should occur in relation to this matter involving the Commonwealth, the New South Wales Government and the people of Baryulgil Square. Recommendations 8 and 9 deal with the school near Baryulgil Square which is also relatively close to the old mine site. There is concern that there may be some risk for the children attending that school. We believe that every action should be taken to ensure that that risk is overcome. At the moment I think it would be the general feeling of the Committee that, as a result of the planting of grass and in some cases the laying of bitumen over the asbestos tailings which were used in the school grounds, the problem has been overcome. We want to ensure that there is no future possibility of the asbestos tailings becoming a problem. Therefore we have suggested that the New South Wales Government continue to monitor the situation at the school and in the event of a closure of the school that other schooling be made available in the area rather than in Grafton because we are concerned that some of the problems which relate generally to the Aboriginal community will become evident in this community if the school is placed a long way from the Baryulgil people. Recommendation 10 relates to the rehabilitation of the mine site to ensure that the risk of asbestosis which could be caused by asbestos dust from the asbestos mine tailings is overcome by the rehabilitation of the area. I have few more points to make. I would like to join with the honourable member for Melbourne particularly to thank not only the members of the Committee but also the members of the secretariat who have served this Committee very diligently. I also thank the Committee advisers. A number of specialist advisers were appointed who, I believe, did an outstanding job in assisting the Committee in what was really a very complex matter, especially in relation to the medical evidence that was provided to the Committee. Finally, I want to raise one general issue in relation to the operation of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. In the past it was the view of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) that the Committee ought to have the power to initiate its own inquiries. The Committee can act only on references given to it by the Minister. It is interesting to note the comments of the Minister, who was then a back bencher, in 1980 when similar terms of reference were given to the Committee. He said: I believe that the House of Representatives Committee will perform its functions properly and adequately, as it has since its inception, with the power to initiate its own investigations. I point out that the power was not objected to by the Liberal or National Country parties when they were in opposition. But, now that they are in government, they are adopting a very short sighted policy, one which I think will lead to further cynicism and further despair in the Aboriginal community if this motion- that is the motion that was then being debated- is passed in its present form. It is interesting to note the Minister's change of mind because he did not give the Committee the power to initiate its own inquiries. There are certainly a number of areas in which I believe the Committee could continue usefully to serve the interests of the Aboriginal community. I refer particularly to an area such as health. The Committee has carried out a number of inquiries in relation to alcohol, housing, and so on. I think the area of health really needs the attention of this Parliament. It is one of the real problems facing the Aboriginal communities around Australia, both in urban areas and in the bush. I hope that under the next government-regardless of who is in government, whether it be the current Government or the coalition-the Committee and the Minister of the day will consider, once the Committee has finalised its education report, having a good look at what it can do in trying to redress the problems which are confronting the Aboriginal people especially in the area of health. I thank the House. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —by leave-In view of the rather full comments of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and the honourable member for Barker ( Mr Porter), my remarks on the report of the Standing Committee of Aboriginal Affairs on the effects of asbestos mining on the Baryulgil community will be very brief. The asbestos deposit in Baryulgil was discovered in 1918. Mining commenced soon after that date and until the mine was closed in the late 1970s over 95 per cent of the work force was Aboriginal. It was not until 1977 that there was public disclosure of the effects of asbestos mining on those employed in the mine. The Australian Broadcasting Commission produced a series of programs in that year, dealing with the effects of asbestos on the health of workers in the industry. One program in that series was devoted to Baryulgil. The Aboriginal Legal Service sought an inquiry-the inquiry we are now debating-on behalf of its Aboriginal clients from the Baryulgil area. This was taken up by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), as we know. The Committee in its deliberations over the course of the hearings received submissions from those working in the mine, those representing the mine owners and other expert witnesses. Much of the evidence presented was conflicting and this created some problems for the Committee. It had to be extremely careful in assessing that conflicting evidence. A review of the evidence will demonstrate that industrial safety and hygiene methods were somewhat primitive and lax in the mine. It may well be that this was due to the isolation of the mine and the rather limited union involvement in the operations of that mine. I have no doubt that the health of some of the workers was adversely affected by the conditions in the mine, and there is adequate medical evidence to support that view. The main danger to health occurs when asbestos dust is inhaled. One of the problems arising is that there is a delay, usually of many years, between first exposure and the onset of symptoms. Disease and death due to asbestos exposure usually do not become significant in terms of numbers until 25 or 30 years, or more, after the first exposure. It is because of the latency factor that the Committee has concluded and recommended, as has already been stated by the honourable member for Melbourne and the honourable member for Barker, that an Aboriginal medical service based at Grafton should be established covering the Baryulgil area. As part of its work it should monitor all persons who have had any connection with the Baryulgil mine or who have lived in the Baryulgil Square so that they can be examined for any signs of asbestos-related disease. In conclusion, I trust that the incoming government will take early steps to implement the recommendations of the Committee. I would also like to congratulate the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Melbourne, for his handling of the total inquiry and in particular his mediatory role in the public hearings which at times became a little heated. I would also like to thank and congratulate the other Committee members for their input into the deliberations. As a committee we worked very well. Finally, a tribute must be paid to the secretariat who for a period of months worked very hard and diligently on behalf of the Committee. I pay tribute also to the consultants who gave up their valuable time to assist the Committee. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —by leave-As a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs I assure the House that I will be brief in making some comments about what became known as the Baryulgil inquiry. I endorse the sentiments of the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) who, in his opening remarks, explained that this inquiry set the scene for what could have been a classic confrontation. Sadly, as the honourable member for Barker has said, the Press and the media focused on the issue of asbestos mining at Baryulgil and what began to emerge was a classic confrontation between what was perceived to be big business and what was perceived to be a disadvantaged minority. This confrontation was compounded by the fact that individual legal proceedings were already in train and it was important that the inquiry did not in any way prejudice those legal proceedings. This is an emotive issue. Indeed, the publicity that had been given to this issue prior to the inquiry meant that a sense of exploitation had already been created amongst the community at Baryulgil. It was in this climate that the Committee met. The climate was one of concern that in many cases the community at Baryulgil had already had its hopes of compensation raised beyond what was a reasonable limit. Much has already been said about the history, and the location of the mine and the medical details of the people who appeared before the Committee. I endorse the comments of the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) in paying tribute to the Chairman of the Committee. I do it, recognising that frequently there are occasions on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and I will disagree. We are almost constantly at political loggerheads and, going into an election, that is unlikely to improve. But I am very grateful for the balanced approach that the Chairman brought to this inquiry. I say simply that, with the benefit of hindsight, it was easy to be wise about what should have happened to the community at Baryulgil and what should have been done with asbestos mining at Baryulgil. Now that in 1984 the hazards of asbestos are well documented, it is easy simply to refer to asbestos as some sort of dirty word. But we need to remember that, when the mine that was under survey was at its peak, it was at its peak because the community was demanding asbestos related products for housing, industry and drainage. It is in recognition of the fact that work hazards existed in this environment that the recommendations that the Committee has made have been brought forward. But we should recognise that the demise and closure of this mine has not in itself solved problems. The closure of the mine has not created an idyllic place for the people of the Baryulgil community to live. The closure of the mine has meant that what was once a community enjoying high levels of employment is now a community suffering the tragedy of high levels of unemployment. That unemployment is in itself a health hazard. As has already been outlined, basically the recommendations facilitate opportunities for Aboriginal people to look again at the claims they may make if they feel they were disadvantaged, provide a chance for a medical service to be established and look to the future of the Baryulgil Square community and the school. I thank the staff of the Committee and the advisers for the help they gave to the Committee. I hope that the report as handed down will prove to be a hallmark in future similar investigations. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —by leave-My statement will be brief. First of all, I wonder where the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is today. It is very disappointing that he is not in the House to hear this report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs brought down. It was he who put this reference to the Committee. The Committee has done an enormous amount of work and it is very disappointing for us to see that he is not here. I guess the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is acting for him but I would have thought this was something important enough to the Aboriginal people to justify the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs being in the House to listen to what we have to say. I fully support this report. It is important to remember that there are no dissenting statements in the report. All credit for that must go to the Chairman , the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), who, in my opinion, is probably one of the best chairmen that I have worked under. He and his staff have done an excellent job in bringing down this report. As nobody has mentioned this, I also wish to point to the amount of work put in by the people who presented submissions to the Committee. I refer to the time and effort taken by the people from James Hardie Industries Ltd, the Aboriginal community and members of the legal profession to put their submissions to this Committee. I also wish to make it very clear to those people who still reside at the Baryulgil Square, and to those people who are coming and going from that Square, that as far as we are concerned they do so entirely at their own risk. I ask them to read this report very carefully. Although we cannot forcibly move them from that area, if they stay there it will be very difficult for them to get any sort of compensation. The other thing I wish to say is that this inquiry put an enormous work load on the Committee. We have held up our report on education, which I believe overall is far more important to Aboriginal people than the report on this subject. I suggest to the Minister that in future, if he wants to make references to us, he ensure that we are not overburdened with such a tremendous work load so that we can attempt to do one thing at a time. We are not superhuman and cannot handle half a dozen references at once. It is very important for us to continue with the education inquiry. I ask the Minister in future to be more careful with the references he gives to us. I thank the staff and once again congratulate the Chairman for the excellent job he has done. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —I present a report, together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings and the transcript of evidence, from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, being a report that the Committee has been unable to complete its inquiry into aircraft noise. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MILTON —by leave-Very briefly, the purpose of this report is to recommend that a select committee on aircraft noise be appointed in the new session of the Parliament to complete the inquiry into aircraft noise at present being conducted by the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. The reasons for this request are simple and logical. The inquiry is at an advanced stage and we are concerned that if an environment committee, substantially with new members, is established in the new Parliament it will be a daunting task for it to complete the inquiry in a reasonable time. It is interesting to note that when the reference was first adopted the only member of the Committee at that time who is presently a member of the Committee is the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr). A number of members involved in the aircraft noise inquiry have indicated that they may not renominate for the Environment and Conservation Committee but they have indicated that they would be willing to serve on a select committee on aircraft noise to complete the inquiry. A select committee, consisting of a core of members familiar with the evidence, could complete the inquiry within a number of months. Failure to adopt the Committee's recommendation may result in the inquiry taking 12 months or more to complete, leading to delays and the disillusionment of those who have given evidence, some of them up to two years ago. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I express my appreciation to Mr John Cummins, the Secretary of the Committee, for the diligent and constructive work he and his staff have most efficiently carried out on behalf of the Committee. I commend the report to the House. Mr BURR(Wilmot) —by leave-Madam Deputy Speaker, the Opposition agrees with the report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, presented by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton). A great deal of work has been done by the Environment and Conservation Committee in this inquiry into aircraft noise. As the honourable member for La Trobe has already pointed out, the inquiry started during the Thirty-second Parliament when the Committee was under the chairmanship of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and continued throughout the Thirty-third Parliament; so I am sure the House will appreciate that a great deal of evidence has been accumulated by the Committee. It has been given by people throughout the country who are concerned by problems of aircraft noise. The Committee, having gathered all this evidence together and not wanting to waste it, believes that the best solution is to carry forward this evidence into the Thirty-fourth Parliament. The means of having that evidence properly considered and a detailed report prepared for the Parliament is to have a select committee formed so that the work done by the present Committee is not wasted but is carried forward into the new Parliament. It is a little unfortunate that the election has been called at this time. It is my view that, had the present Thirty-third Parliament been allowed to continue until April or May of next year , this inquiry into aircraft noise could have been completed and a detailed report presented to the Parliament. While the Committee has no control over that , we are concerned that the evidence and submissions we have collected be put to good use and that the report be prepared early in the next Parliament. As the honourable member for La Trobe said, I am the only member on the Environment and Conservation Committee surviving from the Thirty-second Parliament, and I compliment the new members who came on to the Committee during the life of this Parliament. Many of them were newly elected to the Parliament and had no experience in parliamentary procedure and no experience of the procedure of an investigative committee such as this. They adapted very well. They took up their duties with great diligence and it was pleasing to work with them and see their conscientiousness. I compliment them on the way they handled their duties on this inquiry. I join with the Chairman, the honourable member for La Trobe, in thanking the Committee staff-in particular Mr John Cummins and the members of the staff who have worked with him. Having worked through two parliaments with Mr Cummins on this Committee, I can assure honourable members that those members who have served on the Committee are appreciative of the detailed way in which he has arranged all affairs for the Committee in regard to its inquiries, the meetings it has held and the various visits it has made. He is a diligent and efficient committee secretary and he has a very conscientious staff working with him. I also thank the Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for La Trobe, for the way in which he has approached his duties on this Committee during the course of this Parliament. All members of the Committee would agree that the honourable member for La Trobe has shown great enthusiasm. He has been very diligent in the way he has approached this inquiry and other matters that the Committee has addressed itself to during the course of this Parliament. Perhaps the only complaint is that he has been too enthusiastic and has tried to impose too great a work load on the Committee. I thank the honourable member for La Trobe for the way in which he has handled his duties. Mr MORRISON(St George) —On behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I present the Committee's report entitled 'Australia and ASEAN: Challenges and Opportunities', together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings and the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MORRISON —by leave-This report flows from the recognition by the Committee that no other part of the world promises to be of more consistent importance to Australia than the region of South and South East Asia. The member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations form a significant part of this most economically dynamic region. The average economic growth rate of ASEAN countries more than doubled the average for the industrialised countries, including Australia, between 1970 and 1981. It is instructive for members of this House to recognise that, assuming such trends continue, Singapore's per capita national income will exceed Australia's by the year 2000. The challenge to Australia is to plan an appropriate role for itself in the ASEAN region in the light of the many changes that are taking place. The Committee set out to resolve what I suppose can be best described as an identity crisis. How do Australians regard themselves? Do we regard ourselves as Europeans, or is Australia a part of Asia? Also, what perception do the countries of ASEAN have of Australia? In response to those considerations, the Committee observed that the pursuit of closer Australia-ASEAN relations need not involve an attempt by Australia to become 'part of Asia'. Indeed, the very notion of being 'Asian' is in itself unclear. There is no uniform concept of ' Asian identity' with which Australia could properly identify. The pursuit of a generalised sense of Asian identity would be likely to satisfy neither Australia nor Australia's Asian neighbours and partners. In particular, the Committee noted that co-operation with ASEAN should be based on the recognition that Australia's political culture and processes are substantially different from those of the ASEAN states and that these differences are unlikely to diminish. Even with a concerted effort to promote mutual understanding, differences of perspective on some socio-political issues- for example, human rights and the role of the media-are likely to persist. The quality of the Australia-ASEAN relationship should not be indicated by the attainment of a complete identity of outlook and viewpoints, but by the achievement of a pattern of growing political, economic, educational and social interactions. Nevertheless, the Committee points out that Australia is in fact located in contiguity to Asia, especially the countries of ASEAN, and shares important common interests with its Asian neighbours. While Australia's ethnic and cultural identity is likely to remain distinctly different from that of its ASEAN neighbours, increased co-operation between Australia and ASEAN can bring Australia a greater understanding and appreciation of the ASEAN States and substantial mutual benefits. Australia will be affected by, and will continue to be involved in, regional developments. What Australia can most usefully pursue in the context of relations with ASEAN is an improved level of mutual awareness and understanding, and increased economic interactions and co-operation on political and security issues to enhance regional security and minimise the destablishing potential of major power interference. In its analysis, the Committee distinguishes, as appropriate, between individual ASEAN members and their ASEAN grouping. Australia's interests are affected, but in different ways, by developments in each. The emphasis in the report, at least in its political and strategic aspects, is towards ASEAN as a grouping. ASEAN as a regional grouping has contributed substantially to the security and stability of the South East Asian region; it has effectively reduced the likelihood of inter-state discord or conflict amongst its members by establishing a framework for the peaceful resolution of disputes. When one thinks back just a few years to when there was confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia, when there were disputes between Malaysia and Singapore and between Malaysia and the Philippines over Sabah, one can really see the developments that ASEAN has brought about in this concept of conflict resolution . It has built trust and confidence among the leaderships and governments of its members and has produced a climate of stability which has itself enhanced prospects for economic growth. The continuation and further development of these achievements are in Australia's interests. I think we should also note that ASEAN has not yet been successful in the secondary designated role of promoting intra-regional trade and investment, although the region's international trade and investment has benefited from the political stability promoted by ASEAN co-operation. While ASEAN members have preferred a group approach to major political and security issues of common concern, they transact most of their foreign trade and investment bilaterally. Australia's relations with ASEAN countries are conducted primarily on a bilateral basis; nevertheless, Australia needs to be mindful of the sensitivities and issues shared by the ASEAN group. In particular, the quality of Australia's multilateral or group relations may be affected by the health of bilateral ties, increasingly so if ASEAN solidarity on political issues is maintained at its present high level. In view of this Australia must be perceptive in identifying and distinguishing policies which appear to be shared by ASEAN as a group and those in which there is a divergence in opinion among ASEAN members. Some issues, for example, ASEAN opposition to Australia's international civil aviation policy in the late 1970s and its approach to the problems of Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, are presented in terms of ASEAN solidarity. This solidarity, or what we have described as 'ASEAN spirit', is regarded as important by all ASEAN countries and has been central to improving the region's cohesion. Australian failures to appreciate ASEAN sensitivities, and sometimes ASEAN misunderstanding of Australia's policies and contributions to the region, have aggravated a number of bilateral and multilateral disputes. The evidence taken by the Committee suggests that mutual misunderstandings of political and cultural values, or at least stereotyped images of the other's values, are common in both Australia and the region. The Committee deals extensively with the situation in Cambodia or Kampuchea where the policy of successive Australian governments to the Khmer Rouge group has differed in emphasis from that of ASEAN. The decision of the Fraser Government to de-recognise the Democratic Kampuchean regime and the Hawke Government's initiatives in relation to Indochina have given rise to critical responses from some ASEAN governments. ASEAN expects support from Australia on this issue. Close co-operation and consultation on such matters is clearly desirable to avoid detrimentally affecting Australia's long term relations with ASEAN. In chapter 4, part 7 the Committee dealt with Australia's assistance to ASEAN education, especially ASEAN students in Australia, in the course of which the conflicting proposals from the Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy and the Jackson Committee to review the Australian Overseas Aid Program were examined. The Committee noted that the present overseas students system, with its combination of quotas and subsidies, is not satisfactory to either Australia or those foreign countries whose students demand exceeds the supply of Australian places. In principle, the Committee recommends to the Australian Government that it give careful consideration to a new overseas student policy to include the following features: First, gradual and predictable increases in overseas student charges to reach a level of operating costs as determined by the Government. It is important that such fees be retained by the enrolling institutions to assist their funding of the additional places, to avoid any displacement of qualified Australian students and as an incentive to attract higher overseas enrolments with improved courses. The second feature recommended is the parallel development of a comprehensive system of scholarships, to be funded out of the aid budget. The characteristics of that scheme would include first, an Australian government to government scheme similar to that presently operating, and, secondly, a scheme of 'free places' based on merit-not means-tested-but excluding living allowances. Such a scheme would be administered by institutions from Commonwealth aid funds. The Committee envisages that this category would comprise most of the scholarships. The scholarship scheme thirdly would offer a supplementary system of free places, including living allowances, for financially disadvanteged categories of students, to be administered by the Government's aid authorities and intended to promote general development objectives in the student's countries. Such developmental scholarships would not be means tested; indeed, developmental criteria would be employed and would need to take account of specially disadvantaged or under represented categories such as Pacific Islanders and women from certain countries. It is important that the planning, implementation, and review of such a policy be undertaken in the closest possible consultation with all source countries, especially the ASEAN countries, so that their concerns will be taken into account fully. Readers of the report will notice that it is critical of Australia's export performance and prospects in the ASEAN region. Despite steady increases in the value, and often volume, of Australian exports to the ASEAN region, Australia's shares of that market for most export types have steadily declined. Australia's export performance in the ASEAN region needs improvement. First, Australia's export pattern has not been well matched to the changing sectors of greatest ASEAN demand. Secondly, Australian exports have experienced increasing price competition from foreign exporters. A third reason is a lack of export orientation within Australian industry, particularly secondary industry. Fourthly, insufficient attention has been given to the promotion of Australia in ASEAN. The report contains recommendations on measures to develop Australia's trade with ASEAN. Honourable members will note that a wide range of issues are canvassed in the report, issues such as defence co-operation, migration, human rights and the role of Radio Australia, about which the Committee expresses some reservations. In commending the report, which I am glad to say is unanimous, to honourable members, I wish to place on record the Committee's appreciation of Senator Sibraa, who guided the Sub-Committee through its public and private hearings. He was ably assisted by the Deputy Chairman, Senator Hill. I also want to express my appreciation of the ready co-operation of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar). The Committee is particularly indebted to the Sub-Committee secretary, Mr Ian Booth, and to Dr Frank Frost, who was seconded to the Sub- Committee from the Parliamentary Library. I express our appreciation to the Parliamentary Librarian for that courtesy and thank Mr Booth and Dr Frost for their professional dedication to the work of the Committee. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —by leave-The draft report of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee on Australia and ASEAN is a major contribution to Australia's foreign policy debate. The report is a comprehensive statement of the relationship in all its facets-political and security affairs, migration and refugees, economics, trade, investment, aid, and cultural and intellectual exchange. I believe that this report has gathered strength from the spirit of bipartisanship demonstrated by all members of the Committee. The unanimity of the report is a great asset to the Parliament and to Australia. It demonstrates well, I think, that foreign policy by Press conference is not the best way to generate bipartisanship. If we have suffered from the fact that the Government has avoided making a comprehensive statement of its foreign policy, we have gained some recovery from the fact that the back bench has contributed to a very effective presentation of Australian-ASEAN relations. It is inevitable that there will be divergent viewpoints emanating from Australia and ASEAN on economic issues in particular. We are not saying, nor is the Government Committee, nor is ASEAN, that differences are a sign of frailty. They may be a sign of strength. Clearly, just as there is a hierarchy of sensitivities, there is a corresponding hierarchy of permissible differences. The Fraser Government became involved in a strong dialogue on economic issues and civil aviation. Paragraph 3 of the foreword states: . . . Australia must be perceptive in identifying and distinguishing policies which appear to be shared by ASEAN as a group and those in which there is a divergence among ASEAN members opinion. Some issues, for example ASEAN opposition to Australia's international civil aviation policy in the late 1970s and its approach to the problems of Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, are presented in terms of ASEAN solidarity. It is true that ASEAN solidarity was a factor in the ASEAN approach to Australia on both these issues. But it is a mistake to assume that solidarity on an economic issue is of the same order of sensitivity as solidarity on an issue affecting the fundamental security of the region. A moment's reflection will, I think, produce agreement on that point. The fact is that there will be times when our perceptions will differ. In the civil aviation case, Australia was concerned to take advantage of the new aviation technology by developing and end-to-end route without stopovers for Australian tourists to Europe. This proposal came at a time when Singapore was expanding its airline into a major international carrier, relying for the most part not on Singapore passengers or ASEAN passengers but on passengers from Australia. There were considerable commercial interests involved. Other ASEAN airlines were affected by the Singapore program. A new policy development emerged for all the airlines in the region. So in a sense, this kind of dialogue , while it caused tensions, did not end in a sense of disillusionment about the quality of dialogue. It ended in a sensible improvement in civil aviation co- operation which boosted Australian tourism to South East Asia. Similarly, ASEAN concerns about Australian protection policy led to a greater degree of access to Australian markets and a more realistic appraisal by ASEAN of the Australian economy's capacity to absorb ASEAN exports. If solidarity of approach is the common factor between Australia's approach to ASEAN under Malcolm Fraser and Australia's approach to ASEAN under this Government, it is not the most important distinguishing factor. In the order of sensitivities, Australian protection and airline policy cannot be put in the same basket, by a long shot, as the issue of differences which developed over Kampuchea. This issue, and the way the Government went about it, raised fundamental questions in ASEAN about our loyalty to the security perspectives it has come to share and which were a characteristic of previous Australian governments. In the foreword, we read: It is self-evident that ASEAN region's continuing security and economic well- being are of vital concern to Australia's future. Australia needs to define and plan for an appropriate long-term role in its neighbourhood, taking account of the views of ASEAN members, the needs of the region, and its own capacity to contribute. Suggestions from some ASEAN sources that Australia's political, security and economic contributions may no longer be regarded as so 'relevant' to the region as during ASEAN's formative years reflect in the main ASEAN's growing self-reliance since those years when Australia's supportive role was more pertinent and, in a way, more needed. They also reflect a greater 'maturity ' in the relations and dialogue between ASEAN countries and Australia, with ASEAN countries now more realistic about Australia's necessarily more limited, but nevertheless positive role in the region. Some differences of opinion were evident in submissions and testimony on Australia's recent policy attitudes and initiatives in relation to regional security issues. These differences revolved around several major issues: The possible value of Australian efforts to explore bases for dialogue over regional security issues; the role of the Khmer Rouge forces in the ongoing Cambodia conflict; and Australian attitudes and policies towards Vietnam, including the question of restoration of development aid. Several submissions tended to be sceptical about the value of Australian policies in these areas and suggested that the policies had been a source of some concern to ASEAN, as the comments I have quoted have indicated already. However, the Committee received other submissions and testimony which broadly supported the policy initiatives and did not see any substantial tensions or disruption as having arisen in relations with ASEAN. The Malaysian Institute of Strategic and International Studies stated: It is over the Kampuchean question that there is a clear difference or perspective and policy between Australia and ASEAN. The submission noted that there are important areas of shared policy goals between Australia and ASEAN, and that ASEAN does not seek the return of power of Pol Pot or the Khmer Rouge. The submission stated: We are all agreed that the post-political settlement government in Phnom Penh should be a coalition government of reconciliation. ISIS continued: ASEAN, like Australia, does not want a Southeast Asia divided into two confrontationist blocs. We all share a common belief that Vietnam must be drawn into a system of peaceful coexistence and positive co-operation . . . We share the belief that Vietnam should withdraw its army of occupation and that the political resolution of the Kampuchea Question must include the right to self- determination by the people of Kampuchea. ISIS went on to state: Australia's present policy tack does more than do no good in terms of contributing to a peaceful and viable political resolution of the Kampuchean Question. It does positive Harm; and directly undermines the efforts of the ASEAN states towards this end. It contributes to the strengthening of the hand of the hardliners in Hanoi. It contributes to the Vietnamese strategy of divide and rule. The ASEAN spokesmen who appeared before the Committee are well and accurately represented by the Malaysian spokesman. In this connection, let us not forget that Malaysia is responsible for co-ordinating ASEAN positions in any dialogue with Australia. The views which differed from this ASEAN position were put by the Australians. It is, therefore, important that we take note of their words, as this is an Australian assessment of ASEAN and not an ASEAN assessment of Australia, where we would expect Australian viewpoints to be weighed. Let us look at paragraph 2. 