Wednesday, 27 March 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Consideration resumed from 22 March. Senate's amendment- Page 6, paragraph 5 (1) (c), line 39, leave out '1 July 1980', insert '12 May 1982'. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(10.02) — I move: That the amendment be agreed to. The Bill to which this amendment relates originated in this House and after passage on 28 February was transmitted to another place where it was, notwithstanding the Government's dissent, amended by altering the commencement date from 1 July 1980 to 12 May 1982. The original commencement date of 1 July 1980 reflected the Government's clearly announced policy endorsed by the people of Australia on two occasions so far to employ retrospective legislation to ensure that tax sought to be avoided under blatant tax avoidance schemes would be recovered, irrespective of when the schemes were entered into. Let me make it clear that the Government adheres to the view that a credible threat of retrospective legislation is the only certain way to smash the tax avoidance industry and ensure that it is not revived. In my second reading speech on the introduction of this legislation, I outlined the trust stripping arrangements to which these measures are directed. It is generally acknowledged that these trust stripping arrangements constitute a tax avoidance scheme of the most blatant kind with no redeeming features. As explained during the second reading debate on the Bill, most of the schemes against which these measures are directed were entered into between 1 July 1980 and 11 May 1982 and, of the estimated $10m in revenue that is at risk, the great majority-$9.5m-relates to that period. Acceptance of the amendment now before the House will mean that there is little likelihood that the $9.5m will ever be recovered from those who benefited from these blatant and artificial tax avoidance schemes. Nevertheless, the Government has decided that the amendment should be agreed to. That action is not to be taken as any weakening of our resolve to continue to propose to this Parliament retrospective legislation whenever necessary to recoup lost taxes from those minded to cheat on their fellow Australians. Not to pass this Bill in its amended form would be an open invitation to exploit in the future this apparent weakness in the tax law. This Government is simply not prepared to let that happen. With those comments I indicate that the Government seeks the acceptance by this House of the amendment of this Bill. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.04) —The Opposition welcomes the fact that the amendment proposed in this House was in fact inserted in the legislation when it went to another place. In that context, I simply repeat that the amendment inserted by the Senate, now to be accepted by the Government, which is the second thing the Opposition welcomes, of course stipulates that the legislation shall operate from the date of a clear and unambiguous warning that the former Government made in relation to these practices on 11 May 1982. As I said in my speech during the second reading debate on the Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Bill when it was last before the House, the nature of that warning was such that anybody who engaged in these practices after that date could hardly complain if legislation striking down such practices was subsequently enacted with effect from that date. The more significant thing to note is that all the huffing and puffing of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about this issue has been found to be at naught at the first whiff of Senate grapeshot on the subject. We have heard a lot from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer not only in the election campaign and subsequently but also in this place that the people will be marched up to face the bar of public opinion on the subject. The fact is that the Government's case on this was phoney and fraudulent from the word go. What the Senate has done is the commonsense thing. The Senate has inserted a fair and reasonable starting date, not an unreasonable, unfair starting date, and I am delighted that at the eleventh hour the Government has had the good sense to accept it. I suppose that it is fair to say, though, that the Treasurer has other tax matters on his mind apart from this Bill. I take the opportunity of wishing him well in his continuing debate with those in his own party who would seek to delay the cause of sensible taxation reform. We all know that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are very preoccupied with the subject of taxation. If I were the Treasurer I would start to worry a little about the Prime Minister. I would start to worry because the Prime Minister is starting to wobble. He said in Ottawa that he was not going to commit political hari-kari over the subject of taxation. He said that 99 per cent of the Australian population wanted taxation reform but he was not going to commit hari-kari, he was not going to do anything. What is he waiting for? Is he waiting for 100 per cent of the Australian community to express support for a particular taxation package? No Prime Minister and no Treasurer in the history of this country have had a better opportunity to bring about taxation reform than this Prime Minister and this Treasurer. Unlike the Australian Labor Party when it was in opposition, this Opposition is taking a constructive attitude to the question of taxation reform. We are not just opposing taxation reform put forward by the Government for the sake of opposition. We have already expressed our support for the principal element of reform that is required if the Government is to achieve anything over the next couple of months; that is, the broadening of the indirect tax base. The Treasurer's own views on this, to his