88: The evidence heard by the Committee suggests that the Australian policy initiatives in relation to Indochina since 1983 gave rise to critical responses from some ASEAN governments about precisely what direction Australia was seeking to pursue in attempting to explore bases for dialogue over Cambodia. The reactions to Australia's initiatives underline the sensitivity for ASEAN of policy towards Indochina. The reactions also underline the fact that Australian attitudes towards regional security issues are regarded as important by the ASEAN states, and that ASEAN expects consistent support from Australia on these issues. This is a modest statement of the tensions caused by the diplomatic activity which tended to be more publicly corrective of ASEAN than it was sensitive. ASEAN was confronted by the considerable problem caused by Vietnam's refusal to negotiate an international solution which would devolve on the Khmer people full responsibility for their nation's future. The report refers rightly to the uncertainty that has arisen in ASEAN about Australian policies. The report suggests that this may arise from the fact that our regional policies have not been consistently explained and propounded. This is a helpful comment, but there are, I suggest, other factors which may be even more important. A great deal of the problem arose because of the way we went about implementing our policies-what we said about them in Australia and what we said to the ASEAN. We opted for an effort to draw the Vietnamese into a more sustained dialogue. There was much to be said for this kind of probing of the situation. Our criticism from this side of the House was related to the way in which this Government managed the exercise and the way in which it represented it. We now know that some of the euphoria about a peace plan owed more to the naivete of the new Australian Government and the accompanying Press chorus than it did to any objective realities. The mistake we made, I believe, was to downplay the legitimacy of ASEAN differences with Vietnam. The Government tended to project a view of ASEAN which cast ASEAN in a confrontationist image, while it cast the Vietnamese as a misunderstood nation with an intrinsically peaceful outlook to the region-An outlook blemished only by the policy of occupation of Cambodia, made necessary by the existence of Pol Pot and ASEAN support for him. The Minister scarcely had time to hear a full statement of the ASEAN position before he launched a diplomatic and media assault on the ASEAN view. He went to his first meeting with ASEAN last year, after flourishing the idea of resuming aid to Vietnam, irrespective of ASEAN views. He told ASEAN that its policy of support for Khmer resistance to Vietnamese occupation would fail. Moreover, he did this on the eve of his first visit to Hanoi and, worse, he briefed Australian media of his view in Bangkok on the eve of his departure for Hanoi. All of this happened amid a plethora of media speculation which led ASEAN to believe we were well set to dump a strong traditional sympathy with ASEAN. Worse was to follow to reinforce ASEAN fears. In the United Nations we refused to co-sponsor the ASEAN resolution on the issue, a resolution designed to bring international pressure on all parties to agree to an international settlement of the issues. The constructive purposes of ASEAN have been endorsed by this report tabled today. Paragraph 2.50 sates: ASEAN's policy approach towards Cambodia since 1979 has been to deny international legitimacy to the Vietnamese-allied Peoples Republic of Kampuchea (PRK) in Phnom Penh and to dissuade Western and Third World governments from moving to derecognise the displaced regime of Democratic Kampuchea, which, from June 1982, became the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK). ASEAN has pursued its Cambodia policy in two major ways. Firstly, ASEAN has played a leading diplomatic role in denying legitimacy to the PRK. In four votes in the UN from 1979, ASEAN led the argument that the Democratic Kampuchea regime should retain its UN seat. In 1983, Vietnam and its allies did not seek to put the credentials issue to a vote. Secondly, ASEAN has demanded a total withdrawal of Vietnamese forces and self-determination for the Cambodian people. ASEAN has expressed this policy goal in a series of joint statements since January 1979, and this stance has also gained extensive UN backing.' That was the policy we tried to distance ourselves from when we decided not to co-sponsor the ASEAN resolution, which incorporated the policy described in this joint report. One of the excuses we had was that ASEAN had supported a coalition. In this House the Government tried to press this quarrel with ASEAN on these grounds. The Government tried to argue that the Opposition, in supporting ASEAN, was supporting Pol Pot. All of this is now put in perspective by this report. Let me again quote from the document: The promotion of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea has also been an important aspect of ASEAN's strategy to maintain support for the displaced Democratic Kampuchean regime. The Coalition agreement signed in Kuala Lumpur on June 1982 involved the restructuring of the leadership of the government of Democratic Kampuchea to offset international repugnance towards the Pol Pot regime. The coalition did not, however, involve the integration or amalgamation of the component political movements and armed forces: the Khmer Rouge, the Khmer Peoples National Liberation Front (KPNLF) and Prince Sihanouk and the forces loyal to him. Under the agreement, Prince Sihanouk assumed the position of President, Son Sam, leader of the KPNLF, became Prime Minister and Khieu Samphan gave up the position of President to become Vice-President in charge of foreign affairs. The agreement made clear the loose character of the coalition; each of the participating movements was to retain its own organisation and political identity and each retained the right to receive international aid specificially granted it. In supporting the Coalition, ASEAN has envisaged that not only will the participation of the non-communist resistance movements help the CGDK retain its international acceptance (at the UN and elsewhere) but that the non-communist movements will themselves be able to attract increased assistance and strength vis a vis the Khmer Rouge. Another aspect which provided vexations to ASEAN was the tendency of the Government to play upon differences within the group to the concept of negotiations. Indonesia was said to have a basically different view from Thailand or Malaysia. Well, I believe there was a great deal of concert between the respective members about how best to test Vietnamese intentions. It was our mistake to assume ASEAN was opposed to a policy of holding the door ajar to dialogue. It had been doing this long before the Hawke Government came to office , and it had been doing it with encouragement from Australia. Clearly, there is a different perception about the role of China, and differences of weight about the effectiveness of Vietnam as a fighting force. The report quotes extensively from the restated position of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting of 9-10 July. I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, we would cause mischief if we search this document for divisions. We should accept the solidarity of ASEAN as a genuine and valuable objective, and I now quote from paragraph 52: Reiterated their call for a comprehensive political settlement in Kampuchea. ' The essential elements for such a political settlement are the total withdrawal of foreign forces, the exercise of self-determination and national reconciliation in Kampuchea' Expressed concern at '. . . the recurrent acts of Vietnamese agression along the Thai-Kampuchean border . . .' '. . . fully endorsed Thailand's actions in the exercise of her legitimate right to self-defence . . .' called for the stationing of a United Nations Observer team on the Thai side of the border with Cambodia Stated that Vietnam's announced partial withdrawals of forces from Cambodia were in fact annual troop rotations' . . . meant to deceive the international community' Stated that they '. . . shared the serious apprehension of the people of Kampuchea that there are now at least half a million Vietnamese settlers in Kampuchea' Reaffirmed support for the CGDK and 'noted that the Kampuchean people are increasingly rallying to the patriotic resistance forces . . .' '. . . expressed their full support for President Samdech Norodom Sihanouk's call for a national reconciliation among all Kampuchean factions as a positive approach towards realising the objectives of self-determination, independence, sovereignty and unity of the Kampuchean people' Stated that the latest Vietnamese proposal '. . . offered nothing positive towards the comprehensive political settlement of the Kampuchean problem . . .' Expressed their gratitude to the members of the UN for their continued support of the CGDK.' I suggest that the Government use its machinery to have the contents of this ASEAN Foreign Ministers' position understood. It is my contention that the Government's failure was not so much, as the report might be interpreted to suggest, a failure to communicate with ASEAN as it was a failure to appreciate the effect on ASEAN of a misconstruction of ASEAN motives and policy and a public misrepresentation of them in Australia and the United Nations. The basic issues comes down to this: Australia cannot determine the outcome of events in Indo-China. Our leverage over Vietnam, even if it has undergone improvement under this Government, is slight. Our capacity to influence ASEAN is the greater, as we maintain a sensible and balanced relationship with it. Thus, from this side of the House, we take the view that ASEAN has a primary role, and we can best play our part by a friendly concert with ASEAN. That is how we see it. This report makes a contribution in a wider framework. It sees value in continuing. In addition to the strategic significance of the region, it reminds all Australians of the economic and commercial importance of the region. It examines the refugee problem, economic development, the trading system and the infrastructure, the opportunities for intellectual and cultural contact. I particularly commend the overview at pages 192 and 193. There are some important and quite thought-provoking comments on human rights and the media. I have been obliged to concentrate on the issue which almost brought Australian -ASEAN relations to grief. I feel that, looking to the future, the report offers a valuable and wide-ranging perspective on the manifold issues which are involved in relations with ASEAN. I would like to compliment all my colleagues on this Committee, from both sides of the House. The report, I believe, does genuine credit to the issue. I compliment the staff, and I take the liberty at this hazardous time for us all, to congratulate the Chairman of Sub-committees, Senator Sibraa and his deputy, Senator Hill, and I thank the Chairman for the industry and high purpose he brings to his office. Mr FIFE(Farrer) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the nineteenth report for 1984 of the Committee, relating to the 132kV Subtransmission Development, Tuggeranong, Australian Capital Territory . Motion (by Mr Uren for Mr Young) agreed to: That, in response to the petition of Dawson Waldron presented to the House on 2 October 1984, this House grants leave- (1) to the Petitioner and to Mirror Newspapers Limited and Greg Hartung to issue and serve a subpoenae for the production of the relevant official records of the proceedings of the House as described in the Second Schedule of the petition; (2) to the Petitioner and to Mirror Newspapers Limited and Greg Hartung to adduce the said official records of the proceedings as evidence of what was in fact said in the House, and (3) to an appropriate officer or officers of the House to attend in Court and to produce the said official records of proceedings and to give evidence in relation to the recording of proceedings providing that such officer or officers should not be required to attend at any time which would prevent the performance of their duties in the Parliament. Consideration resumed from 8 October. (Quorum formed) Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(5.42) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. As foreshadowed in the statement tabled by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in the Senate on 21 August 1984 in relation to the report of Mr I. D. Temby, QC, as Special Prosecutor in regard to the Age materials, it is necessary to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 to enable Mr Justice Stewart, as Royal Commissioner, to investigate these materials and also to enable them to be handed to the New South Wales Commissioner for Public Complaints for action by him. As a result of amendments successfully moved by the Opposition in the Senate, the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 also provides that the materials may be given to the National Crime Authority. Under the Bill now before the House, either Commissioner, before making use of the materials, must be satisfied that the document in question is an authentic record and is appropriate to be dealt with by him. Only if so satisfied, may the Commissioner make use of a document for his inquiry. Similarly, the National Crime Authority, before using the materials, must be satisfied that the document in question is an authentic record and is or may be relevant to matters with which the Authority is concerned. In reaching its decision to proceed with this legislation, the Government has taken into account the fact that the Senate Select Committee on the Conduct of a Judge was not able to determine that the materials relating to the conduct of a Federal judge were authentic or genuine except to the extent that participants in conversations made limited acknowledgments. Against this, some of the materials are directly relevant to Mr Justice Stewart's inquiry into the Terrence Clark drug trafficking group. As Royal Commissioner acting under royal commission powers given by both the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments and with his unique experience in investigations and special background knowledge, Mr Justice Stewart is probably better equipped than any other inquiry body to establish the authenticity and sources of the material. He will also be able to investigate generally the matters disclosed therein relevant to his inquiries. His Honour has indicated that he expects to complete this inquiry expeditiously . On its completion he will resume his Nugan Hand Bank inquiries and an extension of his time for reporting in that regard may become necessary. At the same time, Mr Justice Stewart will be Chairman of the three-member National Crime Authority which has recently commenced operation. The Australian community is greatly indebted to the effective and energetic manner in which Mr Justice Stewart carries out his arduous duties. It is appropriate to provide for reference to the New South Wales Commissioner because, as Mr Temby points out, State offences may be involved. As I have mentioned, as a result of amendments made in the Senate, the Bill also makes provision for the giving of the materials to the National Crime Authority to be used by the Authority for the purposes of the performance of its functions. The Bill also removes doubts as to the lawfulness of a person passing material or information in his possession, which he reasonably suspects to be evidence of an illegal interception, to law enforcement agencies which may use it for the purpose of prosecution of that offence. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Steele Hall) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(5.46) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Bill 1984, together with two further Bills that I will introduce shortly, is to recoup income tax sought to be avoided under new generation trust stripping schemes. This legislation was foreshadowed in a statement by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) on 28 April 1983. As indicated in that statement, and in our taxation platform for the 1983 election, the policy of the Government is to employ retrospective legislation, whenever necessary, to ensure that tax sought to be avoided under any blatant tax avoidance scheme that comes to light during our term of office will be collected, irrespective of when the scheme was entered into. That policy means that there cannot be the slightest possibility that any new blatant tax avoidance scheme will succeed and is the only effective way of ensuring total eradication of the tax avoidance industry. Trust stripping occurs where trust income is formally allocated for tax purposes to a beneficiary that does not pay tax on it, such as a tax exempt charitable institution, with the income concerned being effectively retained, undiminished, by the payment of tax, by those really intended to benefit from it . Legislation against trust stripping was enacted in 1979 and amendments of a strengthening kind were made in 1981. Despite that specific legislation and the enactment of new general anti-avoidance provisions with effect from 27 May 1981, variants of trust stripping schemes continued to be developed and used because the promoters and participants were confident that the previous Government would continue to enact remedial legislation only on a prospective basis. The variants of trust stripping arrangements with which this Bill deals seek to exploit a provision of the income tax law not used in earlier trust strips. Under that provision a beneficiary, having a vested and indefeasible interest in the income of a trust estate, is treated as being presently entitled to that income. Briefly, in a typical new generation trust stripping scheme, the income of a family trust is formally allocated for tax purposes, directly or through a chain of trusts, to a charity that is exempt from the payment of tax on the income. Although the charity is given a vested and indefeasible interest in the income, it is generally not entitled to payment of the income until 80 years hence. In the meantime, the charity receives only a token payment with the balance of the funds being retained for the benefit of family members of that 80 -year period. The claimed result of such an arrangement is that the trust income nominally allocated to the tax exempt charity is not subject to tax. In reality, the charity derives virtually no benefit from the income allocated to it. Even if the income is ultimately paid to the charity in 80 years time, the present value of that amount is negligible. For example, $100,000 payable in 80 years time is equivalent to less than $50 in today's terms. Looked at another way, by conferring on the charity a benefit worth less than $50 the family concerned seeks to avoid tax of up to $60,000. The essence of the scheme is that trust income is made to appear for tax purposes as income of an exempt body, but effective enjoyment of the income rests with the family that seeks to avoid tax. This is clearly a blatant tax avoidance scheme that warrants retrospective legislation. Accordingly, this Bill is designed to ensure that the tax sought to be avoided through these schemes will be recovered irrespective of when the scheme was entered into. I turn now to the details of the Bill. The legislation will operate where, under a tax avoidance scheme entered into on or after 1 July 1980, a beneficiary is given a vested and indefeasible interest in the income of a trust estate and the present value of the benefit that will be derived by the beneficiary from that interest is less than 50 per cent of the amount of the income formally allocated to the beneficiary. Where income is sought to be stripped under arrangements of this type, the trustee of the stripped trust will, in the first instance, be liable to pay trust recoupment tax on the income tax at the rate of 60 per cent, that being the rate applicable to trustees under section 99A of the Income Tax Assessment Act. There is, however, to be a right for beneficiaries of the stripped trust to elect to be taxed on amounts equal in total to the amount of the stripped income . If this election is made and the Commissioner of Taxation is satisfied that the allocation of the stripped income among the beneficiaries is reasonable and that personal tax, if any, payable by the beneficiaries will be paid by them, the trustee of the stripped trust will be freed from its liability for trust recoupment tax. As foreshadowed in the statement by the Minister for Finance, collection of the tax will not be allowed to be hindered by techniques such as participating trusts being left devoid of funds or being made to disappear. If the beneficiaries of the stripped trust fail to exercise their right of election and the stripped trust has ceased to exist, its beneficial ownership has changed or it is unlikely to be able to meet its liability for trust recoupment tax on the stripped income, the Bill will, in those very limited circumstances, place on all the persons who are in the eligible beneficiaries class in relation to the stripped trust, a joint and several liability for the trust recoupment tax payable on that income. The Bill provides that the eligible beneficiaries class is to comprise those persons who directly or indirectly derived a benefit attributable to the stripped trust income. The class will not, however, include third parties who derived a benefit as a result of a bona fide arm's length transaction. Nor will it include a charity that is a nominal beneficiary under a particular scheme and which usually derives a token benefit. The imposition of joint and several liability on members of an eligible beneficiaries class means that each person in the class is fundamentally liable-but subject to rights of contribution and apportionment of liability that I will mention shortly-for the whole of the trust recoupment tax attaching to that group of persons. The right of contribution which the Bill provides will mean that a person in an eligible beneficiaries class, who has in consequence paid some or all of the trust recoupment tax attaching to that class, may seek through the courts an appropriate contribution from other members of the class. The right of apportionment contained in the Bill will mean that a person in the eligible beneficiaries class who is sued by the Commissioner for unpaid trust recoupment tax may act to have other members of the class joined as co-defendants in the recovery suit. Where that option is exercised the court will, having regard to the value of the benefit enjoyed or to be enjoyed, have power to determine how much of the unpaid amount it is just and equitable that the person sued, and each of the persons joined, should be liable to pay as trust recoupment tax. Another feature of the Bill is the imposition of penalty tax in cases where new generation trust stripping schemes are entered into after 28 April 1983. In line with our announced policy on retrospective legislation, the level of penalty that will apply to such schemes entered into prior to the commencement of this legislation will ensure that the amount recovered is the tax sought to be avoided adjusted for inflation. In relation to any future schemes, the penalty tax will be equal to double the tax sought to be avoided. Finally, the Bill contains provisions to guard against divestment of assets in an attempt to frustrate the operation of the trust recoupment tax legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker, in bringing the measures before the Parliament the Government demonstrates once again its commitment to smashing tax avoidance and ensuring that this deplorable anti-social industry will never operate again. I suggest to the Opposition parties that they play their part in bringing about that result by supporting this legislation in this House and in another place. The tax at risk from new generation schemes already entered into is currently estimated at about $10m. Of greater significance, however, is the fact that legislation, along with other measures introduced by the Government, should make it plain to everyone that the days of blatant tax avoidance schemes are well and truly over. An explanatory memorandum providing a detailed explanation of the various measures contained in the Bill will shortly be made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(5.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will formally impose a tax-to be called trust recoupment tax-on the taxable amount determined in accordance with the rules being enacted as the Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Act by the Bill I have just introduced. As I explained in my second reading speech on that Bill, liability for the trust recoupment tax will, subject to election arrangements, fall initially on the trustee of the stripped trust, but where it is impracticable or inappropriate to levy the tax at that primary level the tax will be levied at the secondary level on the class of persons who are referred to in the legislation as the eligible beneficiaries class. This Bill imposes on the taxable amount at either the primary or secondary level a trust recoupment tax equal to 60 per cent of the taxable amount. In addition, the Bill imposes tax on taxable amounts described in the legislation as elected taxable amounts and company taxable amounts. These taxable amounts may arise where the beneficiaries of a stripped trust elect to be assessed to income tax on the stripped income and one of those beneficiaries is a company. The rate of tax will be 75 per cent on elected taxable amounts and 46 per cent on company taxable amounts, the former rate applying where the shareholders of the company do not elect to be taxed on deemed dividends. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(5.58) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The third Bill in the legislative package to recoup the tax sought to be avoided under new generation trust stripping schemes proposes amendments of several acts , consequential upon the two Bills I have already introduced. The first amendment is that of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Decisions under certain Acts are precluded from review under the system provided for by that Act. Decisions under the new trust recoupment tax legislation are also to be excluded from the purview of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. However, a trustee or other person liable for trust recoupment tax who is dissatisfied with an assessment by the Commissioner, will have available full rights of objection and appeal to a Taxation Board of Review or a Supreme Court and ultimately, if the matter warrants it, to the Federal and High Courts. Other taxation laws administered by the Commissioner of Taxation that provide similar rights to contest liability are also excluded from review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Two other Acts to be amended as a consequence of the trust recoupment tax legislation deal with the Commonwealth-State tax sharing arrangements. The first of the tax sharing Acts dealt with by this Bill is the Local Government ( Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. Under that Act, the Commissioner of Taxation is required by the end of July each year to make a determination as to the amount of net personal income tax collections for the year. That determination is then used as the basis for the allocation of funds to the States by way of financial assistance for local government purposes. As the trust recoupment tax legislation basically seeks to recover personal income tax sought to be avoided, the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act is to be amended to include net collections of trust recoupment tax as part of the tax sharing base. The amendment proposed of the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981 will also include collections of trust recoupment tax in the tax base. This proposal is consistent with the intention of that legislation. In 1981, an understanding was reached with the States that they would receive tax sharing grants calculated by reference to a 'total' tax base rather than the personal income tax base used in previous arrangements. That understanding requires that newly introduced Commonwealth taxes be included in the tax base. While the existing legislation allows for such new inclusions through the promulgation of regulations, the necessity for other consequential amendments provides an opportunity to include this amendment within a total legislation package. Finally, the Bill proposes to amend the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act 1983. Those amendments will mean that the Commissioner of Taxation will pay interests on refunds of trust recoupment tax following a successful objection or appeal against a trust recoupment tax assessment. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 7 May. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(6.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill to amend the income tax law was introduced in another place on 2 May by Senator Jack Evans of the Australian Democrats and received a third reading in that place on 4 May 1984. Honourable members will, of course, be aware that the Democrats' Bill, like legislation first introduced by the Government on 7 December 1983, will include in assessable income the full amount of benefits received from section 23F superannuation funds under arrangements commonly called cherry-picker schemes. This Bill differs from the Government's proposed legislation in one important respect; that is, that it applies only in respect of payments or benefits received on or after 7 December 1983 rather than from 1 July 1977, which was the date of effect sought by the Government. In the face of the continued refusal by the occupants of the benches opposite and some others to support the Government's legislation, which was debated here and passed for a third time by this House on 2 October 1984, the Government has decided that this Bill should be given passage. This action will ensure, at least, that benefits received under these schemes from 7 December last are properly subject to tax. This action should not be seen as any weakening of our resolve to have this Parliament enact legislation that taxes superannuation benefits misappropriated, in some instances from unsuspecting employees and more generally to the detriment of honest taxpayers, by those who have indulged in these distasteful practices since the schemes first came to notice in July 1977. Rather it should be seen for what it is-a first step. I do not have to elaborate on the shabbiness of the motives of those who indulged in these schemes other than to say that it was tax avoidance of the most unambiguously blatant kind. As such, the measures call for an application of the Government's anti-tax avoidance retrospectivity policy-a policy endorsed by the people of Australia on 5 March last year. As my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) said on 5 September when re- introducing the Government's Bill in relation to these matters, the Commissioner of Taxation is vigorously seeking to challenge these schemes under the existing law but the only certainly effective response is legislation retrospective to 1977. A technical explanation of the proposed section 26AFA, subject to the date of effect being changed, is contained in the memorandum circulated to honourable members at the time of introduction of the Government's Bill containing the original measure. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. [COGNATE BILLS: STATES GRANTS (TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE) BILL 1984 STATES GRANTS (EDUCATION ASSISTANCE-PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY) AMENDMENT BILL (No . 2) 1984] Debate resumed from 4 October, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1984, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1984 and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(6.07) —The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill and the States Grants ( Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) are very important Bills in the education area. I take the opportunity, on behalf of the Opposition, to address a few general remarks on matters touched by the legislation. Most of my remarks will be directed to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill, which is the vehicle through which the Commonwealth Schools Commission's funding recommendations are given effect. The Bill puts into effect a number of changes contained in the guidelines, including the change from four to 12 funding categories for non-government schools; the new requirements for approval of non-government schools, but the phasing out of impact studies after 1984; the new requirements for maintenance of effort by government and non- government schools; new resource agreements between the Commonwealth and schools ; and a number of other administrative variations. I indicate to the House that the Opposition will support the passage of these Bills both here and in another place. In doing that I say on behalf of the Opposition that there are many things about these Bills which we welcome. We welcome the assistance contained in the Bills to government schools and non- government schools alike and we welcome some of the other changes that the Bills bring about. In saying that, I would not like to miss the opportunity of saying a number of things about the approach of the Opposition parties to education matters and the processes whereby the Government brought these Bills before this Parliament. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the Government has had something of an election eve repentance on the subject of assistance to independent schools. The House and the Australian public, particularly those parents who exercise their right to send their children to independent schools, need to be reminded that only a few months ago the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party passed a resolution to commence phasing out government assistance to 41 independent schools in Australia. Ms McHugh —Very wealthy. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member for Phillip interjects her approval to that policy. Ms McHugh —I said 'very wealthy'. Mr HOWARD —I withdraw. I accept the correction of the honourable member for Phillip, although I think she would agree with me that she really did support the phasing out of that assistance. She smiles her assent. Ms McHugh —Not true. Mr HOWARD —She may not have, but the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) supported it. The Minister put a hand up for it at the National Conference. I know that the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) does not like it. This is a good opportunity to remind the Australian parents who send their children to independent schools that the Labor Party really has no heart in the policy that is embraced in the Bill. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) is seeking to interject. I know that it touches a fairly raw nerve. Government members were dragged screaming to this policy because they were afraid of the electoral backlash. Everyone associated with education knows that for a period of two months the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stood over the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and said to her: 'You will do what I tell you on this subject because if we implement your policy we will lose the support of a lot of the parents who send their children to independent schools'. We know darned well that the philosophical heartland of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs is with those who believe in a policy of government schools first. I think this is an opportunity to remind those people in the Australian community who believe in full freedom of choice in education of a very simple question. Can the Labor Party really be trusted on the question of aid to independent schools? Can we really guarantee that if the Labor Party is re- elected at the election at the end of the year the left wing of the Labor Party will not reassert its philosophical muscle on this question? Can we be certain that the more radical elements in the teachers unions, which exercise such considerable influence over many people in the Labor Party, will not reassert their influence? It is only a short while since the Labor Party National Conference passed a resolution to phase out funding for 41 so-called wealthy schools in Australia. I come to this question of wealthy schools. Of course there are some schools in Australia which have better resources than others. It is very interesting that on average the resource levels of government schools in Australia are in excess of the resource levels of many of the independent schools. One of the great fallacies in the debate about assistance to schools in Australia is the proposition that there are wealthy and non-wealthy schools. The reality is that there are wealthy parents, there are not so wealthy parents, and there are poor parents. Government policies should always be directed towards assisting parents to exercise something which is not a matter of charity but a matter of right, that is, the right to choose the type of education they want for their children. I say those things not in denigration in any sense, shape or form of the government school system. I believe that the government school system in Australia has made an enormous contribution to this country and will continue to make an enormous contribution. Mr John Brown —It turned you out, didn't it? Mr HOWARD —I happen to be a product of the government school system, and I make no apologies for that. Indeed, many people on my side of the Parliament are products of the government school system. The selective high school system in the State in which I grew up has made a magnificent contribution to the education standards of this country. I therefore speak without any sense of preference or privilege towards the independent school sector but out of a very profound belief that few things in our society at the moment are more important and more worthy of being preserved than competition in education. I do not want to see the Government have a monopoly in the area of education. I do not want to see any part of the private sector have a monopoly in education. I want to see a system of education that allows effective freedom of choice, that means more than just supporting existing independent schools. To the extent that this measure represents an election eve repentance of an earlier attitude-- Mr John Brown —It does not. Mr HOWARD —The Minister knows as well as I do that it does. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs was dragged screaming to this decision. At the National Conference Senator Ryan voted in favour of phasing out support for those 41 schools. She put up her hand with the left wing. She did the bidding of the more militant sections of the teachers unions. It was only because she was stood over by the Prime Minister, who feared the electoral consequences, that her attitude was changed. Mr John Brown —Rubbish! Mr HOWARD —The Minister will not convince the hundreds of thousands of parents around Australia who are concerned about freedom of choice in education to the contrary. The Government will be reminded of that. If it thinks it has completely fixed this as an election issue, it is wrong. There are many tens of thousands of parents of children from independent schools who have long memories of the attitudes of the Labor Party. These parents are deeply suspicious of the attitudes that you have taken in the past. I use the word 'you' in a somewhat collective sense because I know that there are a number of people in the Australian Labor Party who support a complete freedom of choice in education and I am not so concerned about them. I am concerned about whether they will always have the numbers. One has only to listen to some of the pronouncements of people such as the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman), who talks longingly of the day when the left wing will have the numbers at the National Conference, to ask what will happen to this great and glorious policy. I see the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Saunderson) smiling and nodding in anticipation of the day when the left wing will have the numbers at the National Conference. It is a reminder to parents of children in independent schools of perhaps how fragile and transient may be the stay of execution. Ms McHugh —Four years. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member for Phillip interjects and says: 'Four years'. What is to stop a future government, if it so chooses, if it happens to have the support in both Houses of the Parliament, from repealing the legislation? Mr Wells —You mean you think we will do what you did after the 1977 Budget? Mr HOWARD —We are back to the 1977 Budget. I can tell the honourable member that the 1977 Budget guaranteed on a per capita basis the real life-blood of the independent school system in Australia over the last few years. In fact, the Fraser Government's per capita policy of support for the independent school system has proved to be its life-blood over the last 10 years. So I am very happy that the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) should introduce the question of the 1977 Budget because it was the Fraser Government, to its eternal credit, that put funding for independent schools on a proper basis. The Fraser Government recognised two very basic principles. The first principle was that every single child in Australia should be entitled to some direct per capita support in relation to his or her education. That was the principle Senator Ryan was trying to destroy and that was the principle that would have been destroyed if the National Conference resolution had been implemented. That was the principle Senator Ryan voted to destroy when she put up her hand, as Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, in favour of the motion to commence phasing out assistance to a number of independent schools. While she remains Minister for Education and Youth Affairs there is every reason in the world for the parents of children at independent schools to remain concerned. Mr White —She actually voted for it. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member for McPherson has reminded me that she put up her hand in favour of that motion, and she will not be allowed to forget it. She will not be allowed to forget that there are many people around Australia who still, with very good reason, remain deeply suspicious of the attitudes of this Government towards support for independent schools. They remember the contributions to the tune of $750,000 that were made to aid the Labor Party's campaign in the last Federal election. The teachers unions of this country spent more money securing the election of the present Government than, I dare say, any of those dreaded multinationals would have spent supporting the election of former Liberal-National Party governments on any earlier occasion. These unions have certainly accumulated a fair number of political credits. As every honourable member in this House knows, there are still people within those unions who are campaigning and trying to exert influence on people in the Labor Party to return to the policy of the National Conference and to go even further and have a moratorium on government assistance to independent schools and to implement in a full-blooded sense the policy of government schools first. I recognise that some of the provisions in the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill represent an election eve repentance, not because the Labor Party really embraces a philosophy of equality of opportunity and choice in the area of education but because it is worried about the electoral impact. That is the only reason these changes have been made. So the Government has brought these Bills into the House and expects the whole of the community in Australia to stand up and applaud the Bills and say that they are absolutely marvellous. The truth is that, although they do provide a stay of execution for many of the independent schools that might have been affected by Senator Ryan's policies, what they do, and what the Government is not very keen to talk about, is place very significant limitations on the expansion of the independent school sector. I would be delighted to hear from the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism , who is at the table and who is in charge of this legislation in the House, whether that charge is wrong, because fundamental to the preservation of the independent school system is the capacity of that system to expand. One of the things that concern me and the Opposition very greatly-it will be the subject of much comment in another place by Senator Peter Baume-is the fact that this legislation and the new guidelines that have been adopted place restrictions on the availability of Commonwealth capital funding for new non- government schools. It introduces criteria which in many circumstances can mean that new non-government schools that might otherwise have been opened and developed cannot be opened and developed. It will fall with particular severity on some of the smaller non-government schools, particularly the smaller denominational schools that have been opened up in recent years. There has been a significant expansion of Christian community schools and schools operated by the Baptist Church, particularly in Sydney. There has been quite a growth in those schools and there is a very significant demand for them. I speak with experience of schools in my electorate of Bennelong where there is a very significant demand for such schools. There is very great concern amongst the people who run these schools, who want to provide something different in terms of the atmosphere of education for the children and who are worried about some of the humanist trends in the government schools. They are not opposed to the government school system; they want freedom of choice. They are worried that the guidelines contained here may be all very well for some of the established non-government schools but will put at risk the expansion of some of the Christian community schools in different parts of Australia. Leaving aside political rhetoric, I invite the Minister quite seriously to address his attention to that. I think he will find, if he examines it, that there are good grounds for those people to complain. They do have a gripe. It is said that, if there is any evidence at all that by opening a new school they will attract children away from existing government or non-government schools, the capital payments will not be available. That really does beg the question because, after all, a community or a group of people will want to open up a new school only if that community or group is dissatisfied with the existing school facilities available. If the Government is to make as a criterion for the availability of Commonwealth funding the requirement that children will not be taken away from existing government or non-government schools, and that if that happens no Commonwealth funding will be available, it really is striking at the exercise of their freedom of choice. It is all very well to say: 'You have freedom of choice but we will not give you any capital funding if, by opening up your new school, you attract pupils away from the government or non-government schools already available in the district'. What happens if the school is not satisfactory? What happens if the whole community has decided on proper grounds that the standards available and the attitudes taken by the teachers at that school are such that they would like their children to be educated in another environment? Will the Government say in those circumstances: 'You cannot have Commonwealth funding to open up your new school'? Will the Government say: 'Oh yes, you have a freedom of choice to do it, but we will not give you any support to exercise that freedom of choice'? The Government has some explaining to do on this subject. It is true that the ongoing provisions in relation to existing private schools contained in this measure are better than what was originally proposed by the Government. I do not deny that. I welcome them in the interests of the non-government sector. I welcome them very warmly but I make the point that this would not have happened if we had not waged a political campaign about it. It would not have happened if the Government had not started to feel the heat on this subject. Mr Maher —Oh, rubbish! You did nothing for them. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member for Lowe knows better than many others exactly what I am talking about. He knows of the outcry that occurred, particularly in Sydney, amongst parents of children in non-government schools. He knows darned well that it was the electoral heat that caused the Government to change its tack on this. As soon as many people in the Government believe that the electoral heat has subsided, there may well be a change of heart. Whilst welcoming the improvements that this legislation brings about, and whilst acknowledging that fact quite unreservedly and welcoming it in the interests of the non-government school community, I have to draw attention not only to the circumstances in which this change of heart has occurred but also to the very serious shortcomings in the new guidelines relating to the development of new schools. Fundamental to freedom of choice and support of freedom of choice is not only government assistance for those already at established schools but also some government assistance for the establishment of new schools . I am worried and people involved in the area are worried that the new guidelines will place very significant restrictions on people who want to open up new schools. In the few moments left before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I wish to deal-in a sense I address my remarks on this subject not to every member of the Australian Labor Party but to those who have been guilty of the misrepresentation; I know that the honourable member for Lowe would not be guilty of this misrepresentation-with the track record on this issue of the Fraser Government when it was in office. The first lie that has to be nailed in this area is the claim that in some way when the Liberal Party of Australia was last in office it was only interested in independent schools. One of the great lies that have been spread around about us is that we gave greater priority to independent schools than to government schools. The way in which that lie has been perpetrated and put around is simply to compare the direct Commonwealth funding for independent schools with direct Commonwealth funding for government schools, which of course is a very dishonest use of statistics. The only way one can make a valid comparison is to compare the total contribution of resources to the private sector from governments at all levels with the total contribution to the public sector from governments at all levels. That shows that during the Fraser years the 23 per cent of children who went to non-government schools received about 11 or 12 per cent of all government resources. The 77 per cent of children who went to government schools received about 88 or 89 per cent of all government resources. What many of the people who have misrepresented our position did was simply to ignore the contribution that successive Commonwealth governments, including of course the present one, make to the capacity of State governments, through general revenue payments, to fund the ongoing operations. I take this opportunity of reminding the House that in the years we were in government we not only maintained effective life blood support to the independent school system but also maintained a very high level of support for the government school system. We continued, and we will when re-elected continue , a policy of real freedom of choice and dual support for the two sections of our education system. The Opposition and I will have none of this charge that in some way the Liberal and National parties stand for an attitude of support and preference for the independent school system to the detriment of the government school system. Our figures in government demonstrated otherwise year after year and I know better than many that there was an increase in real resources committed to education, to government schools, by the previous Government under the previous Prime Minister. Suggestions to the contrary are nonsense and I take the opportunity to reject them completely. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr HOWARD —Before the suspension of the sitting, I was stressing the importance of providing not only a continuity of government funding for those already attending independent schools but also the wherewithal for the opening of new independent schools. I said it was fundamental to freedom of choice in education that the system be allowed to expand. I therefore repeat the invitation that I issued to the Minister responsible for these Bills in this place to justify the new guidelines that the Government has announced for new independent schools. I am worried that these new guidelines will impact unfairly on some of the smaller independent school groups of the type that I mentioned before. Evidence has been put to me that people in that particular grouping of parents and schools are worried about the impact of these new guidelines. I was interested to hear during the debate before the suspension of the sitting that the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) was a fairly vociferous interjector. I got the impression from the pace with which the honourable member was taking down notes that he would enter this debate. Perhaps when he does enter the debate he will try to justify to the parents of children attending the Santa Sabina College in his electorate of Lowe its change in status. I have before me a fairly recent copy of an article in the Sunday Telegraph-7 October 1984-which records the complaint of many parents at the school that it has been taken out of category 3 and put into category 2. I know something of that area of Sydney-in fact, I know it very well-and I can assure the House that any suggestion that the parents who send their children to Santa Sabina College in Strathfield are amongst the wealthy aristocracy of this country would be totally mistaken. The honourable member for Lowe evinced enormous enthusiasm during the earlier part of my remarks for the Government's new policy, saying it was very equitable and very fair, and by interjection he denounced some of the more critical remarks that I made. This reclassification will mean a loss of about $ 410,000 in government grants to Santa Sabina. I wonder what the honourable member for Lowe has to say about that exercise to the parents of the children at Santa Sabina. That is a specific example of some of the vagaries that exist in this area. Let me simply draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying once again that the Opposition welcomes the partial change of heart by the Government on this subject. I am pleased for the sake of parents sending their children to independent schools that the Government has not so far gone down the doctrinaire path that was mapped out by the national conference. It ought to be recorded that this change of heart does not really evince any genuine conversion to the cause of freedom of choice in education. We all know that Senator Ryan was dragged screaming to this decision. She copped it. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) took over her portfolio for a couple of months and told her that, as far as he was concerned, she would not cost him any votes amongst the parents of children at independent schools, but the danger still exists that a re-elected Labor Government, with a larger number of left wing members, a larger number of members who are hostile to independent schools, will revert to type because there lurks within the Labor Party a very large number of people who really do not like independent schools. They like the secular humanism which is gaining currency and strength within the government school sector. They fail to realise that many ordinary middle class Australians are sending their children in increasing numbers to independent schools because they are unhappy with the secular humanism which is gaining more currency in some of the government schools and that the answer to the problem is not to try to prevent the drift of people but rather to improve some of the attitudes and standards in government schools. The Opposition stands for a system of education which gives a proper place to both the independent and government systems. The government system has made an enormous contribution to the Australian community and it will go on making an enormous contribution. The remarks that I have made in my speech about the influence of some radicals within the teacher unions is in no way a reflection on the work of the overwhelming majority of teachers in Australian government schools. The great majority of those teachers are very dedicated. They have been responsible for the education of the great majority of people in the Australian community over the years and in the main they do a dedicated, conscientious, honest and decent job. Of course, that does not in any way diminish my criticism of the radical stance of some of their spokesmen. When I hear people such as Mr Van Davy of the Australian Teachers Federation, who sits on the Commonwealth Schools Commission and who in all his utterances evinces hostility and vitriol towards the independent school system, I am reminded of the sorts of attitudes and concerns that give many people in the community, despite the electoral repentance contained in these Bills, real cause for alarm about the long term bona fides of the Labor Party when it comes to the independent school system. Mr STAPLES(Diamond Valley)(8.07) —In 1957, 27 years ago, the Murray committee reported on higher education in Australia and it gave us a basic direction. One part of its report stated: Every boy and girl with the necessary brain power must in the national interest be encouraged to come forward for a university education and there must be a suitable place for everyone who does come forward. It is the function of the university to offer not merely a technical or specialist education but a full and true education befitting a free man and a citizen of a free country. While times and sexist terminology have changed, and we have seen post-secondary education expand to colleges of advanced education and colleges of technical and further education, but the need for education to enhance a person's social and individual development is even greater today. Unfortunately for us as a nation, the call of the Murray committee has not been heeded over the intervening years. Not enough emphasis and value has been given to education in our community. We have been beguiled by those whose motive is basically greed into believing that all would be solved by selling rocks to other countries. While the more privileged and comfortable enjoyed their easier access to higher education, the less privileged had to do without. During the Whitlam years we saw the greatest impetus to universal education in modern times in this country but throughout the Fraser years of Liberal-National Party government we saw a deliberate undermining of public education in this country. Despite the protestations of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), while the 210 schools in the old category 1 received a 250 per cent increase in real terms in Federal Government expenditure, that same Government, whose primary obligation was to support government schools, in fact cut real funding to government schools by 12 per cent. We had talked in this House time after time last year about the hit list of 41 schools. The Liberal-National Party Government had another hit list-it had a hit list of 7,500 government schools. It undertook a deliberate and systematic degradation of the public education system. The public education system caters for more than 2.3 million Australian children. The education Bills before the House will take a deliberate step towards reducing many of the areas of inequity that exist in education in this country. Total Commonwealth expenditure on education in the last Budget, primarily channeled through these Bills before the House, has increased over that of the last year by 11.2 per cent. For that money we are seeing significant improvements in education, the likes of which have not been seen since the Whitlam years. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill brings a return to growth in post-secondary education after seven years of stagnation and reduced effort. We now have retrospective cost supplementation and fixed minimum guaranteed triennial funding arrangements. This year there has been an increase of 20 per cent in capital expenditure over capital expenditure in 1984. I am pleased that the Government has increased capital expenditure and the way in which that has benefited my new electorate of Jagajaga by the acceleration of projects at the Phillip Institute of Technology and the La Trobe University. This has given tertiary institutions the ability to restore a semblance of planning and direction. This Government has guaranteed that in 1986 and 1987 the minimum level of expenditure in 1985 will be matched. By the end of the 1985-87 triennium, an additional 15,000 people will have enrolled in post-secondary educational institutions. There will also be the attendant jobs in the post-secondary institutions. There is no question that the demand for places is there. For our sake as a nation, let us hope that it grows even faster because Australia will not be a real developed country unless more people participate in education. Education provides the greatest single avenue for avoiding unemployment and poverty and for fostering national growth and development as well as personal growth and development. Because of this, this country will be forever best served by a public education system of the highest standard. It is the obligation of this Government to see that this standard is achieved as quickly as possible. As I said before, 2.3 million Australian children, three out of four of the school population, depend upon the public education system for their future and Australia's future depends on their future. I do not really think that in the real world of the feasible we will ever spend as much as is necessary because we are so far behind in our spending on education compared with other countries, but if we do not concentrate our resources on the public education system-the system that caters for the vast majority of Australians throughout the States and Territories-we deserve the failure it will bring to this nation. In context, I think it is important to note that the non-goverment sector also plays a role, but the real strength of education in this country is with the government sector . The honourable member for Bennelong, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, tested the trust in this Government of the people of Australia, the parents who send their kids to non-government schools, by insinuating that this Government would back down on this legislation. I think this again proves him to be a poor judge of the Australian electorate. Again we have seen the old tactics-the rumourmongering and scare tactics-that are so symptomatic and such classic examples of the electioneering tirades of the Liberal-National Party Opposition. It is negative politics and a sick symptom of the Opposition's desperation. I recognise unequivocally the rights of parents to choose to educate their children as they see fit, but I also recognise the rights of all children and their parents to have made available to them a public education system that will allow them full development of their potential just as the Murray Committee advocated in 1957. This Government's proposals for non-government schools in the States Grants ( Schools Assistance) Bill are generous. They have been recognised by non- government school authorities as generous. They have been recognised as such in the speech of the honourable member for Bennelong. I expect that this legislation will arrest the demands of those who show so little national vision in their attempts to degrade the public education system. The public education system, those who work in it and those who choose to be educated in it, deserve our fullest support. However, teachers in the public education system, despite what the honourable member for Bennelong said, have been constantly degraded by those opposite and by their supporters who have characterised them as indolent, self-seeking and uncaring. It has been said in this House, in the Press and on the stages of all the meetings that have been held around the place, especially last year. My considerable experience as a parent is quite the opposite. I respect those teachers for the job that they do under such pressures. School councils have to bear the heavy burden. I respect and encourage them in their work because of the real involvement of parents. That has also been criticised and demeaned by honourable members opposite from time to time. The parents of children in government schools are constantly and subliminally denigrated for not doing their best for their children because they do not send them to private schools. To me, that attitude exhibits the McDonald's syndrome: If you love your kids you will take them to McDonald's; likewise, if you love your kids you will send them to a private school. If we want this country and our children to prosper we should do all we can to ensure that the public eduction system in this country is strengthened. Only the public education system provides an education for all without fear or favour. It is open to the rich and the poor; to the highly intelligent and the less intelligent; to the handicapped and the able-bodied. It is open to those from English speaking backgrounds and to those from non-English speaking backgrounds; to those from the city and from the country; and to all regardless of faith or creed. That is its true value. That is what must be protected and enhanced. That is its real strength. The public education system has served this country well by the strength of its diversity. It will continue to do so if for no other reason than that it serves the vast majority of Australians, three out of four children and families, but fortunately it does more than that. I ask honourable members to listen for a few moments to the words of that pre-eminent Australian, Mr Justice Michael Kirby, former Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission. In the Buntine oration of 1984, entitled 'Education-Hang In There', he said: People who, like me, took advantage of public education, must speak up for it. All too many of them, as they climb the ladder of social success, fall into tongue-tied silence when the proponents of private education, educational democracy, free choice and a fully-funded educational diversity speak out loud and clear. My concern is about those groups who must look in their overwhelming majority inevitably to the public school system for their education. If we are ever to tackle their basic problem and to achieve the goal and dream of education on merit, we must tackle the problem in the public schools where most of the disadvantaged groups exist. By any comparison with the Labor Government's education program in this legislation, and in that of last year, the education policy mish-mash of the Opposition is regressive and elitist, just as its actions in government were regressive and elitist. The honourable member for Bennelong has indicated that he benefited from the public education system. I believe he went to Canterbury Boys High School. I commend him for acknowledging that, just as Mr Justice Michael Kirby did, but when it is all boiled down he did very little to support government schools when he was in the position to do so. His words of praise tonight are nothing because they are full of hollow inaction. There is no place for the former Government's policies in education in Australia today. We cannot afford them, just as we cannot afford any of the policies, such as they are, that the Opposition has now put forward. By direct contrast, the programs of this legislation, which will be elucidated further by my colleagues on this side of the House, bear testimony to the Labor Government's determination to build participation and equity into our education systems, to build the quality and quantity of primary, secondary and post- secondary education, and to place education in its proper high place in the development of the individual and the nation. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(8.19) —The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill has been restructured in a fundamental way. Its contents and provisions are to be significantly altered. Nevertheless, those who plan to stay at colleges and halls of residence or plan to have their children accommodated in colleges for the terms of their tertiary education regard part of this measure as having very drastic consequences. Given this socialist Government's big spending ways, it is difficult to understand the decision to discontinue funding for halls of residence in colleges which provide accommodation for 16,000 young Australians who seek tertiary qualifications which are obtainable only in the capital cities or in some regional centres around the country. There is hardly much of a choice in regard to certain degree courses which are available at only some, not all, universities or colleges of advanced education. While the type or range of available study courses at tertiary institutions is an important element of the demand for residential college facilities, it is far from the only or even the major determinant. What is more, the alternatives to residential colleges are very restricted for many students. A student living in a city has the option of living at home with his or her family while completing a course. However, there are many categories of students which do not fit nicely into the theoretical slot allocated by the type of ivory tower planners on which this Government relies. The great majority of students dependent on college-type accommodation are those whose parents live in non-metropolitan and non-urban areas. Many of those are the children of our rural and other primary producers-the kids of people, who make an exceptional contribution to our standard of living in this great country. Also, many of those parents have already borne the considerable expense of financing the secondary schooling, and sometimes the primary schooling as well, of their children. After the axe falls at the end of 1985 because of this legislation, the parents of up to 16,000 tertiary students will have to face up to the cost of accommodation after residential colleges are deprived of the financial assistance on which they have come to be so reliant. One would like to think that somehow students or parents will find the money and that not a single student will be denied the opportunity of a tertiary education. However, that will plainly not be the case. The truth is that discontinuance of recurrent grants will be seriously and savagely detrimental to the ability of students to get a tertiary education, particularly disadvantaged and country students. Any alternative arrangements necessary to fund needy students will almost certainly be of little benefit due to the higher costs of administration; costs which are inevitable with the involvement of the red tape planners. certainly the latter look like being the only winners. The students will not be the winners. Needy students will not be among the winners. Students who have to attend a university in another State to get the desired qualification will not be among the winners, nor will the parents of many dependent students. Students from non-metropolitan areas will not be numbered among the winners under this legislation. What is the estimated saving? It is three million miserable dollars; $3m out of a total vote of $2,300m for tertiary education. It is $3m out of an all-up expenditure on education of $4.5 billion this year. Given the reliance placed on past funding programs by colleges, parents and students alike, it is impossible to understand, much less support, the logic of this uncaring, insensitive Government. When we think of the number of election promises broken or not kept by this socialist Government-nearly 120 broken election promises-it is even more disquieting to note that it has acted to disadvantage up to 16,000 students by depriving them of the financial help needed to attend university. Nevertheless this measure, in common with others in the same Bill, is just part of the cost squeeze that this Government is applying to tertiary education institutions generally. While the rhetoric of the Government will make a virtue out of its claimed real increase of 2.7 per cent for education this year, it will not tell the Australian people about the additional functions and obligations to be imposed on those tertiary institutions. There will be no attempt-a deliberate act of omission-by Government members to explain that extra functions and obligations that go with the money will more than offset the benefit of any extra funding. The additional number of tertiary students to be taken on is a desirable plus, but the nature of funding is to be such that further strain will be placed on the financial and other resources of universities and CAEs. Getting back to the uncaring, insensitive decision by the social planners in the Australian Labor Party to remove support for residential colleges, I believe several more points and reminders need to be given. The social planners have applied their Orwellian concepts on the false assumption that students residing in colleges are the 'privileged' and 'financial elite' among tertiary students. That new class doctrine ignores the facts. Professor David Beswick's survey of students in university residential colleges and halls should put an end to any misconceptions. That survey revealed, amongst other things, that more than 80 per cent of college students come from non-metropolitan areas. Moreover, the survey results indicated that college residents were not as a group especially privileged and that they were typical of students in general. Additionally, the survey indicated that the colleges played a most important role in providing students from rural and isolated areas with an environment conducive to making transition to and maintaining life on a campus. These survey results should not have been unknown to the Government. If they were known, its logic as reflected in this measure is impossible to follow. It is about as logical as the broken pre-election promise to close the gap between unemployment benefits and the tertiary education assistance scheme allowances. Since that promise was made, of course, the unemployment benefit has been allowed to increase to double the level of assistance available under TEAS. It is now about $15 a week more attractive to be on the dole-another misdirected incentive, another counter-productive measure. As in other areas under this Government, confusion and uncertainty flow from these Bills. That undesirable state of affairs will only worsen under this proposed legislation. In particular, the Bills leave much discretion with the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to make directions and decisions which would not come under the scrutiny of this Parliament. Included in the Minister's discretionary power is the power to direct taxpayers' funds in a way which is rarely extended to any Minister. Even a Minister for Finance is ultimately accountable to this Parliament for special temporary discretionary funds, but it seems that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs is not to be so accountable. That is just not on. This Parliament will fail in its duty if the discretion afforded in these Bills is not subjected to scrutiny and is not capable of being disallowed in this Parliament. Given the Government's record of broken promises, there can be little long term confidence that internal Labor Party politics will not override some of the more acceptable provisions in these Bills. That particular fear relates especially to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1984. Some of its thrust runs completely counter to the resolution passed at the most recent ALP national conference on funding for and the treatment of non-government schools. I was pleased that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) referred to that point earlier. The Bill will change the number of funding categories for non-government schools from four to 12. It will further set out new requirements to be followed by new non-government schools while phasing out impact studies as a criteria after 1985. While short term expediency is in evidence, no doubt engendered by both the expressed attitudes from the non-government schools to earlier proposals and to an early, premature election, there is not much comfort to be gained from Labor Party policy as reflected in these measures. If past experience with this Government is anything to go by, another U-turn is not out of the question once the election is out of the way and if the unthinkable should happen and this Government is re-elected. The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1984 is in many ways a welcome but, nevertheless, cynical piece of short term expediency. It will seriously and significantly impose restrictions on new non-government schools which would otherwise be created to meet the demands of parents, demands which arise out of perceived shortcomings in State education services. So it is that freedom of choice in education will continue to be inhibited by new stipulations that will govern acceptance of new non-government schools. Non-government business colleges will not be spared their fair measure of uncertainty either. They will enjoy a commitment of only one year's duration- hardly incentive enough to plan for additional crockery for the staff canteen, let alone the technologically advanced equipment and teaching aids essential for contemporary business education. A decision on the future of funding has been awaited for a long time-perhaps for too long. Consistent with its short term expediency on many other matters, the hard but essential decision has simply been put off for another year by this Government or, more precisely, until after the election. Given the Government's complete back flip on funding for non- government schools, the business colleges could reasonably share the Opposition' s fears that the Government will take a 'give now, take back later' approach to funding of business colleges. The shadow Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Baume, asked recently: How can any college make important decisions about the purchase of updated equipment in line with technological change when their future is in the balance? How indeed? Well might they ask. It is not as if the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has not had the benefit of a detailed review of the operation and future of the colleges; she has. She knows the score. She knows the contribution made by the business colleges to the training of our youth. She knows the contribution of privately owned business colleges to a most effective school to work transition training program. We all know that nearly every young female secretary in employment aged between 15 and 21 years has received training from these business colleges. Despite this common knowledge the Minister and the Government have extended their support program by just one year to the end of 1985. The review spoken of earlier has been completed. The failure of the Government to respond until after the premature election is at least ominous. It is also counterproductive to the efficiency and good will of the business colleges. More than that, there is the prospect of discouraging the young from entering into employment in the commercial and services sectors. That is happening at a time when many of our young are being turned away and denied the chance of a tertiary education. It surely cannot be lost on even this Government that any loss of Commonwealth support will lead to the closure of many of these colleges. Those that may survive the lack of support promised for them in 1986 by this uncaring and insensitive Government will be obliged to charge fees which will be out of the reach of many young people and their parents. At a time when there is a great deal of talk about transition to work programs for the young, one of the most efficient and cost-efficient means of doing this is already in place and achieving. It is, at the same item, under threat for want of clear, long term commitment from this insensitive Government. As has already been said, the squeeze is on for our tertiary institutions, which must provide more places, perform more functions and abide by more central government strictures without commensurate financial support. The Minister is to be given far too much unquestionable discretion to vary the grants payable to institutions, sectors and the States. These proposals smell of a 'give now, take back later' deal intended to get the Government past the hurdle of the election. The Minister's personal preference to phase out funding for the 41 non- government schools on the famous hit list, as expressed by a vote at the July 1984 National Labor Party Conference, remains unaltered. Strictures to be placed on new non-government schools are intended to limit freedom of choice in education, no matter what are the wishes of parents. Tertiary students from other than metropolitan areas are to have support for their residential colleges removed. That is, a large slice of the 16,000 students who are disadvantaged by need or because they come from remote or rural districts are to be disadvantaged . The many thousands affected to their detriment should, and I am sure will, reflect in the run-up to the 1 December election on the treatment to be meted out by this Government. They should then cast their votes accordingly, and they should do so for a Liberal Party-led coalition. Might I say that if that does not happen, woe betide those future students and their parents who are going to have to foot the bill for this Government's uncaring and insensitive ways. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(8.37) —Education is one of the major areas of Commonwealth expenditure and it is one to which this Government gives very high priority. This year we will spend over $4.5m which is an increase on the previous year of 11.2 per cent. This is a demonstrable manifestation of our concern. Our educational services will remain good value only as long as we keep adjusting them to fulfil the changing needs of our society and our children. People often express concern that schools do not prepare kids for jobs; but preparation is futile without jobs. Let us not forget that the education system has a crucial part to play in developing the new ideas, the new processes and the new techniques on which the next generation's jobs depend. There is room here for concern. If we look at recent developments around the world, it is clear that we have not in the past produced enough skilled, informed workers to hold our own amongst other developing nations. Early this century Australia had a relatively large proportion of the world's scientific and technological advances, with subsequent advantages to Australian industry and agriculture. The Federal Government is concerned that we have been falling behind other developing nations such as Japan in the area of tertiary studies. That means we cannot effectively compete in the international market and it puts our living standards at risk. Of course, there are problems in developing the research efforts of our universities and colleges into effective productive processes, but the Hawke Government is addressing those problems in a realistic way through programs administered by the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Industry and Commerce. What we should be worrying about is whether a big enough pool exists from which to draw the new thinkers, the innovators, and the new planners. The world is opening up. Women are becoming involved in a diversity of situations; migrants have brought cultural diversity to Australia; disabled people are making major contributions in the whole range of human endeavour; unemployment is a sad reality for a large proportion of our workforce and television has changed our lives, making us more comfortable with visual rather than print media. These are just a few of the changes that Australian society has undergone recently. Any education system worth its salt has got to face the new world. A large part of Australia's present problems stem from the fact that for most of this century , apart from initiatives under Gough Whitlam, our education system has languished in the last. We have seen great strides ahead over the last ten years . School is now a lot more relevant to the needs of the students and the needs of the society than it was, say, 15 years ago. But there are a number of areas where extra work must continue, so that everyone has the opportunity to contribute to the utmost, so that all Australians know that they have an important part to play in our society. The Hawke Government is motivated by the egalitarian principles, and proudly so . The Opposition tries to translate our call for equality into a call for sameness where everybody wears the same grey clothes, and everybody thinks the same grey thoughts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Equality to us means that everyone gets a fair go, that everyone has equal access to the resources they need to make their individual contribution to Australia. Once we make sure that people have equality of access to the resources then it is really up to them to make what use of those resources they will. The Hawke Government will support their right to do that because above all we are a democratic party dedicated to freedom of choice. Legislation before the House puts into effect guidelines established by the Government then considered by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. Funding for both State and private systems will now be made by reference to a community standard which will be established with a view to the costs of educating a child to competent levels in an average school. An important aspect of this package is the four-year forward commitment for funds. The decision to legislate for the next four years' funds for all schools, public and private, together with plans laid down now towards an eight-year funding target, will give all schools stability and long term security for planning-something which schools in the past have not had. The Government channels its funding to improve and equalise educational opportunity for all regardless of whether a pupil is at a government or non-government school. Members of the Opposition have mentioned freedom of choice and intimated that the Hawke Government has somehow cut down on this. They obviously have decided that they shall not be aware that under the Fraser Government parents of children attending many public and independent schools had no freedom of choice. Have not Opposition members heard of the poor parish schools? Have they not heard of people working in parents and citizens and parents and friends associations trying to get equipment for the schools which is their right? The legislation before the House covers a number of programs that this Government has introduced in pursuit of democratic equality in our education system. Let me repeat; these programs have been introduced not only because they are fair but also because they are necessary if Australia is going to have enough people in the right areas to take us triumphantly into the twenty-first century. Let us look at some of these programs and how they are designed to get the best value for our education dollar. We introduced the participation and equity program last year. It is designed to ensure that students complete their education so that they have reasonable prospects in a very competitive job market and reasonable prospects of gaining entry to tertiary education. We want them to leave school competent, confident young Australians. But more participation by itself is not enough. The Government has repeatedly emphasised that the funds available under PEP should be used to improve education in ways that will make staying on a worthwhile, productive investment of a student's time and parents' support. The Government also recognises that unsatisfactory outcomes at the end of schooling can have their origin at primary level. We are particularly concerned that a minority of students leave primary schools without having achieved a minimum acceptable standard in basic areas. A recent survey of 7,000, 14-year- old school children all across Australia found that 17 per cent could not master a simple reading test. Perhaps the most startling revelation was that just over half, 54 per cent, could write a coherent set of instructions. In other words, nearly half would be incapable of doing the simplest clerical work. To help remedy this problem the Government has announced a further initiative-a program for primary schools to provide extra assistance for children in their basic learning. The basic education program will emphasise the acquisition of language skills and numeracy in primary schools for those groups in the community who have most difficulty in acquiring learning skills in the early years. In the area of tertiary education we have introduced policies to increase the proportion of school leavers from disadvantaged backgrounds who participate in higher education. Young people from isolated and rural areas, women, Aborigines and migrants have been significantly under-represented in all forms of post- school education. To overcome these problems we have provided $750,000 to promote equity in higher education. This money will contribute towards the longer term improvement of access to higher education by disadvantaged groups. A preliminary project which has recently been funded in this area is a study by the University of Queensland of the extent and nature of unsatisfied demands from Queensland students qualified for a place in higher education. A report on this study will be available early next year. The Government will also provide funding to generate an extra 15,000 student places in higher education by 1987, particularly in areas where certain groups have been under-represented in the past. Other increases for the tertiary sector include an extra $2.5m for equipment for the higher education sector, and an increase of $11m for a program of building projects to meet the objectives of increased participation and educational equity in the sector. Technical and further education institutions will receive increased support for special course provision, including adult literacy programs, capital and equipment grants, and college services to assist with projected further strong growth in TAFE enrolments. There is more to be done. When one has high aims and objectives for young people, as does this Government and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Susan Ryan, in a portfolio as broad as education, there is always more to be done. But this is the first significant injection of additional funds in the tertiary sector in seven years. When the effects of these programs are fully felt we can look forward to a future where every young Australian has the basic skills they need to lead a productive and satisfying life. We will build on this sound base, noting the recommendations of Professor Karmel and the quality of education review committee, until we are sure that we have the best possible match between what is taught in schools and what is needed for people to achieve their potential in the work force, in tertiary education and in the home. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(8.47) —I commence by making some remarks to the current Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) about her philosophy and the Government's policies in a broad sense. It is obvious from the debate that has gone on here tonight and from previous actions of the Minister that she has this absolute obsession with the equality of the outcome of education. How equality of outcome is achieved is beyond most of us in Australia, particularly those on this side of the House. Equality of opportunity is one thing, but equality of outcome is considerably different because that depends on the ability and the efforts of the people who are in the education system. The Minister has an absolute obsession with private schools in this country. She sees them as the bastion of the privileged. The fact is that one out of four students in Australia now go to private schools and many of them do not come from privileged backgrounds at all, whatever that might mean. They come from ordinary Australian families, perhaps two parents working to get their children through school-supporting them while they are at that school-so they will have the opportunity that their parents believe they need. That is called freedom of choice and that is something that we strongly support. The Minister is saying that she wants this grey mediocrity, the great socialist philosophy that everyone comes out exactly the same. There may be people on that side of the House who genuinely believe-I suspect there are-that this is the best sort of Australia that could be achieved. That is not our view and it is certainly not my view. We have heard a lot tonight about what the Government intends to do for private education, but no one on the Government side has yet addressed the question of the decision taken by the Australian Labor Party at its national conference to phase out funding for private schools. That is the Labor Party's philosophy. It was overturned, quite sensibly in political terms, by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who took over the portfolio for a while from the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs and said: 'You are not going to do this as we are having an early election. This is what will happen because one in four of the students in Australia go to private schools and each of those students has two parents. There are too many parents involved who might oppose what we are doing'. So the decision was taken by the Prime Minister to reverse the national conference's decision and to take what might be called a very pragmatic view of the funding of private schools. That was a sensible decision in terms of an early election, but I would hope that the people of Australia were not fooled and that they do not think that that short term decision to support private schooling in this country will continue because the Minister for Education will not give up; neither will the left wing nor the teachers federations around Australia. Any education debate in this place or any other place should be conducted with that in mind. This is a short term decision for a short term electoral gain and it will be reversed after the next election-it will certainly be reversed, because we will reverse it. Should the Labor Party win the election the question of private school funding will be opened again. Nobody need think that it is sealed in, because the whole debate on education will erupt again. While we are talking about the Minister's attitude, we should take note of her second reading speech on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill. In that speech she said: We believe that we have buried for good the futile debate on state aid which has proved so debilitating in our society over many generations. That was what she said. She said that she was burying the state aid debate which has gone on in this country for nearly 200 years. It has been a debilitating debate and in recent years it has been laid to rest. Who raised it again? It was not anyone on this side of the House. It was the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs who raised it again by her absolute obsession and determination to put the private school system in this country to rest. Now she has the hide to go into the Senate and say that she believes she has buried for good the futile debate. What hypocrisy! She was the one who raised it again with all sectarian issues that it involves, and she has the hide to say: 'We believe we have buried it for good'. It was not the Minister who buried it; it was buried by the Prime Minister in the interests of short term political expediency. What will happen should Labor get back into government after the next election? The whole issue will be raised again. All the sectarian issues and all the issues about funding of private schools will come back again. The Minister will ensure that they come back again, as will the teachers federations and the left wing of the Labor Party. They will not let it rest. I turn to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill in some detail. It appropriates $1,385m for school programs. The private schools will be divided into 12 categories. I ask the House: How does one divide private schools into 12 different categories? Does one take the land they own, the private buildings they own, the amount that the parents give to those schools? Are they guides? Does one take how much the schools have in their bank accounts, especially if they have been saving for a number of years so that they can build a new building? As I understand it, the Government is saying that all those things should be taken into account. If so, it will give a very false picture because one cannot categorise schools on any of those criteria. It might be possible to categorise students in terms of how much money their parents have, but how does one categorise a school established in, say, 1982 or 1983, compared with a school that may have been going for 100 years? How does one put those sorts of schools into any category? It is an absolute nonsense. The Government is doing this only because of its obsession that someone who goes to a private school comes from a privileged background. That is an absolute obsession. The Government wants to cut out all private schooling in this country. It is impossible to categorise schools on those criteria. This obsession is similar to that of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) about wiping out private hospitals and private medicine. It might be a great socialist ideal to get away from all private enterprise altogether, but the Government will not be able to do it without a debate and without a fight. One must ask why the Minister and the Government are trying to force people into government schools all the time and close down private schools. It is trying to force people into the government system, force them to be dependent on the government, because that way people get used to handouts from government and they lose their enterprise and their initiative. Mr Steedman —It is like being in the Army for many years-you lose your initiative. Mr WHITE —As I have said before in the House, and I do not mind saying it again, if there is one person in the House who would benefit from a week, a month or a year in the Army, especially if I was still in the Army, it would be the honourable member for Casey. Nothing would give me more delight than taking the honourable member for Casey quietly off to an Army camp for a week. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member for McPherson might like to return to the Bill now. Mr WHITE —I turn to the question of support for new independent schools. The Government has again turned its face against any support for the introduction and building of new independent schools. It will be very difficult for new schools to be established anywhere in Australia in the next two years and, I suspect, even more difficult after that if this Government lasts through the next election. There are many areas in Australia that are crying out for more private schools. I come from an area where such is the case. The waiting lists for all private schools in my area are tremendous. Why should there not be some encouragement for more private schools to be set up if that is what people want? Mr Milton —At the expense of government schools. Mr WHITE —The honourable member for La Trobe says: 'At the expense of public schools'. That is a timely comment, because even he must know that it is far cheaper for the Government to educate people in private schools than it is in public schools. I can only assume that he does not want to see people in private schools. He wants to see everyone in the same sort of grey mediocrity where one has to go to a certain school whether one likes it or not. Why would the honourable member for La Trobe not encourage the setting up of private schools if it is cheaper for the Government to educate people this way? Why would he not give people the choice of where they send their children to school, especially if their choice makes it cheaper for the Government? But no, we have this demand for private schools-a freedom of choice as to where one sends one's children. The honourable member for La Trobe does not want any of that. He just wants to see them all force fed into one system. With the increasing population in Australia, people in many areas would like to see additional private schools set up, and this will continue. But not the honourable member for La Trobe. He will force them all into government schools. Mr Cowan —I wonder whether he sends his own kids to private schools. Mr WHITE —Many of them do, of course. We have had the hypocritical debate from that side of the House that public school education is the only way. It would be very interesting to take a count of the members of the Government to see whose children go to private schools. Mr Cadman —The Teachers Federation too. Mr WHITE —The honourable member for Mitchell said: 'The Teachers Federation too' . The Teachers Federation is in the same mould as the Government. I suspect that the number of its membership whose children go to private schools would be considerable also. There is no doubt that the funding of private schools for three years, which provision has come forward in these Bills, is a step in the right direction because that will afford them some stability in their funding arrangements. But I know, from talking to many of them, that they are very wary about what might happen after the next election if the Government is returned to office. There is no confidence that all the Government's undertakings in the tertiary funding area will continue. The schools know very well the power of the Teachers Federation and the left wing of the Labor Party, not to mention the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs who, I suspect, will never give up. I wish to quote again from the second reading speech of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs to try to emphasise what the private schools are getting into. Certainly they have been given funding, on the face of it for three years, but many thorns and conditions attach to that sort of funding. Regarding the criteria which will have to be met, the Minister said: Grants are appropriated . . . on the condition that they will adequately maintain their private cash recurrent expenditure. Secondly she said: Schools which fail to maintain their private effort . . . may be assigned to a lower grant category. Thirdly, she said: Schools will need to satisfactorily explain to the Commonwealth any circumstances where they are unable to offset any declines in the value of contributed services. Fourthly, she said: Schools which are unable to operate from private sources at or above the community standard are expected to avoid imposing additional charges- so the Government is telling the schools how they will have to charge their students- or taking any other steps which further widen the resources gap between themselves and other schools. She continued: The Commission has been asked to monitor and report on schools' responses during the 1985-88 funding period. I repeat: The Commission has been asked to monitor and report on schools' responses during the 1985-88 funding period. In other words, there will be a big brother looking over their shoulders to see whether they are doing the right thing as far as the Government is concerned. That is what it amounts to. Big brother will be looking over their shoulders. Mr Fisher —They might even be teaching. Mr WHITE —That is very doubtful. It is all very well for the Government to bring forward these Bills. On the face of it they look as if they are a step in the right direction for education in this country. One of the points I wish to raise-I hope the Government will consider it- concerns the relationship, the priorities and the funding between our schools, tertiary institutions, colleges of advanced education and technical colleges. It seems to me that the Government, to its credit, has made a great effort to keep students at schools much longer than was the case a few years ago. But it is no use keeping students at school if they have nowhere to go when they leave. That is the great problem which faces Australia right now. Students complete their secondary schooling but they cannot get places in colleges of advanced education , universities, technical colleges or technical and further education colleges. That is a great tragedy. This situation will be accentuated in the years to come . As an example, I take the apprenticeship system. We are forcing students to find an employer before they can obtain an apprenticeship. We have to look at placing those apprenticeships in colleges, whereby the college becomes the master and the apprentice does not have to find an employer. Until we do that, unemployment will continue and one in four of our under 19-year-olds will be out of work. It is a tragedy for Australia. I ask the Government to look sensibly at providing places in technical and higher education for those whom it has successfully encouraged to stay on at school. It is no use setting up a system in which students finish their higher school education at a grade 11 or grade 12 level and then find themselves floundering in the community because they have nowhere to go. It seems to me that over recent years the resources of schools have reached a very satisfactory level. It is now time to look at the priority of funding and perhaps channel some of that money that now goes into schools into higher and technical education. In that way we might provide some satisfactory future for our young people in this country. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(9.08) —The legislation which is before the House tonight contains the Government's widely acclaimed package of aid to government schools, non-government schools, universities and technical education. I was somewhat disappointed with the remarks made by some of the speakers for the Opposition because they did not really understand their own legislation which applies for this academic year. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) talked about and questioned how anyone could categorise a school or pupils. He has no knowledge that at present, under the Liberal Party's legislation which the Hawke Government inherited, all schools are put into one of three groups. This is the appalling situation that we see as we go around our electorates. Essentially, there are only two groups: The schools are either deemed wealthy schools in group 1, which receive minimum funding-few of them are wealthy schools-and there are needy schools which are thrown into group 3. Very few schools are in group 2, except a few of the Church of England schools in the country areas. I know that in my own electorate there is a real mish-mash of funding schools. Many of them are battling to keep going in level one. They are equated with schools on the North Shore of Sydney and in the eastern suburbs which have substantial resources. The schools in my electorate are not in that category of resources and income. They will benefit greatly from the Labor Government's decision to establish 12 categories for funding schools. This provision is contained in the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill, which is part of the legislation before us tonight. The Bill provides that in future there will be 12 categories into which each school will be assessed, by an income test, and subsequently funded. The Government has guaranteed in the legislation that no school will be worse off or will receive less funding than it will receive in the 1984 academic year. This guarantee has provided a great assurance to the schools. They have been given a period in which to plan. In the non-government sector in particular, four years of funding has been guaranteed. The funding package of the Hawke Labor Government has been acclaimed by the non- government system. The school administrations in my electorate are delighted about these proposals. I was disappointed with the comments made by the honourable member for McPherson. I was sorry that he had not read the second reading speech of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) about new schools, because the position is set out clearly in the legislation. New schools are being encouraged in the non-government sector and they will be funded. A special committee is looking at establishing guidelines concerning the impact of new schools on existing government and non-government schools. This is very difficult to work out and to assess legally because no one can say that in 1986 so many pupils will not go to a State school or to a catholic school if some other type of non-government school is opened in an area. I have spoken to the Minister about this matter. She has assured me of an eventual fair and equitable outcome and that the test that is to be applied will be sympathetic to schools and to the development of a non-government school system which the Government is committed to support. The honourable member for McPherson talked about the grey mediocrity of education which he envisaged the Government as encouraging. That is not the case . When I visit schools-I have always visited schools in my electorate-I find that in many of them there is grey mediocrity. I find it in State schools that were neglected by the previous Government and in parish schools that were disgracefully neglected. The private schools in my electorate, the so-called wealthy schools, were also neglected by the previous Government. They were starved of adequate funds. I do not know how the teachers worked in some of them and how the pupils stay in these schools which are not pleasant places to be in. To the credit of this Government, it is at last giving money-a decent shot in the arm-to the State schools, to the Catholic schools and to the private schools , all of which will have basic grants guaranteed. Members of the Opposition say they support the legislation, but really they are very annoyed that the Government has come forward with a decent policy of social justice and fairness and that the Minister has championed this policy and taken the matter out of the political arena and taken away the sectarianism that the honourable member for McPherson talked about. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) raised a few interesting points about residential colleges. The Government has a very positive proposal to help the residential colleges. At present, aid goes only to those tertiary students who live in a residential college. In future it will go to students who are in need, whether they live in a college or live in digs outside the college or university. I well remember that when I was a member of the New South Wales Parliament and Sir Eric Willis was Minister for Education, someone brought to his attention the fact that principals of university colleges in New South Wales received a substantial grant towards their salaries from the New South Wales Government. This had gone on for over 50 years. As soon as he found out about this grant he cut it out. That occurred in about 1975. He took the attitude that the Federal Government should pay all tertiary funds. That curtailment of grants towards the principals' salaries nearly closed some of the residential colleges within the universities and the colleges of advanced education. Fortunately, they are all on a much sounder footing now. As the Minister explained in her second reading speech, the increase in the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance to students will well and truly cover any additional costs that a college student would have to face because of increased fees in a residential college. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) dealt with a number of matters. He stated that Senator Peter Baume would be saying much about new schools. I well remember the difficulties I had when Senator Baume was the Minister for Education, in getting him to visit my electorate. Despite many requests, he never came until an election was announced. Then he came out unannounced to the little run-down parish school where I have four children enrolled. I thought this was a bit political. The honourable member for Bennelong talked about Santa Sabina College in Strathfield, which has a large number of pupils from my electorate. That college has lost funding because of legislation brought in by the previous Government, which created three groups for funding purposes. If a school went from one group into another group it lost an enormous amount of funding. Santa Sabina, unfortunately, has lost funding amounting to nearly $500,000. Its entitlement has been assessed on an income test which the previous Government brought in and it has been subject to that test since 1981. The Commonwealth Schools Commission has been through the books checking on that school. Its funding has been lost under Liberal-National Party legislation. It is a shame that the honourable member for Bennelong mentioned that school tonight. A number of parents whose children attend that school are naturally very upset about the possible increase in school fees. I have great sympathy for them. I have suggested to the college authorities that they should appeal to a review tribunal. One thing I wish to mention briefly relates to an article in a Sydney newspaper , the Sunday Telegraph, in which the President of the Parents and Friends Association of Santa Sabina, Mr Michael Coffey, who is known to me, was reported to have said that he believed that the Federal Government was picking off Catholic schools one by one. I do not believe Mr Coffey said that. I know him to be an intelligent man. I think somebody else said that and that the reporter mixed up the comments. But if Mr Coffey were to read clause 29 of the Bill he would see a guarantee that no school will lose funding when schools pass from the Liberal Party's present legislation, which covers funding for this academic year of 1984, to the Labor Party's funding involving 12 categories of schools which will apply next year and until 1988. To make a silly comment like that is out of character for Mr Coffey. It is contrary to the legislation that the Government is bringing in, which has been announced and which has been applauded by the state and non-state schools systems. I have a very active interest in the funding of government and non-government schools. There are 19,500 pupils in my electorate. Many pupils come to my electorate every day. Over 7,000 school children coming from other suburbs go through Strathfield station every day. Education is a subject that I have worked on and that I have taken an interest in, and I applaud this legislation. I believe the government schools will be recognised and assisted. When one goes into some of the government schools one sees their needs and the results of the years of appalling neglect when State governments were starved of funds. When one goes into parish schools one sees a similar situation. In my electorate some of the parish schools are nearly entirely composed of students who come from families in which English is not spoken. The teachers have a very difficult time at such schools. The situation is the same in state schools. This legislation will give the schools certainty. They will have four years of certain knowledge of what funding they will get. They will have four years in which to plan for the future and work out their budgets. Non-government schools will have a sliding scale of funding with 12 categories of schools. So if a school moves from one category to another it will not face bankruptcy, the parents will not be totally distressed and the pupils will not have to leave the school. This is a very sensible scheme that the Government has brought forward. I congratulate the Commonwealth Schools Commission on suggesting this scheme. I am sorry that a great Australian civil servant, Dr Peter Tannock, will be leaving the Schools Commission in the near future. I have got to know very few Federal civil servants-they tend to avoid members and senators-but I have got to know Peter Tannock well. He is a most impressive, most creative and most dedicated man. His work in advising the Government in regard to this scheme will always be remembered by the education authorities in Australia. I have much pleasure in supporting the legislation. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(9.18) — Education, under the Australian Labor Party, always suffers. Schools, technical colleges, colleges of advanced education and universities are all in a position where, having been given the lure of a carrot of opportunity, they are now being told the dollars will be short. We were told while Labor was in opposition that all that had to be done was to elect a Labor government. Look what happened. In Armidale we have two very excellent tertiary institutions, the University of New England and the Armidale College of Advanced Education. Neither has benefited under Labor rule. We have many schools. Many children are forced to travel by bus for many miles. The State Labor Government is cutting out the bus services. The funding provisions provided in this Budget are not allowing the systemic system or indeed any independent schools to establish in areas where there may be an opportunity in the future, as indeed the Rosary College did in Tamworth a few years ago. It worries me that education under this Labor Government will in no direction help those who so badly need to get a better education to provide job opportunities for their future. This package of States grants Bills is not therefore a package which I believe will overcome what are becoming increasingly serious problems for the young people of Australia who hope to get basic education in skills-in reading, writing and arithmetic and in the social and scientific disciplines-which are necessary for them to be able to fulfil their proper place in society. Let us look very briefly at the three areas before us. The States Grants ( Schools Assistance) Bill does not provide sufficient funds to help those who seek to establish new independent schools. Certainly, there is a very real reason for State governments to remain involved in this area. Any suggestion that Commonwealth funding is the only money provided needs to be put against the background that traditionally the States have had prime responsibility in this area. Whilst I welcome the fact that the Commonwealth is contributing, as it is in this package, I trust that that is not then balanced by some reduction in the funds provided by the parsimonious New South Wales Government. However, I think it is worth commenting that the other part of the package, the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No . 2), does create very real problems for a number of schools in my electorate. I have found that those schools which have provided significant school to work transition programs are to be disadvantaged because they have been so successful in the old program. One of the objections I have to this Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) is that she seems to be incapable of recognising that flexibility is the only way by which we will provide choice in education and give young people a reasonable opportunity of taking the education pattern that best suits their skills and their regional or local opportunities. She had insisted on a rigidity which means that those who have participated under that old school to work transition program are now to be denied assistance because of the way in which this new States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) is to be introduced. It is not a Bill that genuinely addresses itself to the needs of young people. It is not a Bill that is designed to try to assist those who, through programs provided in schools such as that at Inverell in my electorate, have been given an excellent opportunity but who are now being told that no longer will funds be provided. Inverell High School has had an excellent school to work transition program. It has been exemplary in every fashion. Those within the Education Department who have examined it have commended all those who have been involved and commented that the nature of that assistance has been of enormous value to young people who otherwise might have found it extraordinarily difficult to get work placement. What does this Government do? It shuts down the program and decides that it does not want to go down that course. Having headed south, it does a 180-degree turn, goes north, and goodness only knows what will happen. I have no sympathy at all for a rigid education program which cuts off without adequate consideration programs that have demonstrably worked very effectively to the considerable assistance of young people, who certainly need help in this day and age of regrettably high youth unemployment. This package is not one therefore which deserves the sympathy that a good education program would properly attract. When we turn to the tertiary level, I am afraid the position is even more serious. As I mentioned, there are two tertiary institutions in New England. The first is the Armidale College of Advanced Education and the second is the University of New England. I wish to comment on each of them and I believe each has provided excellent education facilities. They owe their origin to my predecessor who many years ago, as the New South Wales Minister for Education, was instrumental in ensuring that tertiary educational opportunity was moved away from the city into the country so that those who lived in regional areas were given an adequate alternative opportunity for tertiary education from that provided in the city. If we look at the report from Dr Terry Field, the Principal of the Armidale College, it is interesting to see how his concerns first address themselves to the report submitted by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. Neither this Bill nor the CTEC report for the 1985-87 triennium offers much compensation for those who in that multi-discipline institution have done so much to extend its capability beyond that originally provided when it was known as the Armidale Teachers College. As to his concerns, he states: (1) The Government's stated policies on increased participation, greater equity and national economic development cannot be achieved at the low level of funds proposed for the colleges. Of course, sadly, that will affect the extent to which they are able to provide the equity and national economic development talked about because the College is being starved in a way that does not enable it reasonably to meet the diversification it is called upon to pursue. The second objection states: (2) The Government's Guidelines to the CTEC on the 1985-87 Triennium must define the type of triennium it is prepared to support. Even if it is not to be a triennium for growth where new initiatives are adequately funded to ensure proper standards, sufficient funds still need to be provided to ensure that it is a triennium of rehabilitation and restructuring after a long period of financial cutbacks. Armidale C.A.E. urgently needs a new teaching building to replace a number of inflexible and outdated temporary buildings and funds for this should be provided as soon as possible. I certainly echo that plea in this place. I regret that those funds are not provided within this package. The third objection states: (3) The CTEC's blueprint for higher education until 1988 does not enable colleges to contribute, to the extent of their potential, towards national economic development through appropriate research and development. Within an increasingly complex technological society Armidale College sees an urgent need for new programs to develop personnel who can respond effectively to change; persons with a broad knowledge of Australian society and cross-disciplinary skills of analysis, synthesis, decision-making, liaison, leadership, management, and information handling appropriate to the Australian context. Armidale CAE is ready to plan such programs in the same way as it has pioneered tertiary programs in Multicultural Education and Professional Development. I make the point that there is nothing in this Bill that enables those who are involved in what regrettably seems to be destined to be a second rate level of tertiary opportunity to pursue any form of even minimal research or development. I believe it is necessary. If we look at the sorts of program the Armidale CAE has pursued in its search to diversify from being essentially a teachers college , it has pursued, in migrant education, in Aboriginal education and in a range of alternative disciplinary skills, programs designed to assist those who seek something of a more technical background for their ultimate professional employment. Of course, in the area it has developed perhaps more than any other CAE in Australia, that of nursing education, again it is sad that apparently no money is to be provided to enable those professional teachers in these institutions to peruse the sorts of programs that are essential if they are to be allowed to develop to their full potential. The fourth of Dr Field's objections states: (4) The CTEC has continued to endorse an outmoded philosophy for the respective roles of universities and colleges which will make it difficult for colleges to maintain a level of excellence consistent with the need for equality of opportunity between university and college students. Armidale College's plans to introduce a Master's program are being frustrated by lack of funding support from the Commission and its staff, along with those in other colleges, need the stimulation of research opportunities not presently available to maintain their academic vigour and teaching standards. That is an objection which I very strongly endorse and I point out that, if it is intended to preserve CAEs and develop them, it is no use letting them remain static. Sadly, the funds provided under this package do not allow the Armidale CAE to grow as I believe it should. They will not allow the full development of the potential of the students who attend that institution, and it will be extraordinarily difficult for the students there to enjoy the benefits of what I believe has been a particularly innovative campus. I commend those who have been members of the College Council for what has been a remarkable initiative. Of course, the sad thing in the institutions in Armidale is that the New South Wales Government has intruded politics into the campuses in both instances. I find it very difficult to know whether they are being allowed the free rein that a proper attention to academic independence should permit. I now turn to the University of New England, where again there are difficulties and where that same disability appears. Of course, with the Armidale CAE, as with the university, that this Bill cuts the amount of money provided to the residential institutions is another very sad consequence. This Government does not realise that part of the total package of tertiary opportunity for students who do not live adjacent to tertiary institutions is that they need to be able to live away from home in order to receive a tertiary education. If there is not reasonable assistance to colleges, particularly the newer colleges, it becomes quite impossible for those who do not have a high family income to enjoy the benefits of that college residence and hence tertiary education. So the consequence of this cut, for all its providing of another type of student loan, is to deny those who are in a lower economic bracket the opportunity, if they live in rural areas, of attending a tertiary institution. It makes no difference whether they wish to go to the city or to a regional campus to receive that education. Sadly, this will affect students at both the Armidale CAE and the University of New England. It will add to the costs of residential fees. I notice in the House a number of my colleagues from other regional centres with universities and I know that they and their constituents suffer in exactly the same way. It is regrettable that Labor in government does not recognise the necessity to provide equality of educational opportunity. These Bills do not provide that and I believe that that is a matter that those within tertiary institutions need to take note of in particular. We need to take note of a few additional factors when we turn to the University of New England and consider where it will go in the future. The number of students is lessening. It is necessary to realise that in real terms the campus is receiving less money than in previous years. I have mentioned the difficulty of funds for students in halls of residence and also the fact that non- government business colleges will get funds for one year only. So all of this package disadvantages regional tertiary institutions and neither the University of New England nor the Armidale CAE can look at this legislation and say it is in their best interests. If we look at the direction in which all this tends to take us, we can see that non-government business colleges, as I have mentioned, will be reduced to one- year funding. Of course, this reflects what is happening under this Government. We know that the Australian Teachers Federation was a significant contributor to Australian Labor Party funds. We know that the amount of about three quarters of a million dollars it contributed to help the Labor Party get elected in March 1983 had a quid pro quo attached to it. Sadly, at the biennial National Conference of the Labor Party, we saw the resolutions of Labor lay down very firmly an emphasis on denying opportunity for educational alternatives. We know that that is the real direction in which Labor is heading. For all that the Minister has come back in a last minute reprieve to provide some additional funds to sustain independent educational opportunity, the real direction of Labor in office is to deny educational alternatives. It is to restrict educational opportunity. Labor wants all children to be subject to that nine to three mentality that so sadly exists in many of the State or public stream schools and institutions. I believe it is essential that we find a way by which diversity of opportunity and richness of education can be preserved to the maximum in our Australian educational system. These Bills deny some of those opportunities which, as a result of very hard work and endeavour, successive Liberal-National Party administrations have introduced at the Federal level. As I have explained, it is not peculiarly the Federal Government that needs to take the blame. Sadly, in New South Wales we have a government that pursues all causes with a political motivation. It rarely seeks to consider the interests of those who are to be educated; it thinks only of the political advantage to be gained from areas in which its funds are spent. That does not result in an equality of educational funding or an equality of educational opportunity. I believe these Bills would have been far better if the Government had considered, first, students' needs; secondly, the problems of equality of educational opportunity; and thirdly, the advantage of educational diversity, and from that tried to develop a package which would, within whatever funds are available, provide an opportunity for progress instead of stagnation. I see this package as largely one that marks time. It provides little progress or opportunity for the future and in that respect it is sad that on this eve of the election we are being given something which we know is but a reflection of the sensitivity of this Government to the real political pressures in the community-the real concern that all those in the Catholic stream of education, for example, have felt about the direction that Labor is taking. Let there be no mistake: For all that there has been a package provided in this Parliament, which we are debating now, it will deny the Catholic system of education, and indeed every independent school system, the opportunity to grow and flourish in the future as it should. Certainly this package still denies the opportunity for the creation of new independent schools. It restricts the opportunity for those who live in the country and it provides at the tertiary level little opportunity to reach those great new horizons that many of us thought would be desirable after those years of relative stagnation or maintenance of the status quo within the tertiary sector. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, I submit to this House that these Bills offer very little for those who have a genuine concern for educational opportunity in our community. From the point of view of the National Party of Australia, I would like to explain to all those out in the electorate that we are concerned about educational opportunities for all young people. We see education as being one of the most important of those areas in which governments can play a part. The National Party believes that wherever children live, they should be given a fair and adequate opportunity to receive the same assistance as those who live in the cities. For example, there should be adequate school bus services. Students should have a diversity of educational opportunity available at primary, secondary and tertiary levels, and where churches or independent bodies seek to provide and maintain schools, they should not be denied the opportunity so to do . The National Party is concerned, therefore, that the package that the Labor Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has introduced fails to consider adequately the real and genuine concerns that we have for the well being of all those who live outside the major metropolises and are forced to travel so far and to take what government offers rather than have the richness of opportunity and diversity that should be their right in this day and age. Mr Deputy Speaker, these three Bills offer a minimal opportunity for our education system to continue. I rue that they do not provide the stimulus for greater excellence in education and greater opportunity for those who will receive education in the future to have the certainty of employment that a proper education system adequately funded by governments could give. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(9.37) —There is nothing like listening to members of the Opposition talking about education to make one absolutely convinced of its necessity. We have just heard a remarkable performance from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). What charisma, what style, for the Leader of a once great political party to come into this place and give a parish pump speech. No doubt everybody in this place is interested in the plight of the Armidale College of Advanced Education but for the leader of a political party to come in and give a parish pump speech about whether or not Federal funds are filtering down to an institution in his electorate is something close to farcical. It gets even closer to farcical when one remembers that he referred to the members of his Party in the chamber at the time. They came into the chamber because they were instructed on paging devices to come in and hear their Leader speak. They heard him speak about a couple of institutions in his own electorate . The Leader of the National Party is worried about holding his own seat. He has lost sight of the big issues; he has lost sight of the real ends of education. Mr Lusher —I've lost sight of you. Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Hume said he has lost sight of me. He probably could not have seen me even when he walked into the chamber. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) began this debate for the Opposition and made a better fist of it than the Leader of the National Party. The honourable member for Bennelong has an interesting way of approaching such matters. (Quorum formed) The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) called for a quorum in order to interrupt proceedings because he did not feel that his Leader could take fair political argument. The point that I was making was merely that the Leader of the National Party made a parish pump speech. He did not make a leader's speech. He talked about institutions in his electorate. That was just fair political argument. But they cannot take it. The Leader of the National Party, I am sure, is a very good local member. He does not need to prove it. I say nothing against him personally, but he is supposed to be leading a political party and showing a bit of charisma to his troops. None of them were listening when he got up to speak. The National Party Whip had to page members to come in. When they came in they could not take a fair political point. Mr Humphreys —They came in like Brown's cows. Mr WELLS —Yes. The honourable member for Bennelong, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, put up a better performance. He said it was a good Bill and that he was in favour of it, but what if after the next election we changed it all and took it all away. This sort of 'what if' line of argument has a tremendous amount of appeal to the honourable member for Bennelong. The reason for that is that he invented the method himself. In 1977 we had the fistful of dollars election campaign. The Fraser Government gave out the fistful of dollars in the previous Budget and then took it back in a mini-Budget straightaway. That is why the method of doing something and then undoing it the next year appeals to the honourable member for Bennelong. That is why he is constantly on the lookout for it. He does not need to worry; the Labor Government and the previous Labor Government have never undone anything they have first done. They have never undone a reform which they have established. We will not do so in this case. Mr Robert Brown —We will never do it. Mr WELLS —As the honourable member for Hunter says, we will never do it. Education is quite possibly the most important issue to come before this Parliament. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1984 alone involves the allocation of some $6,622m. When this is compared with the annual budgetary outlays for the Commonwealth in 1984-85 of an estimated $64,000m, the importance of education funding is really brought home. In today's world economic prosperity does not go to those nations with the biggest populations, the most extensive natural resources or even the biggest industrial base. In the world of economic competition the battle is not to the swift or the race to the strong; both are won by those nations which have at their disposal the most information. In terms of gross national product per head, that is, in terms of national economic output per head of population, the most prosperous nations in the world today include resource poor nations such as Japan, Sweden, Holland, Norway and Switzerland. Success in economic terms comes to those nations which have invested most heavily in their most important natural resource, their people. It is not the reserves of minerals or the numbers of big machines but the pool of skills and information which will determine the nation's economic greatness in the twenty first century. The size of a nation's pool of skills and information is almost entirely determined by its education system. By this standard no level of performance could possibly be perfect. Clearly we need to invest more in education. Fortunately, these Bills mark a turning point, taking us in the right direction down that path. In 1978, the heyday of Fraserism, total expenditure on education by the Commonwealth declined by 0.6 per cent. In 1979 it declined by 1.2 per cent. Again in 1980 the decline was 1.2 per cent. In 1981 the decline was 1.4 per cent. In 1982 the decline was 0.7 per cent. Mr Staples —They are proud of that record. Mr WELLS —As the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Staples) just interjected, the Opposition is proud of that record. In 1983, the first year of the Labor Government, there was an increase of 0.6 per cent. In 1984 the increase was 1 per cent. In 1985 we will see an acceleration to a real increase of 2.7 per cent. Apart from this real growth, a number of unwelcome features of the Fraser years have been reversed. We have returned to triennial funding. The policy of the last Liberal-National Party Government was yearly block grants which gave institutions no opportunity for long term planning. The Commonwealth is involved in tertiary education expenditure both in recurrent funding and capital works funding. This year sees the biggest increase in recurrent funding since the establishment of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. The increase for capital works programs will be of the order of 20 per cent. Over the triennial period, 15,000 new student places will be created in the universities and colleges of advanced education. The Leader of the National Party was complaining about conditions in the colleges in his area. The colleges in the electorate of the Leader of the National Party will benefit from the increase in funding which has been pumped into the CAE sector. At the same time 15,000 new places will be established in the technical and further education sector. This expansion will generate 1,600 new academic jobs and 900 non-academic jobs. That is the first significant growth in this area after the long, lean Fraser years during which thousands of jobs in this area disappeared. In the tertiary sector, as distinct from the TAFE sector, the bulk of the growth will be in CAEs and, within CAEs, it will be in technology-based courses. This reflects a recognition by the Government of the increasingly technologically determined nature of the economy and the international environment. Along the same lines a new program involving $1m per annum is to be established to set up key centres of teaching and research in CAEs. This is the first and long overdue recognition of the appropriateness of a research role for colleges of advanced education. Mr Staples —A sign of progress. Mr WELLS —Yes. The increased sophistication of the world has meant that the original supposition on which CAEs were established can no longer be maintained. The assumption that CAEs were simply for teaching while universities were seen as institutions in which those with the talent for research could exercise it, if it was ever right, is now certainly wrong. There are now in CAEs academics with specialist skills not duplicated at universities who are unable to maximise their contribution due to the fact that they do not have the opportunity or facilities to conduct their research. I have seen at the Queensland Institute of Technology a number of first class experiments as well as pieces of brilliant original work, the development of which was attenuated by lack of regulations and funding permitting or facilitating research. We will now see that situation remedied. Commonwealth support for TAFE colleges has been increasing continually since their establishment; that trend continues. While not opposing this trend, it needs to be remembered that TAFE colleges are basically a State responsibility. It might at some stage be appropriate for the Commonwealth to take over entirely the funding of TAFE colleges, but in the meantime the Commonwealth needs to be on its guard to ensure that CAEs and universities are not losing funds in order that the TAFE sector may grow. It hardly needs to be repeated that the future of this nation depends on the continued growth of its scientific, technological, informational and skill base and that a major part of this base is determined by the productivity of our tertiary sector. Before leaving the tertiary sector, I would like to refer to a point made by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), who exercised himself a great deal with the changes in funding which the Government is making to residential colleges. He spoke as if the Commonwealth was cutting out funding to residential colleges and that large numbers of poor students, particularly those from the country, would be left bereft and homeless. In fact, none of the poor students about whom honourable members opposite are legitimately concerned will be left bereft and homeless. The entire sum of $10m will be reallocated to a student accommodation fund which will provide grants or loans on the basis of need to students who need accommodation. Instead of that sum of $10m going to the 6 per cent of students indiscriminately, whether or not they need it, it will be allocated on the basis of need to those students who need accommodation. Whether they live in a hall of residence, a residential college or in private accommodation, if they are needy and if they need that accommodation, they will get it. I appreciate the concern of the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) on this score. They can set their minds at rest. Nobody will be adversely affected as a result of this measure. I would have liked to address myself to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1984, but unfortunately the quorum which the Opposition called-a device which oppositions use to stop people making points which they perceive to be damaging to them-has used up some of my time. Instead, I will end my remarks. Other Government members will refer to that Bill. I merely say that this Bill is a step in the right direction, a step towards growth in tertiary education, as in other sectors of education. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(9.52) —The education Bills being debated cognately come before us in an atmosphere and an environment of uncertainty about the true position of the Government on education. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells), said that this was just a step in what he believed was the right direction. The right direction is the direction which the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) talks about all the time. She talked, as recently as yesterday, about socialist ideology and levelling outcomes of education in this country in order to pander to the ideologues of the socialist Left. That is the true position and that is the step which the honourable member for Petrie says is a step in the right direction. That is the direction in which he is going. We do not know from these Bills what is the true position of the Government. But we know it is a step and that there are great deficiencies contained in the measures. We do not know whether the legislation to be administered by the Minister means that the true position outlined at the Australian Labor Party National Conference will be brought into effect. The tertiary education legislation gives the Minister great power to do this. I would like to make some comments in the brief time available to me this evening about the philosophical direction of the legislation and the philosophical differences between the Opposition and the Government. It is my view that equality of opportunity leads to better educational outcomes for young Australians. I am not against equality of outcomes. I believe that if we have greater equality of opportunity, we will have outcomes in education. The Government and the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs want equality of outcome at any price, not equality of opportunity. They want to manipulate and conscript the process so that all outcomes are equal. As I have said, I am not against equality. But in adopting the Government's approach, one brings everybody to the lowest common denominator, to the lowest level, rather than lift the level of the lowest to achieve the greatest equality of opportunity and a better outcome. Ideologues in the Labor Party do not like excellence. They do not like people achieving and doing well. That is why it is the Government's policy to have equality at any price. I repeat that equality of opportunity is what education should be about. I recognise, and state that I recognise, that one needs assistance to get that equality of opportunity. That goes without saying. Let us look at this legislation in some detail because it still discriminates against certain private schools, including certain Catholic schools. The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) talked about what the previous Government was alleged to have done to Catholic parish schools in his electorate and how the situation had been fixed. I have news for him. I am pleased to talk on behalf of a school in my electorate that proves the exact opposite of what the honourable member for Lowe stated previously. I refer to St Cecilia's Primary School at Glen Iris, which has had its second application for funding rejected by the Commonwealth Schools Commission. At my request the Director of the Schools Commission referred the original application back to the State Planning and Finance Committee for reconsideration. Originally, St Cecilia's applied for funding for a new administrative block, renovating and refurbishing of old classrooms and a new additional classroom. When this application was rejected by the Government, St Cecilia's parish undertook the responsibility for upgrading the old school building and a revised submission was then lodged for funding of $70,000 of a total of $95,121 for the new administrative block. This second application of St Cecilia's has also been refused. I have been advised that the decision will not be reversed by the Government. Obviously, the school, the parents and students are disappointed and I share that disappointment because in this case parish parents and teachers have worked hard to better the educational opportunities for the students, to no avail. It is unfair to these hardworking parents and the children at the school, and it is a great school. I went there fairly recently to present an Australian flag. They are great students. They have a great feeling about their nation. It is a great small parish community school in my electorate. It is an example of another Government attack on the independent school system. It is a small parish school which is unable to fend for itself and which serves my electorate and the community at large well. To me, it proves beyond all doubt that there is still a Government hit list of private schools and St Cecilia's is one of those schools that has been hit. There is a general view in the community that the education debate has been put to rest by the Government just before the election, that there is not a hit list of private schools any more and if there is such a list, in contains the so- called 12 'wealthy' schools. St Cecilia's is not a wealthy school. It is a small Catholic parish school in my electorate and it is on the Government's hit list. It has been denied funding. I believe that people in charge of education, particularly in Victoria, pursue the same line as the Minister in pushing the left wing barrow of equality at all costs and not worrying about opportunity. They are busy devising slogans and schemes without really worrying about the students, the betterment of the students and the fostering of excellence. I will briefly talk about universities because they are being squeezed under this legislation. People at universities are finding out that Labor governments do not do what they promise, do not care about them and neglect them. The whole university community-students, teachers and academics-did better under the coalition administration. Mr Milton —Nonsense! Mr SHIPTON —There has been neglect and discouragement. The honourable member laughs. He should visit campuses such as those at Monash University-I think he has something to do with Monash-and the University of Queensland and ask the people about the situation because there is a squeeze at the moment. Not only is there a squeeze; the Government went back on a decision about a pay rise for academics and teachers at those universities. It is an interesting point that I think links in very well with the neglect by this Government of the scientific community and the comments made by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) that we could not expect money for science-and, ipso facto, I would say educational institutions in this country-in an election year. The Minister for Science and Technology was saying that after the election was over, if the present Government were re-elected, it would put up taxes so that it could make some of the funds available. That is the attitude of this Government. As previous speakers have said, there is absolutely no encouragement in this legislation for private schools. People are deserting the public school system because many parents are dissatisfied with certain schools and the outcome of education at those schools. They want to send their children to private schools. There should be diversity of choice in the education system. The great thing about the private or independent school system is that it does provide competition with the public school system and from both we should get a better equality of outcome. But this legislation provides no encouragement for the establishment of private schools, whether they be Protestant, Catholic or private non-denominational, and I think the Government must stand condemned for that. This legislation also puts into effect the withdrawal of support by this Government for halls of residence. One of the earlier speakers in this debate-I think it was the honourable member for Petrie-said that no one in the community would be adversely affected. I have news for him. In the time that is available to me tonight I have time only to mention the case of Warrnambool, in the electorate of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker). There has been a big sellout by the Federal Labor Government in that the Warrnambool Institute of Advanced Education has missed out on Federal money for student housing in the next two years. This is an example of the way in which this Government, by means of this legislation, has sold out on a community. Students will be affected. Students from the Western District area of Victoria who attend the Warrnambool Institute will now miss out on educational opportunities because of the action of the Federal Government. It is even worse than that, because I understand that the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission had in fact recommended that a $940,000 grant be made available for new student housing facilities at Warrnambool. So much for that point. Mr Hawker —That is right. Mr SHIPTON —The honourable member for Wannon, who is in the chamber tonight, has endorsed my remarks. He acknowledges that what I said is absolutely right, that there has been a sell-out by the Labor Government of the people of Warrnambool. I am sorry that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) is not in the House at the moment because I understand that he spent some of his early formative years in Warrnambool. Perhaps he could tell his friends and colleagues in Warrnambool why they are going to be rejected and neglected in this way by the sell-out of not making halls of residence available to them. The States Grants (Tertiary Education) Assistance Bill 1984 is a draconian measure which gives the Minister enormous power to restructure the education system. The Minister has power to declare and determine school allocations. I have no doubt that this will be done in accordance with the ideology of the socialist Left and the Minister. I think that this legislation gives far too much power to the Minister. In the remaining time available I would like to talk about the participation and equity program. At first blush the words 'participation and equity program' sound marvellous. But it embodies the old socialist Left ideology. This program replaces the old school-to-work transition program-an excellent program that helped students bridge the gap between school and the work place, the work community. I remember seeing a number of these very important programs at the Caulfield Institute of Technology in my electorate. These were great programs. But now we have to change it all. We have to bring in ideology and use the term 'participation and equity'. We delay, mess up and abandon the old system. Virtually nothing has been happening for 18 months. There have been administrative delays. All of a sudden we have to get money out of the participation and equity program-the PEP-by the end of the year because the funds are made available on a calendar year basis. So under this badly administered scheme there has been a sudden rush by schools-certainly this is the case in Victoria-to spend this money under PEP by the end of this term of which only another five or six weeks are left. Mr Gear —Tell us what you are talking about. You know nothing. Mr SHIPTON —I know exactly what I am talking about. I know that schools have to spend this money along these ideological lines. I know schools-I will not name them-that would rather buy a computer or other equipment that would be of much better use in the education of their students. This Government has done nothing about providing computer education in the schools of Australia. The previous Administration was in fact going to do something had it been re-elected. I know of schools that want computers but which have to go along with the ideology of the Minister and the Government. There is a need for students to be able to operate and understand computers, which play such an important role in the world today. I think that my time is drawing to a close. Mr Gear —Thank goodness. Mr SHIPTON —Obviously my remarks are hurting Government members. I have touched a raw nerve because what I am saying is absolutely true. Honourable members opposite do not care about the true education of the students of Australia; they just want the lowest common denominator in education. That is why students are leaving the government system in their droves and opting for the private system. I am glad to see the honourable member for Lowe in the House. I draw to his attention what I said earlier about St Cecilia's Primary School in my electorate . I support the comments made by members of the Opposition about the grave deficiencies of this Bill. The Bill is a tragedy for the people of Australia. The perception that the Government is putting about that there are no schools on the hit list and that the education debate has been laid to rest is totally and utterly false. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.07) —The present debate on the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1984 and the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 gives me the opportunity to express my views about the public funding which the Commonwealth Government provides for government and non-government schools. Unfortunately my time is limited and therefore I will not be able to deal with the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1984 which is also being covered in the cognate debate on these Bills. It is, of course, a fact that public education began in the early nineteenth century. Prior to that time only the merchants and the aristrocrats had the private resources to provide an education for their children. Public education in Australia has now grown to the extent that it comprises an estimated $1,385m of the Commonwealth Budget for schools programs in the States and Northern Territory in the 1985 calender year. The Commonwealth Government recognises that it has a primary obligation to public schools but, as the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) indicated in his second reading speech, it has also formally acknowledged the existence of a dual system of education in Australia and the Bill provides for this dual system. Whilst I can accept that we have a dual system of private and public education in Australia, I also draw attention to the fact that the Australian Labor Party has a national education policy which has the objective of funding schools in accordance with the principles of needs. Indeed, the policy goes further when it states 'that the Schools Commission will have regard to the primary obligation of governments to provide and maintain government school systems of the highest standard open to all children and the need for an adequate Commonwealth contribution towards this objective'. Of course, when consideration is being given to the provision of funding for education it is also necessary to include the provision of funding provided by the State governments, and to a minor extent the cost of local government services such as the maintenance of swimming pools and playing fields. It is also necessary to include taxation concessions and rebates which confer a greater benefit on private schools than on government schools because the parents of private school students who gain such taxation relief are, generally speaking, better off and able to pay out higher education costs in fees and donations which attract the taxation relief. If we examine the 1984 appropriation of $1,290m, we find that $573m was for government schools, $679m for private schools and $38m for joint programs for all schools. But other benefits to private schools are often overlooked. The tax deductibility of donations to school building funds is a major segment of taxation expenditure on private schools and, estimated on the basis of $19m in 1981-82, would be at least $25m for 1983-84. Concessional rebates are another significant segment of taxation relief with almost 6 per cent of taxpayers being eligible for concessional rebates. It is likely, therefore, that at least one member of most families with students at higher fee private schools would have $ 250 of each of their children's school fees and other expenses paid by the public via taxation expenditure on the concessional rebate. Teacher training is another cost which is borne by the taxpayer, as the Commonwealth Government fully funds the training of all teachers, whether eventually employed in public or private schools. Finally, there are the allowances under the secondary allowance scheme which are payable to students at private schools. The total allocation for private school students from the secondary allowance scheme is estimated at $10m. I mentioned previously that State government funding must also be taken into account when the public funding of education is being analysed. In the case of the Victorian State Government, in 1983-84 per capita grants to private schools totalled $115m and other direct grants were about $20m. The Education Department also spends about $30m on the various services which it provides to private schools. Private schools, unlike the public schools, are also exempt from the State payroll tax and land taxes, with a total loss to revenue of about $40m in 1983-84. Local government also provides relief from rate expenditures for private schools, provides school crossing supervisors and maintains community facilities for both public and private schools. The plain fact is that when all the major components of public funding for private schools are taken into consideration, the public school system is forced into a residual funding role. This fact is obviously behind a comment in the minority report of Schools Commissioner Joan Brown, contained in the 1984 Commonwealth Schools Commission report entitled 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools'. Joan Brown stated: The arguments mounted in the majority report involve in my opinion, a grave distortion of the principle that it is the right of all children to have equal access to an education that is profitable and successful, for this undisputed right has been recast in terms of an entitlement to the resources necessary to achieve this purpose. If this new construction of children's rights to education were accepted, it would carry the implication that the Government has equal responsibility for both the Government and non-Government school sectors. This clearly diminishes the meaning of the term 'primary obligation' in relation to government schools. It would also imply that parents who choose not to avail themselves of public provided schooling need bear none of the cost of exercising such a choice. This is obviously inequitable. Schools Commissioner Van Davy made an even stronger comment in his minority report when he stated: The Commission has endorsed the right of wealthy schools to continue receiving government subsidies, even at the expense of students in much poorer schools. There can be no justification for the Commission's decision, as it is in clear conflict with the Government's election promise for a definite phase down in 1984 and 1985, within a general policy of complete phase out by 1987. I have quoted from the minority reports of two of the 12 Schools Commissioners because their comments are particularly relevant. When the value of personal income tax expenditure on private schooling is taken into account, excluding the taxation expenditure of State governments' pay-rolls, land taxes and local government rate rebates and services, the private cost of private schools is only about 30 per cent of the level in the late 1960s. It is the dramatic fall in the private price of private schooling which is the major explanation for the rapidly increasing enrolments in the private school system. I am indebted to the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association for bringing these facts to my attention. The original reason for Commonwealth Government funding for private schools was to assist the poorer schools in lifting their educational standards. However, the original concept has been undermined by two trends. One trend has been the expansion of the private school sector so that instead of a rise in the standards of the poor private schools we have witnessed a large increase in the number of poor private schools. The second trend has been the reduction of the private effort, in the ways I have already indicated, so that as government grants have increased private funding has decreased. An additional problem is the concept of the community standard which has been produced as an ideal basket of teaching services, derived from the contributions of State governments and school communities in conjunction with the Commonwealth 's general recurrent grants program. As I see it, and I agree with Commissioner Joan Brown here, the only acceptable standard which should be used to determine the level of general recurrent resources for private schools must be the standard costs of government schools. With the special nature and wider responsibilities of the government schools system the resource level targets for private schools should be less than the standard government school costs. For Victoria the acceptance of the community standard concept means that there must inevitably be a redistribution away from Victorian post-primary schools to those States, such as Queensland and Western Australia, which have shown less commitment to the recurrent funding of government schools. In addition, as Commissioner Van Davy has pointed out in his minority report, there is nothing in the Schools Commission guidelines to prohibit the substitution of Commonwealth funding for State funding or ensuring that State governments provide the community standard target resource package of services in every school. The Schools Commission report entitled 'Standards for Australian Schools ' is a useful document but it should not be treated as more than a first look at the standards of the Australian public and private school system. Regretfully, I can see a long period of industrial unrest amongst teachers and ancillary staff in the government school system if the community standard concept, in its present form, is enforced. It is, of course, true that the Commonwealth Government will be monitoring the resource levels of private schools to ensure that private resources are not hidden so that a particular school can qualify for more than its share of appropriate Commonwealth funding. I am concerned, however, that the accountability guidelines may be too flexible and consequently allow private schools to avoid providing all the necessary information needed to determine the value of private effort and funds received. Unfortunately, my allotted speaking time has now expired, but I think I have at least signalled to the Government the concerns I have as to whether the present distribution of Commonwealth funding will be allocated on the basis of educational need. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 4 October, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 4 October, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. [COGNATE BILLS: BROADCASTING STATIONS LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL 1984 TELEVISION STATIONS LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 3 October, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering this Bill, the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1984 and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1984, as they are associated measures. Separate questions will of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the three measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.20) —The Opposition generally supports the legislation contained in the three Bills before the House and therefore there will not be a division at the end of the second reading debate on the major piece of legislation, the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill. But because of the Opposition's attitude that there should not be aggregation of fees, both for the original and supplementary licences at the regional level, we will oppose the second readings of the two licence fees Bills, the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill, because that appears to be the way to go about it. We will also move an amendment in Committee to the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill in regard to the concentration of media ownership. There are three distinct sections to the legislation. The first is the Government's decisions in relation to supplementary licences for commercial regional radio and television areas. The second is the closing of loopholes in the ownership and control provisions of the Act and the third is the implementation of some of the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council regarding Australian Broadcasting Tribunal inquiry procedures. First of all, there is the question of supplementary licences. The Labor Government has basically continued the supplementary licence concept of the previous coalition Government, even if it has wasted 18 months in really being at the same stage now as we were when we lost office. The Government is proposing four changes in relation to supplementary licences, two of which are both sensible and commendable. The first of those is the one licence concept. The supplementary licence, whether it be supplementary to the original regional licence or whether it be independent, will be for transmissions by UHF if television, and FM if radio. These transmission systems do not cover the equivalent area of VHF television or AM radio for the original licences. Yet the supplementary licence must cover the same reception area. Many regional stations , particularly television stations, have already required translators with their VHF transmission systems to provide adequate reception throughout their area. So more will be required for the supplementaries. I am told that this could mean as many as 10 to 13 translators, with all of the attendant costs and complications. Therefore, the proposal to allow one supplementary licence to cover the service area and not require separate applications for each translator is strongly supported. The Opposition also believes it is commendable to allow the successful licensee to phase in the translators over the five-year licence period. The successful applicant, whether the licence be supplementary to the existing licence or independent, will be subjected to significant investment cost and low initial income, and the ability to stagger the introduction of translators is commendable. I draw the attention of the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) to the Northern Territory problem. My understanding is that as distinct from the control procedures for the States where a prescribed interest in no more than two television stations is permitted, in the Territories it is only one. Darwin has a commercial television service, Alice Springs does not. It is not viable to have a separate licence for Alice Springs, I understand, so how does one overcome the problem of a supplementary licence, say from Darwin, to ensure that Alice Springs also has commercial television reception? Presumably this could be done by defining the service area to cover virtually all of the Northern Territory, or at least the major communities in the Northern Territory, particularly Alice Springs. I also acknowledge that the satellite service has implications for commercial television for the remainder of the Northern Territory. However, the Opposition opposes the insertion of the concentration of media ownership criteria now being proposed and also opposes the aggregation of gross income for the calculation of licence fees. The explanatory memorandum, which is provided with the legislation, contains the following explanation of media ownership: The Tribunal may not refuse to grant a supplementary licence in an area unless it determines that a second commercial licence is likely to be viable in the area and that it is in the public interest that applications for such a licence be invited. The public interest criteria to be considered by the Tribunal is amended to include consideration of whether granting the supplementary licence would lead to undue concentration of media ownership or control in the area. ' Media' includes both radio and television stations licensed to serve the area and newspapers, journals and the like available in the area. Thus print media is, for the first time, considered in the criteria of ownership , along with the electronic media. The inclusion of the print media has never been specifically required before in the consideration of a licence application and will still not be required for licence renewals in either the original regional licence or metropolitan licences for radio and television. If the Government were really concerned about concentration of media ownership in relation to significant sections of the population, then it would have to put the major metropolitan networks at the top of the list. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in its SPS report also referred to this concentration of network media ownership. The Opposition is not recommending any action in relation to including print media in any of these licence applications, but we are pointing out the absurdity and inequity of the Government proposal. Furthermore, there is no such thing as concentration of media at the regional level because the metropolitan newspapers and journals have a great impact in every regional area, as do the programs presented in local stations from the city networks. The proposal is also contrary to the active support and policy decisions of the Tribunal itself when regional television was first being established. It was only due to the backing provided by an established radio station or newspaper that a television station was able to begin operations in some regional areas or to remain viable. In a number of decisions, the Tribunal actually encouraged this print media and concentration of media participation. For the Tribunal now to be required to penalise what it earlier encouraged is unfair and absurd. There is also the equity argument in that the concentration criteria will only be used in considering the supplementary application, that is, a second licence going to the same station owner as the original licence, but not if the Tribunal decides to call applications for an independent licence for the same area. The Act already contains all the necessary criteria. Viability is obviously the first and most important, followed by program choice and the general public interest consideration. However, I note that there is concern by regional operators over the lack so far of a satisfactory definition of viability. The Minister commented on this recently in a speech about the problem of what constitutes viability at the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters conference. On the question of fee aggregation, commercial radio and television licences are calculated on a scale related to the gross income of the station. The Government proposes to charge a combined fee for the original and supplementary licence when one applicant holds both. This is a device to maximise Government revenue and it is unfair. There will be considerable initial expense and reduced profit, or if you like, loss, for the licence holder, but the greater gross income will require an even greater fee because of the progressive licence fee scale. It is also unfair because of the different level of the fee for the same licence if it is supplementary to the original licence or if it is gained by an independent applicant. The gross income will be the same whether it is a supplementary or second licence for the original applicant or for the independent licence on the assumption that they both get the same income, yet the fee could be twice as much with the former. The Act requires that separate accounts be kept by the original and supplementary stations and as the Government can pick up the fee from each, the Opposition believes this course should be followed. Therefore, as I said earlier, we will oppose the second readings of the licence fees amendment Bills. I turn now to the question of potential loopholes. I have been advised that the Attorney-General's Department had discovered two gaps in the legislation which could be used to avoid the ownership and control provisions of the Act. I understand that there are no companies or individuals presently using or being disadvantaged by the loopholes. I have received no adverse comment from the industry so it is logical to support those amendments. On the matter of the Administrative Review Council, the Minister has indicated that the Government generally supports the recommendations of the Council to establish uniform procedures for Australian Broadcasting Tribunal inquiries, but that some of the amendments will be made next year. The recommendations included in the legislation are: Firstly, to reduce from five to three the number of Tribunal members to sit on a metropolitan licence renewal inquiry; secondly, to empower the Chairman to add to or replace the single member empowered to conduct a public broadcasting or regional licence renewal inquiry; thirdly, to restrict to those Tribunal members engaged in the licence inquiry the final determination by the Tribunal; and, fourthly, to empower the Tribunal to extend a licence until a decision is made on a renewal application when that decision may not be made before the expiry date of the licence. The Opposition does not oppose any of these amendments. They seem sensible and will improve the efficiency of the Tribunal. However, I want to make two comments about the Tribunal. The first concerns the possible implications of a single Tribunal member hearing a regional or public broadcasting renewal application and then, by one of the amendments to the Act which we are considering tonight, that same single member being able to give the final approval of the Tribunal to that hearing. I know that there is an ability for the Chairman of the Tribunal to replace the member or to add further members if it becomes known that the application is contentious. I have also been told that generally the Tribunal knows before a hearing commences whether the application will be challenged. But it is possible for someone to appear at a hearing without preliminary notice-I have been advised that it is so-and this, plus personal or philosophical differences between the applicant and the Tribunal member, could result in the same single member recommending and then confirming on behalf of the Tribunal a refusal to renew a licence. I would welcome comment by the Minister on that point. This potential problem, if it is a potential problem and it seems to me to be one, could be overcome by the requirement that all witnesses provide a written submission ahead of the inquiry or that when a refusal to renew is recommended the Chairman or his deputy must be part of the final decision. My other comment concerns the general drift in the conduct of the Tribunal. It is less and less a group of people with expertise in broadcasting and more and more a body of lawyers and consumer group advocates. The legalism and consequently the cost of appearing before the Tribunal has increased dramatically. The Opposition believes the membership imbalance should be corrected, that the Tribunal should return to its earlier less legalistic hearings and that the increasingly intrusive and regulatory role should be reversed. I had intended to raise with the Minister the increasingly urgent problem of those Australians who live beyond the range of regional radio and television and who, at this stage, have no idea when and from whom they will receive commercial radio and television, as the launch dates of the first two satellites are now only a few months away. However, I understand that the Minister will be making a statement on this important subject tomorrow, so I will make no further comment on that point at this stage. However, I want to draw the Minister's attention to the disruption created among the Greek and Italian communities in Sydney and Melbourne by the attempt by certain sections of the Special Broadcasting Service Board, through public meetings, to create advisory committees for the Greek and Italian language programs for 2EA and 3EA, the ethnic radio stations. The Sydney meeting was particularly disruptive. I have had numerous comments and complaints about the very bad image and feeling that this has created among the Greek community in Sydney. I call on the Minister again, as I did a couple of weeks ago in this House, to call a halt to any further SBS initiatives and to cancel those that may have resulted from these meetings until the Connor Committee of Review into the Special Broadcasting Service is completed and its recommendations are made known to the Parliament and the people of this country. At that time any appropriate initiatives can be taken. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.35) —The Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill is an omnibus Bill which covers numerous amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act across a wide range of areas including, as the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) has just said, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, supplementary licences and licence fees. I understand that several amendments will be moved at the Committee stage, so I will leave a number of comments I wish to make on the subject of those amendments to that stage. Mr Lloyd —There will be one amendment in Committee on the concentration of ownership. Mr CHARLES —I will leave most of my comments on the concentration of ownership provisions to the Committee stage. I wish to pick up a point which the honourable member for Murray made regarding appearing before the Tribunal-how it has become very legalistic, how so many lawyers are involved and how it costs a small fortune these days, to appear and run a case before the Tribunal. Madam Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that the whole structure of broadcasting and television in this country-thus I will relate it to the Tribunal-has grown up under the parenthood of conservative governments. It is the result of their doings over three decades that we are faced with the several situations, the Tribunal being one of them, that we have now. It is all very well to come in here and whinge about certain things, but the governments of members of the Opposition are the ones which created the structures in our broadcasting and television system. I put it to the honourable member for Murray that the Tribunal has become too legalistic basically because of the structures set up by previous conservative governments and the fact that when Tribunal or control board hearings took place for the renewal of licences the networks, the major television stations in this country, fronted at those hearings with a barrage of lawyers and Queen's counsel and within a matter of months turned what was originally to be a fairly informal hearing designed to hear why someone should or should not continue with a licence and to hear from community groups into a different type of hearing. Community groups and people who could not show an interest, whatever that meant- one could put one's interpretation on it, as the legal eagles did, as to whether one had an interest in the hearings-were basically excluded. It basically excluded everyone except the major monopolies. The major monopolies, which at that time fronted with their massive barrage of lawyers, have created for themselves the high cost legal fees that they are now wearing. They are the ones who started this round some years ago which basically excluded community groups and other people who at that time could not 'show an interest'-whatever that meant. From time to time I hear some of the networks complain about the costs of inquiries. I put it to the Parliament that they basically put this albatross around their own necks. In this day and age the Government-I suspect any government-must have a number of lawyers who are proficient, as they are in one or two very specific cases, in broadcasting law on the Tribunal, otherwise one could say that the Tribunal would be in a quite difficult situation from time to time. I support the amendments to the principal Act. They clear up a number of objections that have been created from time to time, especially the ones about the amendments introduced in 1981 by the previous Government. The aggregation of licence fees is a sensible thing. The provision is only aggregating the overall situation of a particular licence holder given the advent of supplementary licences. I will leave my remarks at that. I wish to pursue the area of concentration of ownership at the Committee stage. I think it is a more important area. Rather than go over the same area twice, I will leave it until that time to debate that important issue. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.40) —I start, aware of the pressures and constraints of time under which we are placed tonight, by supporting the words of the shadow Minister for Communications, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), in his address on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill and cognate Bills. I trust that some of my comments on the great concerns in my electorate which relate to rural television will be accepted by honourable members tonight because I think they are of importance. I will touch upon them as briefly as possible. It was clearly known and publicly announced that some 45 million people around the world had the privilege, if not the pleasure, of watching this year's Victorian Football League grand final. That was wonderful, except that many Australians were unable to see it. After all the game involved was Australian Rules football. A large number of those people could not see it live in the electorate of O'Connor. O'Connor is not a remote electorate. It is a rural electorate. It could be said that most of the people live within 150 miles of a large centre, either the Perth metropolitan area or the area around Geraldton, which is quite a large town. I am referring to the areas covered by the new boundaries of the O'Connor electorate. There is much concern in those areas. I wish to touch on the subject of the satellite. As much as I am pleased that it will be in operation, its introduction is not really the answer in every respect. Strangely enough, at the moment commercial interests are prepared to address some of the problems affecting some of the people in my electorate. It is not that long since I wrote to the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) raising issues regarding some of the new towns which have been placed in my electorate-the towns of Three Springs, Carnamah, Perenjori and Mingenew-and on behalf of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) I inquired about the shires of Morawa and Mullewa. After informing the Minister, as he probably knew, that the commercial station in Geraldton was prepared to extend its viewing area by installing translators at its cost and that it had had some contact with the Department of Communications, I said: Consequently, all that stands between my constituents and a vastly improved television service is your decision to call applications to provide the service. This legislation tonight deals in the main with supplementary licences. Supplementary licences will be issued mostly in rural areas. I am not being critical, I think it is wonderful that the Government has eventually decided to finalise this matter and give people in rural areas a viable and economic system whereby they can have a further choice in television viewing, but this proposal will apply only to people who already can receive a television service. They must receive at least one commercial service before they can get that supplementary service. I am talking about people who may in some cases receive a national service but who certainly do not receive a commercial television station. The Minister replied to me on this matter, and I thank him for the letter I received today. He refers to Morawa, Mullewa and Mingenew, the three areas where the stations would be built. He said: All three proposals have been examined and, while there are no difficulties with the Mullewa proposal, the other two have been returned to the applicant seeking additional information. When the completed documents have been received, the normal planning procedures require that they are circulated for industry comment, prior to the preparation of final planning proposals. Should I then decide to invite applications for licences, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal would be required to conduct licence hearings. That is fine, except that it is a lot of gobbledegook because one would think that something really special was involved and that 25 television stations were out there fighting over these people. There are probably only 1,000 viewers out there. The commercial station, GTW11, is prepared to go ahead and provide the service. Yet we are going through all these problems. I do not blame the Minister. In fact, I admire the Minister. I am sure he wrote that letter on the advice he has received. My advice, having contacted the relevant people tonight, is that, first, the extra details required were provided two months ago and that in those people's opinion the matter only requires a notice of intent. They would have to go through the whole procedure again at a later time and everything hinges at this moment on the Minister taking a decision to call for applications for those translator stations. Then the applicants will have to go through more procedures, much of which in these circumstances I wish could be shortened. There is no fight. The technical requirements can be met. The Department of Communications is apparently happy that that is so. Why is it necessary that somebody who is prepared to pay for such a simple thing which those people do not have has to go through all this trouble. I repeat: I do not blame the Minister. Things were probably just as difficult under the previous Government. I say to the Minister: 'For goodness sake get hold of your Department by the scruff of the neck. It has misinformed you. It has had those answers for two months. Give these people a chance to have some television. It is as easy as that'. It is time that people got this service. Legislation of this type is so often concentrated on the viability of the business involved or the television station. It seldom worries too much about the viewers. It is my view that they are the prime responsibility of members of parliament. In conclusion, I raise another matter of grave concern within my electorate. The Minister is well aware that on page 29 of the last issue of the Australian Telecommunications Commission Service and Business Outlook for 1984-85, under the heading 'Capital Investment-Major Telecom Projects', there is an allocation of $1,649,000 for the Bencubbin television transmitter. That is a misprint-one of the most horrible and painful blows that could be practised on people in a remote community. Again, surely that this allocation was mentioned is not the fault of the Minister. But it should not have happened. Now it has happened, let us look at the details. The Bencubbin transmitter is known as the Marshall transmitter. It has been promised by about four Ministers in a row, many of them from my side of politics. The people in that area have year after year anticipated some action. They never got it. What are we confronted with now? Yes , the satellite is going up and these people are told that something can be done . One of the realities of the situation, and it applies to many similar rural areas, is that when the satellite is in operation it will be an extremely expensive method of providing a service to people in an area with such a population density. Because I am so concerned about these people and I am looking for alternatives with which I hope the Minister might assist me in some way, I asked some questions the other day. I found that these people live in an area of nearly 26, 000 square kilometres. It has a population of approximately 4,540 people. Eight small towns are involved: Westonia, with 90 people; Bencubbin with 200; Beacon with 150; Koorda with 400; Trayning with 277; Nungarin with 100; Kalannie with 200; and Mukinbudin with 350. That amounts to 1,767 people and there are a further 2,775 people in rural homesteads. Let us have a look at the cost. If each of those towns were provided with a small transmitter having access to the satellite, we would be looking at some $ 30,000 for each township. That would just cover those little communities I just mentioned, all of which have no television service of any nature at this time. There are 770 rural homes, all of which could be serviced only from the satellite if each had its separate dish antenna. It will cost $240,000 to service the eight towns. If the total cost of installing an antenna is as high as $3,000-I have to accept that it might be only $2,000 but no one seems to know -we are looking at a cost of $2,310,000 to service those 770 residences. That gives an overall total of $2,550,000. That figure should be compared to the government expenditure required to do that job which would have amounted to less than $1.7m. That is funny economics whichever way we look at it. In my mind, people are entitled to the government service because that would be the cheapest way to provide it. The other message is that if the Government continues to say that that is not the way to service areas with this population density, we have to look at whether local government authorities will do it. I note in the Minister's letter that he tells me that if the GTW11 station is eventually allowed to do something for nothing for the Government, adjoining shires might be able to create translators under the self-help scheme and do something for themselves also. But I think it is possible that, if the commercial people can be given a chance, they might get on and do the job straight away and in fact expand into further areas and give the public a go. People in the area could then join those 45 million people-40 million of whom live in other countries who have television. These people could then enjoy the grand final of the Victorian Football League. That is not a bad thing to offer people. It can be done provided this Minister wipes away some of the red tape and lets a private enterprise institution, namely the Geraldton television station, get on with what it is begging to do. Every day it is confronted with a situation of increasing costs because it cannot do something for people at no cost to them. I ask the Minister to consult his Department. I repeat that I believe that he has written to me in all honesty. He thought that that was the situation. But his departmental people have let him down and I am sure that if he got stuck into them in the morning the people in my electorate could have television, maybe for Christmas. It is as simple as that. Mr Peacock —He is an Essendon supporter and he would like them to see the VFL grand final. Mr TUCKEY —I am sure he would. I respect the fact that I have promised to keep my speech down to half the time that I would normally take. I say in finishing that the viewer does come first. We have just heard comments about the Special Broadcasting Service. I often have my doubts about it but I can tell honourable members that out in my electorate people all want names that sound either Greek or Italian so that they might get some television. There are some Greeks and Italians out there too. They are pretty upset about it. It is time that they were given the same sorts of rights and services as other people. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.52) —in reply-The Government rejects the amendment which has been foreshadowed by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) in relation to the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill and which will be moved in Committee. On the question of ownership provisions, it is worth making a couple of points about clause 5 in answer to the matters raised by the honourable member for Murray. In fact, clause 5 provides that it is only relevant where it is determined that an independent applicant is viable. The Bill does not relate to anything other than that situation. Proposed section 83 (6) (e) (i) reads: (i) that an additional commercial broadcasting station or commercial television station, as the case requires, to serve that area is reasonably likely to be commercially viable during the period in which the licence, if granted, would be in force; So in fact that applies only where it is determined that an independent licensee is viable. In that situation, in determining between the existing licensee and the independent applicant, one of the public interest factors to be taken into account by the Tribunal is the issue of the concentration of media ownership. It is probable that the existing provisions of the Act-and, I suggest, the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Murray-cover that point anyway. The amendment states: . . . provided pursuant to the licence for such an additional station, it is in the public interest . . . It may well be that the Tribunal would take into account the question of media ownership in relation to the public interest. That is probably the situation now . However, what we are attempting to do here is to put that beyond doubt. Although the existing provisions may well cover it, in allowing the Tribunal to take into account concentration of media ownership as a public interest factor, the amendments that the Government has decided are necessary to the Broadcasting and Television Act will clarify that issue. I doubt really that it is suggested that that is not a matter which should be taken into account. This will put that issue beyond question. Another matter which was raised specifically was the Opposition's indication that it would not move an amendment in Committee to the Bill but would oppose the licence fees legislation at the second reading. The only thing that can be said about that is that there is one entity in existence because of the fact that, with the supplementary licence, we are not talking about an independent but a supplementary licence to the existing licensee. It is one entity. To put it quite simply, the Government considers that these proposals are reasonable and equitable in the circumstances. If we examine it, a supplementary licence represents a benefit which of course is available only to an existing licensee-the holder of the existing licence. An aggregation of earnings accurately reflects the total use made by the licensee of the radio frequency spectrum. It is the Government's view-I can understand that the honourable member for Murray does not agree with this point-that it is fair and equitable to aggregate those licence fees in the way that this legislation does. Another matter which was raised is not actually related to this legislation but I know it is a matter of some concern to the honourable member for Murray and therefore I will stretch the limits a bit to cover its relevance. I refer to the Special Broadcasting Service inquiry, or more particularly the meetings which were referred to by him tonight and which were raised in a grievance debate in this place by him on 13 September and also in a Press statement on 19 September. It is worth noting in relation to this matter that when the committee of review into the Special Broadcasting Service chaired by Mr Xavier Connor was established its terms of reference included a requirement to report on principles which should govern greater community participation as well as structures to ensure sensitivity to ethnic community needs and to promote adequate consultation. In fact part of the reference for that review was to take into account that consultative process. As the honourable member for Murray has indicated tonight, on previous occasions and also in a Press statement, the board of the Special Broadcasting Service arranged public meetings in Melbourne on 24 September and then a couple of days later, I think on 26 September, in Sydney to determine whether Italian and Greek communities wished to proceed to establish consultative committees. It must be understood that those arrangement are clearly within the charter of the SBS. However, on the basis of the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Murray, I indicated to the Chairman of the SBS just prior to the meeting that all steps possible should be taken to ensure that in taking the steps that had been taken there would be in no way any compromising or pre-empting of the current review of the SBS which will address these matters. I am advised, and this has been confirmed by the honourable member for Murray, that the two meetings had mixed results, to put it mildly. However, on the advice I have received, although they could be described in that way, there was nevertheless strong support at both meetings for some form of consultative process. I have asked the Chairman of the SBS to keep me informed of subsequent developments. I note the concerns expressed by the honourable member for Murray. They are matters about which I share his concern. That sort of policy decision which would pre-empt the decision of the SBS committee of review should not be taken. In fact, that feeling was made known to the SBS at those meetings. The other matter that ought to be mentioned concerns the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I do not want to deal with it at any great length because the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) dealt with it in some detail. The honourable member for Murray raised the question of the cost of Tribunal hearings. It is reasonable to say that the sorts of representations that have been made to the honourable member for Murray have also been made to me. However , it is a little like the situation of what is good for the goose being good for the gander. The industry complained bitterly about the fact that the cost of Tribunal hearings had escalated, but really, as was pointed out by the honourable member for Isaacs, if we analyse the situation closely the industry has really brought the problem down on its own head. As to the extensive legal representation, particularly with senior counsel, it is a matter for licensees to decide whom they may want representing them. It seems to me that to a large degree the licensees caused the escalation of costs. It became necessary for the Tribunal to protect itself because of the way the hearings went; that is, the hearings became very legalistic. The situation that arose was the fault of neither the previous Government nor of this Government. It was in many ways a problem the industry created for itself. Representations have been made to me on this matter, but I do not have any great sympathy for the industry because I think it created a good deal of the difficulty itself. The other contribution made this evening by the Opposition came from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). Unfortunately in this place there is not bipartisanship in many areas, but one thing that does come through very clearly, and we see it particularly in my portfolio, is that right across the board members of the Government and of both Opposition parties who represent not only remote areas-that distinction having been drawn tonight by the honourable member for O'Connor-but also rural areas all have a genuine concern in relation to the matters raised. The honourable member for O'Connor specifically informed the House tonight that some correspondence he received from me today was in fact incorrect. He indicated that that statement was based on advice received by him tonight. It may be that that advice was incorrect and that the advice I received from the Department of Communications was correct. That is a matter I will have to check out tomorrow because I am not at this stage in a position to say whether the details necessary in relation to the application were received two months ago, as indicated by the honourable member for O'Connor. That is what he was informed tonight. It is certainly not the advice I have, and at this stage I can say nothing more on that other than that the matter will be checked. The other matter raised by the honourable member for Murray concerned remote area broadcasting. He indicated that a ministerial statement will be made on that matter tomorrow. Therefore, I thank him for not pursuing that matter this evening, as that will facilitate the smooth running of this place. In closing the second reading debate, I thank those who contributed to the debate tonight. As I say, there is some disagreement, but it is good to see that , in broad terms, a good deal of this legislation would have been enacted by whoever had been in Government, with the exception of the ownership provisions which the honourable member for Murray did not agree with, but I do not know whether the disagreement is quite as wide as may be thought. There was one other matter that the honourable member for Murray raised which I overlooked; that is, the question of the constitution of divisions for ABT inquiries. The honourable member for Murray indicated that this provision might enable a single member to decide not to renew a licence of a regional station. Whilst this is true in theory, it is very unlikely to be a problem in practice because the Administrative Review Council's recommendation will ensure that most controversial issues will be identified in the pre-hearing documentation stage of our inquiry, which the honourable member indicated tonight. Mr Lloyd —Are you going to have further amendments or are you going to propose further amendments? Mr DUFFY —By way of interjection the honourable member for Murray has asked whether there will be further amendments. At this stage we have not been able to deal with all the ARC recommendations. In fact, the ARC recommendations included in this legislation are really the ones to cover the supplementary licence issue . In due course, there will be further implementation of the ARC recommendations . It is correct that, in theory, what the honourable member has raised is a problem. It is unlikely to be a problem in practice because the recommendations will ensure, as I have indicated, that those controversial issues will be identified in pre-hearing documentation of an inquiry. Recommendation 6 provides that submissions should specify particulars of any facts supporting allegations made and any evidence relied upon and the Tribunal may permit the introduction of additional material only after the time for submission has expired if it is reasonable to do so in the circumstances. Although the ARC's recommendations have not yet been incorporated in this legislation, the necessary legislation should certainly be ready for the passage in the autumn 1985 parliamentary sittings. In any case the Tribunal has already implemented many of the new procedures by administrative action. If honourable members sit down and look at a chart of the proposals that have been suggested and what has already been carried out they will see that a lot of these proposals have been implemented by administrative action. The Tribunal chairman would appoint more than one member if controversial issues were identified in that pre-documentation stage. The Bills gives the chairman power to appoint additional members to a division after the commencement of a hearing in the unlikely event that unforeseen issues arise during the hearing and the Tribunal may refuse to renew a licence only on limited criteria which is, of course, specified in the Act. A decision not to renew a licence would of course be appealable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Appeals could also be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Clause 3 of the Bill empowers the Tribunal to appoint additional members to a division or to replace existing members at any time up to the commencement of the licence inquiry hearing. I dealt with that matter in a little more detail than was intended because it was an issue of some significance raised by the honourable member for Murray. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(11.10) —I just wish to reiterate the reasons for the amendments standing in my name to clause 5 of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill. The Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), in closing the second reading debate, basically replied to the submission that I had put as to why the Opposition opposed the inclusion for the first time of the print media in the consideration of the concentration of media ownership criterion. The Minister made the point that such a criterion would be applied only when an independent licence is considered viable. I acknowledge that point and was aware of it. The Minister also made the point that the public interest criterion by itself might have been adequate. That is basically what the Opposition has been saying. We believe the general public interest criterion of the Tribunal should be adequate to serve the purpose of covering the point as to whether or not there is undue concentration of media ownership. I reiterate the reasons we are opposed to sub-paragraph (ii) of clause 5. It is the first time that the print media has been included in the consideration of ownership criteria for a licence application. That does not apply to the other types of licences. Therefore, we see that provision as unfair and inequitable. If we really want to talk about concentration of media ownership we should talk about the three national networks plus those of a secondary nature now developing. One should look for concentration in those networks. They were referred to by the Broadcasting Tribunal in its SPS report. I am certainly not knocking the point of that concentration; I am just saying that we should apply provisions uniformly. This criterion will require the Tribunal to act in a way contrary to its earlier encouragement. At the time regional television was established the backing of established media in an area was very important to get a television station going and to maintain its viability. It is unfair now to turn around in the opposite direction. For those reasons and for the reason that there is already sufficient provision in the public interest criterion for the Tribunal to consider applications, the Opposition opposes that part of clause 5 which concerns concentration of media ownership. I seek leave to move together both amendments to that clause. Leave granted. Mr LLOYD —I move: (1) Clause 5, page 4, lines 1-12, omit sub-paragraph (ii), substitute the following sub-paragraph: ''(ii) that, having considered the need for an adequate and comprehensive service to be provided pursuant to the licence for such an additional station, it is in the public interest that applications for such a licence should be invited; or''. (2) Clause 5, page 4, lines 13-18, omit paragraph (b). Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(11.13) —As I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill, I left to the Committee stage my comments on this part of the legislation. As the Minister mentioned in his rounding up speech, clause 5 (a) (i) provides for the Tribunal to have due regard to whether any additional commercial broadcasting station or television station is: . . . reasonably likely to be commercially viable during the period in which the licence, if granted, would be in force. That is a significant part of the clause. I cannot understand what the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) is on about. In fact, he seeks to replace sub-paragraph (ii). For the life of me I cannot understand what it all means. Is the Opposition saying that it wants to go back to the old legislation and that it does not want concentration of ownership as part of the criteria used by the Tribunal? If the Opposition is saying that it does not want that to be a criterion, why does it not say so? Why does it not put that in its amendments? I put it to you, Mr Chairman, that this is really an extremely important part of the legislation. I have not heard any good argument put forward by the Opposition for why it wishes to exclude concentration of ownership from the Tribunal's consideration. Mr Chairman, I read to you a quote which states: The Government is firmly of the opinion that the ownership of commercial television should be in as many hands as practicable and that it should not be possible for any one organisation to gain control of any substantial number of stations. That was said by the Postmaster-General, Mr Davidson, on introducing the Broadcasting and Television Bill to the Parliament on 19 April 1956. That was in the period of the Menzies Government. By mid-1964, when this new and wonderful industry was only eight years old-a very big industry on any criterion would only be an infant at that stage-concern had already been expressed by many people, including the Cabinet of the then Menzies Government, that the Act failed to prevent a concentration of ownership in commercial television despite Mr Davidson's comments in 1956. The Age newspaper report of 1 August 1964 headed 'Cabinet urged to clamp down on television monopolies' stated that the Postmaster-General, Mr Hulme at that stage, and the Attorney-General, Mr B. M. Snedden, who has become the infamous Sir Billy Snedden, were the chief proponents of a comprehensive review of sections 91 and 92 of the Act. Whilst some very extensive amendments were mooted , the proposals, as originally foreshadowed, were weakened in one significant respect by the time the Bills came before the House. They reported that the amendments would require companies which already held interests in excess of those permitted under the amended Act to divest themselves of surplus interests within three years. However, the Act, as passed, allowed those companies which held such interests before 17 December 1964 to retain them. It would have been a perfect opportunity to fix any problem when the industry was still in its infancy but at that stage we saw Mr Hulme and Mr Snedden, as he was then, side- step that issue and one must ask why. As a result of that action two groups, one of them owned in the United Kingdom, held a prescribed interest in more than two television stations in this country until very recently. I am not sure whether they still do. They may not. But until recently they held a prescribed interest. As we have seen from the quotations I have just made and from the attempts, although failed, of past Ministers of conservative governments, there was some concern about the concentration of ownership. For the life of me I do not see why we should not look at diverging to other concentrations of ownership where, as the Bill states , it is commercially viable for someone to own a television station, a radio station, newspapers and local journals or the like, in a particular area. Surely that is a concentration of ownership. For example, in the major networks area-I will not touch the regional networks-a situation has been perpetrated by the conservative governments of the 1950s and 1960s which has to be addressed. As the honourable member for Murray mentioned earlier, this was addressed in some respects by the recent report of the Tribunal. In Melbourne, for example, people can wake up in the morning, go outside and get the paper from their letter boxes -the Sun News Pictorial-go inside, switch on radio station 3DB and then go to work. They can then come home, turn on the television and watch the Channel 7 news and read the Melbourne Herald. People will hear only the one opinion because the one organisation owns the lot. Mr Lloyd —But you are not interfering with that; you are not challenging it. Mr CHARLES —The honourable member should wait just a minute. He has mentioned an interesting report at which the Government may have to look in the near future. The Tribunal did raise that matter but surely that becomes the situation even more so in a provincial area. In a provincial area it is much more devastating and much more of a one opinion situation if in a town of 30,000 or 40,000 people one person or group owns everything in relation to television, broadcasting and the print media in that area. If another commercial outlet is viable, surely the Tribunal should consider the concentration of ownership. No argument has been put forward this evening as to why the Opposition wants this issue to be put aside. It has put forward no argument. It has not referred to it in its amendments. As I said, if it wanted specifically to make sure that the Tribunal does not consider the concentration of media ownership, why did it not say so in its amendments? The Government is putting this provision into clause 5 so that the Tribunal must take into consideration the concentration of media ownership. It may apply only in a very few circumstances, but as a matter of principle surely the Tribunal, as a matter of course, should consider it if it is applicable in a particular case. All that the legislation is saying is that it should be considered. We are not about to rip off licences from people or change the whole concept of media ownership in a particular area. We are saying that the concentration of media ownership, where it is applicable, should be considered. I think the Minister's summing up of the second reading debate was very applicable to this issue. I have not seen any arguments that the Opposition has put forward to commend its amendments. We on this side of the House will soundly reject them. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.22) —I support the amendments put forward by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). I say by way of introduction to the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) that it is very nice for him to be able to roll out of bed first thing in the morning and read the daily paper. That is something which we cannot do in Maranoa. We can only turn the wireless on and if we are lucky we can actually hear a program. There is usually a fair amount of static at the best of times. Of course, we usually wait three or four days before receiving the daily paper. The honourable member not only gets newspapers daily and has two or three television channels to choose from but also probably picks up a bit of ethnic television, which is of no use to anyone. Most parts of Australia receive ethnic television and radio. I am totally opposed to that concept. I believe we should have one lot of television and radio being beamed across Australia and it all ought to be in English. People in some parts of this country are privileged. In supporting the amendments, I believe it is important that applications for new licences be invited when we run into the sorts of problems that the amendments mention. I also support the fact that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) has at long last issued supplementary licences. It went on for many years when the previous Government was in office. It has taken this Government 18 months to come to the decision of actually putting the proposal before the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. As yet, none of these licences has been issued . Submissions must be put before the Tribunal. The first public hearings will be held in February. In Maranoa two areas are asking for new commercial radio stations. One is Warwick and the other is Emerald. Those areas are looking to obtain more coverage. The radio stations asking for supplementary licences are 4AK at Oakey, 4GR at Toowoomba and 4RO at Rockhampton. In regard to television, there are three channels-Channel 10 Darling Downs, Channel RTQ 7 Rockhampton and Channel Q4 Southern Downs-that have seen fit to ask for additional supplementary licenses. It will be wonderful for people living in these areas who until this time have only had the choice of either the Australian Broadcasting Corporation channel or one commercial channel. On the subject of the ABC, I see that some officers of the Department of Communications are in the chamber. They are pretty good guys to deal with most of the time. I usually have to place pressure on them to get things done, like the radio station at Charleville to which they have allocated a little more money-not a lot-in this Budget. I got $45,000 last financial year; this year I got $85,000. So eventually we are going to get an ABC radio station-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mildren) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Maranoa to remain relevant to the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —I will try to do so, but the thing is that if there are conflicting interests in Charleville and other people look to put up a station there this amendment may have to come into effect. Presently there is not a lot of competition in Charleville. There is only 4VL, a very good station, although the ABC intends establishing a radio station there. For the first time many people living around the Charleville area will actually hear the radio first thing in the morning instead of just slipping out of bed to read the newspapers. I would also like to support the Government's television and radio satellite concept. I believe the Minister is to make an announcement in the House either tomorrow or the next day. We in the National Party support the Government's concept of giving regional networks the spot beam to broadcast yet another regional channel into western Queensland and inland Australia. I have worked very closely with the Minister on this. This is the National Party's concept. We have always supported the concept of using the spot beam to get a signal from the ABC Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service 30-watt transponder, and it will be possible to use the same aerial to pick up a commercial channel. That is what will happen. I have worked very closely with Laurie Burrows, the manager of the channel 10 television station in Toowoomba which covers a very large part of Maranoa. I think another very good innovation is AM stereo radio. I think the Minister ought to be supported to get AM stereo introduced throughout Australia. Those of us who drive around the bush know that, come the summer months, we cannot hear any radio broadcasts because of the amount of static. We all know that it is only when we get close to civilisation that we can pick up an FM station. Only when one gets within 30 miles of Brisbane where the Government Whip, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), lives can one actually start to hear a little radio. In the summer months there is so much static that one can hear nothing on most radio stations, including the ABC. So it will be a very good thing when the Minister lets out licences for AM stereo. Mr Humphreys —A good Minister. Mr IAN CAMERON —I believe he does a good job in this field. I always give credit where credit is due. Those of us who live in the bush are looking forward to the satellite being launched. It is not a Labor initiative. Those of us in that part of the world who have taken an interest in this subject are looking forward to August next year when the satellite will be in place. Most people in Maranoa are really looking forward to that time. I thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman, for giving me indulgence to say those few words. I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Murray. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(11.28) —Very quickly, I thank the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) for his contribution. As I said earlier, it again indicates the concern of honourable members representing remote rural areas about services in those areas. However, I would again like briefly to take up the matter about which the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) have been engaged in some jousting; that is, the question of the concentration of media ownership. It is worth repeating that when the Government was in opposition, whilst it supported the broad thrust of the supplementary licence scheme as outlined by the then Government, we were concerned that it had the potential to exacerbate the concentration of media ownership in a number of areas. As part of that consideration the Government decided that the amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act should require the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, when considering applications for supplementary licences, to have due regard to the concentration of ownership and control of the media in the area concerned. I want to finalise the matter on this point. That is only relevant where it is determined that an independent is viable. In that case, in determining between the existing licensee and the independent, one of the public interest factors that must be taken into account is the concentration of media ownership. I do not think that the amendments moved by the Opposition tonight indicate any real opposition. As I said earlier-this was also pointed out by the honourable member for Isaacs-in my view the public interest provisions in the Opposition's amendments probably in any event take that matter of concentration of media ownership into account. But we have decided that that issue should be put beyond doubt and, in fact, this legislation will put it beyond doubt. I think it is worth nothing that we do not want a matter which has been allowed to exist for too long to be exacerbated. This is not something that surely we can be blamed for when we have regard to the fact that the Australian Labor Party has been in government for only for about four and a half years since television was introduced into Australia in 1956. Reference was made to the Tribunal's report and to some suggestions that the Tribunal made in relation to the breaking up of the control of the large media interests in Australia. If one has a good look at this matter, one can see that this situation was created mainly during the term of office of those opposite. We are saying in respect of this legislation that where there is a new type of licence-that is, a supplementary licence-and where an independent operator is viable, that situation should not be allowed to continue. Question put: That the amendments be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr J. B. Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 32 —— Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller)Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. McLeay, LeoCharles, D. E. Maher, M. J.Charlesworth, R. I. Mayer, H.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. Morris, PeterCross, M. D. Morrison, W. L.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Reeves, J. E.Duffy, M. J. Saunderson, J.Edwards, Ronald Scholes, G. G. D.Everingham, D. N. Scott, J. L.Fatin, W. F. Simmons, D. W.Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Newman, K. E. Fry, K. L.Aldred, K. J. Hurford, C. J.Katter, R. C. Jacobi, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 October, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. 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.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. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D. McM.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. Aldred, K. J.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 3 October, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 36 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lindsay, E. J.Brown, Robert McHugh, J.Brumby, J. M. McLeay, LeoCampbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Child, J. Milton, P.Chynoweth, R. L. Morris, AllanCohen, B. 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.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. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. Wells, D.McMHollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Aldermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Andrew, J. N. Howard, J. W.Blunt, C. W. Hunt, R. J. D.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. McGauran, P. J.Cameron, Donald MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ian Macphee, I. M.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Connolly, D. M. Moore, J. C.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W.Hall, Steele White, P. N. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Fry, K. L. Newman, K. E.Hurford, C. J. Aldred, K. J.Jacobi, R. Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Duffy) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(11.55) —Mr Speaker-- Motion (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.59 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Dawkins to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: 132 kV Subtransmission Development, Tuggeranong , A.C.T.. Mr Dawkins to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgency related to implementation of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Hobart Airport , Tasmania, Extension of runway and terminal facilities. Mr Dawkins to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgent nature of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Accommodation for the National Crime Authority, Sydney, New South Wales. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 9 October 1984: Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act-Orders-1984- M22/84-1985 Performance. MQ9/84-Sheepmeat and/or Goatmeat to EEC-1984 Control scheme. Copyright Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 275. International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations- Statutory Rules 1984, No. 276. Navigation Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 274. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances-1984- No. 52-Land Rent and Rates (Deferment and Remission) (Amendment). No. 53-Land Rent and Rates (Deferment and Remission) (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 54-Motor Traffic (Amendment) (No. 5). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 309) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: Further to the former Treasurer's answer to my question without notice on 28 October 1982 (Hansard, page 2697) and my question No. 5698 (Hansard, 8 December 1982, pages 2342-3), can he say what progress has been made towards setting up within the Australian Taxation Office its own legal division to ensure that the Office will be self-sufficient and accountable in the field of taxation litigation and recovery. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The possibility of setting up a legal division within the Australian Taxation Office has been under consideration for some time. The matter is complex and has wide ramifications for the work of the Taxation Office, the Attorney-General's Department and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Application and enforcement of the taxation laws involve consideration of a wide range of laws, both criminal and civil. Taxation officers, including those in the Appeals and Advising sections of the Taxation Office, deal with such legal matters. For example, the more routine prosecutions under taxation laws are the responsibility of taxation officers. They also conduct cases before the Taxation Boards of Review. These officers are often legally trained, but not always so. In other situations, for example, where engagement of counsel is required, where significant questions about non-revenue laws are involved or there is a more difficult prosecution case, the Commissioner refers the matter to those Commonwealth agencies, staffed by legally qualified officers, having responsibility in the matter. These are the Attorney-General's Department ( Australian Government Solicitor) and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Taxation Office and these agencies enjoy a very co-operative working relationship. The Office of Director of Public Prosecutions has recently been established and a Revenue Branch has been set up within the Attorney-General's Department specifically to render legal assistance to the Taxation Office. In addition, the Attorney-General's Department is in the process of strengthening its Regional Office resources devoted to taxation litigation. While there can be advantages in an agency having self-sufficiency, it has been concluded that the balance of advantage lies in the present, now improved, arrangements I have referred to. These arrangements give the Taxation Office the benefit of the independent professional work of the Commonwealth's legal agencies and mean that each of the agencies, including the Taxation Office, is fully accountable within its area of functional responsibility. (Question No. 314) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to my repeated questions to the former Treasurer in relation to loopholes in section 26AAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act. (2) Is he able to say whether the former Treasurer made a commitment in September 1981 to close loopholes in section 26AAA, and was the former Treasurer 's response and proposed amendments to this section set out in Australian Federal Tax Reporter, Vol. 6, page 61659. (3) Has his attention been drawn to many articles in Taxation in Australia particularly those in October 1977, pages 210-21 and February 1982, page 586, pointing out deficiencies in the drafting of section 26AAA; if so, what does the Government propose to do about these deficiencies. (4) In view of the history of the narrow legalistic interpretation by the courts of these and related matters, will he consider having enacted a more general provision rather than a specific provision, thereby permitting the courts a wider interpretational scope to deal with such matters. (5) Has section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act had an effect on the recent , narrow, legalistic interpretation of taxation legislation. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. In relation to the earlier commentaries mentioned by the honourable member, I observe only that they were written at a time when there had not been any decisions of the courts or Taxation Boards of Review in respect of the operations of the section, and that many of the deficiencies envisaged by the authors have not been found to present real difficulties in practice. I also note that the second article referred to by the honourable member dealt at some length with matters which were the subject of remedial legislation which was enacted in 1982. So far as the Government is aware, those amendments have effectively closed any loopholes that may have existed in the areas concerned. (4) For the reasons I have just outlined, the Government is satisfied that no further amendments to section 26AAA are required at this time. Moreover, the Income Tax Assessment Act was recently amended-by the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act (No. 3) 1984, which received the Royal Assent on 25 June 1984 as Act No. 47 of 1984-to overcome deficiencies in the law concerning the taxation of profits made on the sale of property acquired for the purpose of profit-making by sale. The amendments introduced a new section, section 25A, which covers both the previous operation of section 26 (a) and these remedial measures. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that there is a case for additional provisions along the lines suggested by the honourable member. (5) As there have been only a very limited number of tax cases where the Courts have found it necessary to refer to section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act, it is a little early to judge precisely what effect that section is having on tax litigation. However, the Government is confident that section 15AA, together with the recently enacted provisions of section 15AB of the same Act under which courts may use extrinsic material as an aid to interpretation, will be given full consideration by the courts in their interpretation of the taxation laws. (Question No. 1010) Mr Lusher asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: What amount was paid (a) into and (b) out of, the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund for each category of road in each of the States (i) up to 30 June 1983 and (ii) between 1 July and 1 October 1983. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See my answer to question No. 1406 (Hansard, 4 September 1984, page 574). (Question No. 1413) Mr Lloyd asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 May 1984: Has his attention been drawn to the additional cost problems created for commercial television stations in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, by the imposition of sales tax on video equipment in the last Federal Budget, in that no distinction has been made between program production and taping for later telecasting due to the time zone problem; if so, what is the Government doing to overcome this problem. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The matter raised by the honourable member does not relate to decisions reached in the 1983-84 Federal Budget. Rather it concerns a decision made by the former Government to bring motion picture films, including video tapes of the kind televised by television stations, into the sales tax field with effect on and after 1 January 1983. The effect of that decision was to impose tax at the rate of 7.5 per cent on motion picture films, including video tapes of the kinds televised by television stations, which had previously been exempt. The recording of programs on video tape involves manufacture for sales tax purposes and, when television stations record programs on video tape, sales tax liability is incurred. As indicated, video tapes recorded by commercial television stations (other than advertising video tapes which are taxable at the 20 per cent rate) attract tax at a rate of 7.5 per cent. Manufacture does not take place in the event of a direct telecast such as the televising of a sporting event. Nor is manufacture involved when a television program is televised from a signal received from another television station. This often occurs where, for example, the national news is simultaneously relayed to regional television stations. In some situations, however, programs cannot be simultaneously televised because of time differences and these need to be recorded for later telecasting. As the recording of programs on video tape involves manufacture, a sales tax liability arises on the recording of any program for later playing, whether because of time zone problems or because of any other factor. It is true that some additional sales tax costs will be incurred where programs , because of time lapse problems, have to be recorded and telecast rather than televised directly from an incoming signal. However, because the tax rate is low , any additional costs incurred will not be significant. Also, while commercial television stations in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory may be more involved with recording because of time zone problems, the same position applies to television stations in eastern Australia that record programs received from television stations in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory for later viewing. The Government is aware of the position but it would create an anomaly to provide an exemption for programs recorded on video tapes because of time zone problems while the same or similar programs recorded for reasons other than time zone problems remain taxable. (Question No. 1433) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 May 1984: (1) Further to his answer to Question No. 884 (Hansard, 7 May 1984, pages 1988- 9) why was he unable to provide information on customs duty revenue on fortified wines beyond December 1983 when, this week, the Australian Bureau of Statistics published data for March 1984. (2) Is there an excise on Australian brandy. (3) What are the highly aggregated levels, referred to in his answer, used for estimates of customs duty on imported alcoholic beverages. (4) From the break-up in Australian Bureau of Statistics Customised Report CC01 , is it possible to make an 'intelligent estimate' of revenue for 1983-84; if so , what is the current estimate of revenue from excise on fortifying spirit in 1983-84. (5) For each month since 1 July 1983 (a) what has been the excise revenue collected on clearances of fortifying spirit and (b) for what purposes and in what proportions was the fortifying spirit used. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Delays in tabling the prepared answer to question No. 884 resulted in the latest published data for January and February not being included in the answer at pages 1988-9 of Hansard, 7 May 1984. (2) Yes. The current excise rate on Australian brandy is $17.37 per litre of alcohol. (3) Customs duty collections are estimated in total by reference to general economic variables such as investment, consumer expenditure and stock movements; this methodology does not provide for separate estimates of customs duty collections on individual goods such as alcoholic beverages. (4) It is possible to estimate customs duty revenue for imported beer and spirits from the ABS Customised Report CC01. However, CC01 does not provide information on excise duty collections that applies to domestically-produced spirits. The excise duty collected on fortifying spirit in 1983-84 was about $5m . It should be noted that the Budget decision to impose a sales tax on wine was accompanied by a decision to refund revenue from the excise on fortifying spirit so that fortified wine would not be subject to two tiers of taxation. (5) (a) The following are preliminary estimates, supplied by the Department of Industry and Commerce, of the net monthly collections of excise on fortifying spirit between July 1983 and June 1984: $'000 July . . August 19 September 61 October 74 November 115 December 82 January 107 February 89 March 1,817 April 1,762 May 543 June 316 (b) Fortifying spirit is used to fortify wine but data are not collected on the type of fortified wine the spirit is added to or in what proportions. (Question No. 1469) Mr Lloyd asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 31 May 1984: (1) On how many occasions has the Taxation Office granted sales tax exemption for the Rippa pure fruit juice aerated drinks manufactured by the Ardmona Co., either in writing or verbally, and subsequently withdrawn the exemption. (2) Why have the exemption decisions been withdrawn, in each case. (3) Do any exemptions currently apply. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) In a letter of 19 July 1983 the Taxation Office advised the Ardmona Co. that Rippa soft drink products made by a process involving the reconstitution of fruit juice concentrates were not exempt from sales tax but taxable at the rate of 20 per cent. In a letter of 26 July 1983 the company sought advice on the classification of Rippa products made by a different manufacturing process. The contents of the letter were discussed with senior taxation officials in Canberra on 4 August 1983. Following consideration of expert technical opinion the Taxation Office advised the company on 16 February 1984 that the products were not exempt from sales tax. On 29 July 1983 the company sought advice from the Melbourne branch of the Taxation Office on sales tax exemption for a range of Rippa products. The letter acknowledged receipt of the earlier advice denying exemption but indicated that the company now proposed to manufacture the products from juices and not concentrates. The Melbourne branch gave a written decision on 2 August 1983 that, on the understanding that the particular products consisted wholly of single strength natural juices of Australian fruits with preservatives added and carbonated to an extent comparable to lemonade, the products qualified for exemption. The Melbourne branch was not made aware that the products were to be made by the particular manufacturing processes disclosed in the company's letter of 26 July 1983 or that the matter was the subject of consideration by officials in Canberra. In a letter of 12 August 1983 the company was advised that the decision of the Melbourne branch was not to be taken as granting exemption to the Rippa products which were then under discussion and about which expert advice was being sought. Following the advice of 16 February 1984 that the products were not exempt from sales tax the decision given by the Melbourne branch on 2 August 1983 was finally withdrawn. (3) There is no sales tax exemption for carbonated soft drink products such as lemonade, cola, et cetera, including the Rippa range of carbonated soft drinks. They are taxable at the general rate of 20 per cent. (Question No. 1602) Mr Wells asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) What amount of revenue was raised in 1983-84 through the excise on beer. (2) What proportion of this revenue was raised from excise on low alcohol beer. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Total revenue collected from the excise duty on beer in 1983-84 was $1,159m . (2) There is no breakdown available of excise collections from beer in 1983-84 by alcoholic strength of beer. In 1983-84 the same rate of excise applied to all beers with an alcoholic strength of more than 1.15 per cent by volume. Beer with an alcoholic strength of not more than 1.15 per cent by volume was exempt from excise. There are indications that 'low alcohol' beer-defined as beer with an alcoholic strength of more than 1.15 per cent but not more that 3.8 per cent by volume-currently accounts for approximately 10 per cent of the national market. On that basis, the proportion of revenue collected from low alcohol beer in 1983 -84 would have been of the order of 10 per cent. (Question No. 1609) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: Is the Minister able to say what kind of society the Government envisages current policies in education will produce in the long term. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Government's policies are directed to the achievement of a comprehensive high quality education system which will contribute to a fair and just society without social, cultural or economic discrimination. The Government believes that education is central to economic growth and social harmony in Australia's pluralistic, multicultural society. The best possible match is needed between what is taught in schools and what is required for success in the workforce, or in tertiary education and for participating in a democratic society. Education is not merely a matter of dollars, it is a matter of human aspirations and links between our social and economic life. (Question No. 1610) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: Is it a fact that requirements to make impact studies restrict the right of parents to choose the type of education they want for their children. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: In the 'Guidelines to the Schools Commission' on 14 August 1984, the Government announced its intention to institute new arrangements for the planning and development of new non-government schools. The Government acknowledges that some parents may choose-for educational, religious, cultural or other reasons-non- government schooling for their children. The Commonwealth accepts its responsibility to co-operate with government and non-government education authorities to ensure a satisfactory standard of education for students in non- government schools. In determining the level of its funding of non-government schools, the Commonwealth will take account of schools' educational needs, the efficient use of available resources and the complementary rights of parents who choose public education for their children. The fundamental objective is to ensure that the development of new non- government schools takes place in an orderly fashion, maximising the possibilities of efficient use of resources, and minimising the duplication of places and destabilisation of existing schools. Changes in policy will be implemented in consultation with non-government school and State authorities. (Question No. 1618) Mrs Kelly asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: What was (a) the number of Australian Capital Territory residents who were cared for in New South Wales institutions for the mentally ill, (b) the proportion of the number of these residents who were (i) short term (3 months or less) and (ii) long term (over 3 months) and (c) the total amount paid by the Commonwealth to the New South Wales Government for the care of these patients for each of the years 1978-79 to 1982-83. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 (a) 157 124 121 203 168 (b) (i) 98 58 50 136 113 (b) (ii) 59 66 71 67 55 (c) $720,124 $812,353 $789,874 $1,130,819 $1,557,691 (Question No. 1635) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency of statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) At any given time, a proportion of the Defence housing stock will always be vacant due to tenant changeovers or while repair and maintenance work is underway. Information is not readily available on the number of houses vacant on 18 June 1984, as records of vacancies are not maintained on a day-by-day basis. However details of vacancies on 31 July 1984 are available. Of the 915 dwellings held at that time in the Australian Capital Territory for Service personnel, 32 were vacant for the following reasons: Allocated and awaiting removal of furniture and effects-9 Undergoing repairs and refurbishment-11 Old sub-standard houses at Defence establishments awaiting disposal and removal from sites-12. (2) No. (Question No. 1679) Mr Blanchard asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: What revenue is expected to be collected in 1984-85 from (a) the tax on wine, ( b) the excise on beer and (c) the tax on mineral and soda water. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Estimated revenue collections in 1984-85 are: (a) sales tax on alcoholic wine: $44m (this represents a disaggregation of the estimate of $45m for alcoholic wine and alcoholic cider provided in Budget Paper No. 1, page 299). (b) excise duty on beer: $1,212m. (c) sales tax on mineral water and soda water: Of the order of $20m. (Question No. 1681) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Age of 21 August 1984, which reported the Commander-in-Chief of US forces in the Pacific as stating that the construction of new military support facilities at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam could result in an alarming Soviet military presence in South East Asia and threaten trade and communication routes between the Indian and Pacific Oceans that are vital to Australia, and further that the Pacific fleet had become the largest of the Soviet Union's 4 fleets and comprised more than 30 per cent of the Soviet navy. (2) Is he able to provide details of the movement of Soviet naval ships in the north, west and south Pacific; if not, why not. (3) Has his attention also been drawn to recent reports concerning the placement of mines in Red Sea waters, and the necessity for joint Egyptian, US, British and French operations to remove these mines; if so, do these events, and other recent events, indicate the importance of comprehensive data on naval movements in the Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden and the Persian Gulf. (4) Will he undertake to provide information on these movements. (5) Will he bring up to date the information given in answer to question No. 862 parts (1) and (5) (Hansard, 28 February 1984, pages 109-110) concerning the movement of naval ships in the Indian Ocean, and possible significant development for Soviet naval purposes at Dahlak Island, Aden, Socotra and the Bay of Turbah. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Comprehensive and detailed data on naval movements in the North and West Pacific is derived from a variety of sources, including sensitive intelligence sources and information made available by allies on a confidential basis. It would not be appropriate for the Australian Government to make such data publicly available. There has been no significant naval activity in the South Pacific since the information given in response to your question No. 160 ( Hansard, 6 September 1983, page 439). (3) Yes. (4) As with the data on naval movements in the North West Pacific, data on movements in these areas is derived from a variety of sources, including sensitive intelligence sources and information made available by allies. However , the information provided below in response to Question 5 on Indian Ocean activity, which is drawn from unclassified sources, takes in naval ship movements in these peripheral waters. (5) Monthly class/day figures of Soviet naval and naval associated ships which operated in the Indian Ocean during the period 1st November 1983 to 31st August 1984 are shown in the following table. The information given in response to previous questions concerning developments at Dahlak Island, Aden, Socotra Island, and the Bay of Turbah remains current. Soviet Naval Activity Indian Ocean (ship days) November 1983-August 1984 Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Aircraft Carrier KIEV 30 31 31 15 - - - - - - Cruisers MOSKVA - - - - - - - - - 9 KARA 35 62 62 44 31 28 - - - - Destroyers KASHIN 30 20 - - - - - - - - KOTLIN - - - - - - 26 30 31 31 Frigate KRIVAK 35 62 68 73 42 30 57 60 52 50 PETYA - 7 - - - - - - - - Submarines ECHO II 30 3 - - - - - - - - MOD ECHO II - 12 31 15 9 - - - - - FOXTROT - 12 31 29 62 46 31 22 - - CHARLIE - - - 11 31 30 31 48 31 31 KILO - - - - - - - - 20 31 Patrol Craft NANUCHKA - - - - - 5 31 12 - - Minesweeper NATYA 31 22 - 8 9 - - 26 31 48 Landing Ships ROPUCHA 32 62 38 29 31 30 31 22 - - IVAN ROGOV 5 31 31 15 - - - - - - ALLIGATOR - - - - - 5 31 30 31 40 Auxiliaries TUGS 30 31 31 33 62 33 31 30 44 31 OILERS 49 104 119 66 31 30 31 30 38 47 REPAIRSHIPS 30 31 31 29 48 46 31 30 31 31 SUB TENDERS 12 - - 8 31 30 31 30 31 31 MERCHANT TANKERS 60 62 43 51 62 60 77 35 32 31 MISCELLANEOUS 120 139 150 140 124 130 133 162 131 137 OCEANOGRAPHIC 120 117 93 66 - 25 53 50 44 88 HYDROGRAPHIC 30 61 93 80 62 59 31 30 42 57 INTEL COLLECTORS - - 18 29 31 28 - - - 31 HOSPITAL SHIPS - 31 1 29 31 30 3 - - - (Question No. 1699) Mr Goodluck asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 September 1984: (1) How many (a) cadet units and (b) cadets were there operating with full support in (i) June 1983 and (ii) June 1984. (2) Of these units, how many were from the (a) independent school system and (b ) public school system. (3) Under the new system of operation for the Australian Army Cadet Units, how many units in (a) the independent school system and (b) the public school system have been designated (i) full support and (ii) limited support. (4) How many regional cadet units have been raised in the (a) north, (b) north west and (c) south of Tasmania. (5) Under the reorganisation how many cadets will there be (a) receiving full support and (b) not receiving full support. (6) What is the overall cost-saving factor of the new system in relation to the overall defence budget. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There were 164 cadet units and 20,317 cadets operating with full support in June 1983. On 1 July 1984, when the new scheme was introduced, there were 18 units with a strength of 1,335 cadets fully supported. (2) Of the 164 cadet units receiving full support in June 1983, 59 were from the independent school system, 97 were from the public school system and eight were based on Army Reserve depots. On 1 July 1984, when the new scheme was introduced, there were ten units from the public school system receiving full support while there was none from the independent school system. A further eight units based on Army Reserve depots were also receiving full support. (3) Under the new system it is understood that 122 school units will continue with limited support. Of these 49 are units based on independent schools and 73 are based on government schools. Up to twenty regional cadet units will be raised progressively in the financial year 1984-85 depending on community response. These will be centred on Army Reserve depots and will incorporate the 18 existing fully supported units. No independent school units will be designated as full support. (4) It is planned to raise one Regional Cadet Unit in Tasmania in financial year 1984-85. This will be titled 60 Regional Cadet Unit and will be centred on the Warrane Depot of 40 Independent Rifle Company. It will incorporate the Rokeby High School Cadet Unit which is already receiving full support having been classified as disadvantaged. It is planned to continue limited support for six school cadet units in Tasmania. (5) In the first year of operating the new scheme up to 4,200 cadets may receive full support. About 16,000 cadets may receive limited support. These figures will change if, as I said in my press release of 16 August 1984, more regional cadet units are raised depending on the community response to the new scheme and the availability of resources. (6) Total savings are estimated to be approximately $7.0m in a full financial year. Mr Lionel Bowen —On 10 September 1984 (Hansard, page 853) Mr Peacock asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General the following question, without notice: Is Mr Gyles being replaced by another QC to follow up his work on tax evasion? If he is not, how can the Government say that Mr Temby, whom we know has inadequate powers, can do the job that in any case fully occupied Mr Gyles as well as do his other work? The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member 's question: On the expiration of the appointment of Mr R. Gyles QC as Special Prosecutor the tasks being performed by Mr Gyles and the staff of his office were taken over by the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Ian Temby QC. Mr Temby is spending several days a week in what had been the office of the Special Prosecutor acquainting himself with the work of that office so that he can decide what final arrangements should be made in that regard. So far as the particular tasks are concerned, save for the question of civil remedies currently being considered by the Government, the powers of the Director are not significantly different from those of a special prosecutor and therefore neither Mr Temby nor the Attorney-General see appointment of a new special prosecutor in place of Mr Gyles as necessary or appropriate. (Question No. 1775) Mr Brumby asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 September 1984: (1) In which sections of the work being done by the Australian Headquarters Survey Regiment Unit at Fortuna in Bendigo, is there overcrowding. (2) What new buildings, extensions or improvements to existing buildings would be necessary to overcome this overcrowding. (3) What buildings are presently available at Bonegilla, Vic., for the cartographic typographic, printing and administrative work now being done by the AHQ Survey Regiment at Bendigo. (4) If the full AHQ Survey Regiment at Bendigo is transferred to Bonegilla after 1992, is he able to say whether any new buildings or extensions or improvements to existing buildings would have to be provided at Bonegilla for working accommodation; if so, what is the estimated cost of these provisions. (5) Do any plans exist for the provision of facilities and accommodation at Bonegilla for the AHQ Survey Regiment. Mr Scholes —The interim answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The honourable member's series of questions relate to earlier Defence planning to move the Army Survey Regiment from its present location at Bendigo. I have recently directed my Department to undertake a detailed review of options for the location of the Regiment. As the matters canvassed in the honourable member's questions will be addressed in that review, it would be inappropriate to attempt to provide answers now. I will, however, look again at the honourable member's questions when the review is completed.