credit, are very well known. I can only wish him well. I am sure that all sensible people on this side of the House wish the Treasurer well in his continued fight with the troglodytes in his party on the subject of taxation reform. If they have their way they will not achieve the goal of sensible taxation reform because what they are doing to their own Treasurer and their own Prime Minister is taking the negative and destructive attitude that the Labor Party as a whole took to the cause of taxation reform in earlier years. I think it will be a great pity if, as a result of the taxation summit that the Prime Minister so summarily called during the election campaign, and as a result of all the negotiations that are now going on not only within the Labor Party but also within the community, some plan of taxation reform does not emerge. To that extent it is to be hoped that the saner elements inside the Government prevail-and more power to the arm of those elements on this subject. I do not let this opportunity go by without reminding the Treasurer that the item on the taxation summit agenda that has not been canvassed a great deal is the whole question of what makes it possible to bring about some restraint in the growth of taxation receipts. I know that the Treasurer does not like to be reminded of it and he tries to suggest that it is otherwise, but he does happen, technically, and in reality, to be the largest taxing Treasurer in Australia's history. He does not like to be reminded of that but he is. Nothing in the official Treasury documents presented at the time of the last Budget can in any way deny or alter that fact. What the Opposition would like to see the Government talking about a little more at the time of the taxation summit is expenditure levels. Everyone knows-the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) know better than anybody in their Party-that to talk about taxation reductions, whether one is talking about indirect taxation, personal taxation or any other kind of taxation that the Government may be thinking of introducing, without talking about the overall level of government spending is, of course, to talk a nonsense. I think it is a great pity that the Government has not already indicated that it will spend a little time at the taxation summit talking about how to bring about some restraint in the future growth of government expenditure. The other thing he does not like to be reminded of, of course, is that under his Treasurership the rate of increase in government spending has averaged 6.5 to 7 per cent in real terms. That is not a bad effort. He likes to talk a great deal about the past but he does not talk too much about the immediate past. Of course, he does not come out of the immediate past, in relation to expenditure restraint, terribly well, despite all of his windy rhetoric. So the Opposition very much welcomes the fact that the Government has accepted, without further demur, the amendment that was inserted into this legislation in the Senate. It was a sensible and fair amendment. The Government should never have had the gall in the first place to propose to this Parliament an operative date of 1 July 1980. The warning date, which I gave as Treasurer in the former Government, of 11 May 1982 was clearly the right commencement date for this legislation. It is to the credit of the Senate and to the belated credit of the Government that it has finally accepted this. But let not the acceptance of that allow to go unremarked the fact that, for all the huffing and puffing about how the Government will make the Opposition stand up and be counted on this issue, and all the clanging of cymbals and beating of drums by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister on this subject, when it has finally came to the crunch the Government has walked away from any kind of argument on this question. Mr Hunt —A big backdown. Mr HOWARD —Of course it is. I think it is sensible for the Government to have done that. It just shows how much hot air emanated from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on this subject. We must understand fully that the Treasurer has other tax fish to fry at present, which, of course, are much more important than this measure or an argument on this measure. All I can say is that I wish the Treasurer and the Prime Minister well. I know that all the people on this side of the House who are interested in the cause of taxation reform welcome this. I see how enthusiastic people like the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) are about the cause of taxation reform. I know how much all those other absent friends of his, who sit in the corner, love to talk about the cause of taxation reform. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) is an expert. We have all read the book of the honourable member for Melbourne on the cause of taxation reform. We all look forward with great interest to the unfolding drama of Labor in conference on the subject of taxation reform. I can say only that the good wishes of the Opposition are with the cause of rational and sensible reform with more strength going to the arm of those in the Government who are trying to tread on the neck of their colleagues in the socialist Left of the Labor Party on the subject of taxation reform. It is to be hoped that the cause of sensible taxation reform, as espoused by the Treasurer and some of his colleagues on some issues, triumphs and that the attitudes of the troglodytes in the socialist Left and the Centre Left of the Labor Party on this issue are totally and completely defeated. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.14) —This is a day of shame for this Parliament and Australia. It is a day of shame for the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and their allies in the Senate. I indicated on a previous occasion that the Australian Democrats, in particular, needed to give a great deal of attention to the matter of their credibility before the Australian electors. Their reduced credibility was shown at the time of the last election. They were not even able to get a quota, in their own right, to have their members elected to the Senate. They will find, as the members of the Liberal and National parties will find, that the Australian people increasingly will become aware of the shameful record they have in connection with tax avoidance and tax evasion. If we were looking for any cases of blatant artificial and contrived schemes in order to ensure that it would be made perfectly clear to those people in the Australian community who want to participate in them that they were not going to be allowed to get away with it, the particular schemes this legislation was designed to remedy are cases in point. Examples were given of people who were able to channel their funds into trust arrangements so it was made to appear that donations had been made, for example, to various public institutions, but the money stayed with the people who earned it in the first place. They were able to avoid their taxes and the public institutions which were supposed to benefit from those donations would not benefit until decades later, during which time the real value of those supposed donations would have been significantly reduced. This is just part of a continuing saga on the part of the Opposition forces within this Parliament to ensure, as far as they possibly can, that the opportunities for the Government to attack effectively tax evasion and tax avoidance will be severely diminished. We all remember the effect of the position adopted by the Opposition so far as the bottom of the harbour legislation was concerned, which resulted in the Government being unable to pick up any of that lost tax, and the same thing will apply in connection with this. As a result of that amendment, which varies the starting date for the operation, instead of picking up what is really a measly amount of money-the $10m that had been lost as a result of these arrangements-the national Treasury will now pick up only $500,000. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) made the claim that this Government is imposing the highest level of tax in the history of the Commonwealth. In nominal terms that is perfectly correct. In real terms the amount of tax that is being collected by this Government is essentially the same as the real value of tax that was collected by the Fraser Government in its last year and, as a proportion of gross domestic product, it is about the same percentage as well. There are two elements which have the effect of reducing the significance of that percentage. The first is the fact that we took the contributions of people towards their medical insurance out of the private sector and put them into the Budget accounts. That was a transfer of one per cent which went on top of the personal income tax contributions and made our tax collections look higher. It was just a transfer of health expenditure out of the private sector and into the public sector. The second reason why it was necessary for us to raise additional tax was to finance the increasing interest burden we had inherited as a result of the disastrous fiscal policies that had been pursued by our predecessors-enormous borrowing programs. The record shows that it absolutely exploded under the previous Government. The Opposition when in Government was not prepared, as this Government has indicated it is prepared, to act courageously in connection with fiscal policy. The Treasurer has indicated on other occasions that as a result of the oil levy alone, which gave the former Government an additional $3 billion, there was an opportunity it could have and should have taken to restructure the whole of the taxation system and to introduce greater equity and fairness. It lost the opportunity. It got that money and it used the additional funds for the grandiose spending programs it introduced. Its history of fiscal irresponsibility, its history as defenders and protectors of tax dodging and the tax avoidance and evasion sections of the Australian community, will last as a permanent damnation of the conservative forces in Australian politics. Honourable members opposite should stay in this building because when they return to their electorates and go out into the Australian community they will have to hang their heads in shame. On two occasions now the Australian people have passed judgment on the position that honourable members opposite have adopted in this place, and they will continue to pass judgment until they can be sure that that once great tradition that had been maintained by the Liberal Party in the past-the party that was established by Sir Robert Menzies-can be restored again. Honourable members opposite are losing integrity and credibility. They have been relegated on two occasions by the Australian people, who look to this place for courageous leadership. The Opposition has failed and will continue to be rejected by the Australian people while it persists with these serious, damnable deficiencies. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(10.21) —The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, said that the Government had backed down and that we are all hot air on this tax avoidance issue-- Dr Harry Edwards —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -The Treasurer is not closing the debate. Dr Harry Edwards —Is it not the usual practice for a member on this side to have the call? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The Treasurer rose first. Mr KEATING —I did not know that anyone else was interested. Anyway, I will continue. Let me say this: We will be presenting the unpaid company tax legislation again to the House. It has been rejected in the Senate on a couple of occasions. We are not in any way demurring from that position. We are accepting this sleazy amendment because, if we do not do so, we will let off the people even from that time onwards. It is as simple as that. The Deputy Leader knows that his amendment has allowed the majority of this $9.5m not to be collected. That is the standard which the coalition parties abide by these days. My colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) referred to the diminishing standards of the Liberal Party. That is why the Government is accepting the amendment: It is better to catch some of it than none of it. We are forced into that position by the behaviour of the Deputy Leader and his colleagues in the Senate. Let me deal with a couple of other points. He started to talk about tax reform. I want to correct him on one major point. He said that this Government has the best opportunity ever to introduce tax reform. He is wrong. His Government had the best opportunity ever. That Government had control of both Houses of Parliament. This Government has control only of the House of Representatives. He was Treasurer when the great bite of inflation through the tax system compressed the scales and lifted the marginal rates. He was Treasurer when the Government received $3 billion of new tax money from the crude oil levy. He had a great opportunity to do something about restructuring the Australian tax system and he squibbed it, and so did the then Prime Minister, who was not interested in reforming anything. I wonder why Malcolm Fraser ever saw for himself a mission in politics, except to sit in the Prime Minister's chair and do nothing, to accept the accolades of office without seeking to make the place any better than it was on the day he arrived. It stands as a testimony to the former Treasurer's lack of influence on that Prime Minister that he could not introduce any of the concepts which he espoused, be they in regard to deregulation of the financial community, the financial system, or the tax system. He was not able to persuade the former Prime Minister to implement any of those policies. All I can say is that I do not think I would choose him as counsel to represent me if I were outside this place and he was in his old profession, because he is obviously so unpersuasive that one would be depending on a rotten stick if one depended on him to change anybody's point of view. Now he says that the Government has a great opportunity to reform the tax system, as distinct from the opportunity which the Opposition had. He says: 'We will be the most helpful Opposition, as distinct from the Australian Labor Party'. Let us examine that. His leader said two weeks ago that the Opposition would pass this Government's tax reform legislation, whatever it happened to be, because the Government had a mandate for it. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was right; we have a mandate for it. We resisted the vile attacks on us in the election campaign so as to have the option of considering all the options in tax reform. Our mandate is a clear one. It is whatever the Government brings to the table on tax reform. Mr Ruddock —A blank cheque? Mr KEATING —Yes, we got the right to a blank cheque on tax reform. Mr Howard —Have you? That is very interesting. Mr KEATING —Yes, it is very interesting. We got a right to that. We would not close off the tax options in the election campaign. That is our mandate. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) understands this. I will hold him to this. He said to his leader: 'How dare you say that you will pass the Government's legislation?' He and the other phoneys in his Party who speak with a forked tongue on this issue met with the rest of the snow bunnies in Thredbo and broke their leader's legs on it. The honourable member should not say here that he is going to be co-operative. He is co-operative on one thing only-the indirect tax issue. He is not co-operative on anything else. He knows that anything to do with tax reform has to be done in a number of areas. He is not sincere about this. He is saying: 'If you pass my bit, that will be it'. I repeat: This Government kept the option open in the election campaign to have an open consideration of the tax system. Mr Hunt —You have no mandate. You were too gutless to commit yourself. Mr KEATING —Fancy the honourable member talking about being gutless! What did he ever get through Cabinet in his life? He is one of the members of the National Party of Australia who opposed every decent thing the honourable member for Bennelong wanted to do. He is one to take the blame for that, so do not let us hear from him. The cowards of the National Party, the hill-billies of the National Party, have only ever stood for sticking their hands in the public purse and handing it to a small constituency. The whole reason for their existence in politics is putrid. It is absolutely putrid to think that they have legitimised themselves since the 1920s when their leader climbed the back stairs and did the dirty deal with Stanley Melbourne Bruce. Earle Page did the dirty deal and from that day on that vile constituency, the National Party, did nothing else but get its hand in the public purse. Let us hear nothing from the honourable member ever about principle, courage or decency. He is part of that sleazy party that had no principle ever on anything. Let me make this point clear. Mr Cohen —You should see the grin on Howard's face. He is enjoying it immensely. Mr KEATING —He knows every word of it is true. That is why he is enjoying it. Another thing I found interesting in the remarks of the former Treasurer a few minutes ago was that he talked about our being the largest taxing government. The fact is that that is technically untrue, because of course he includes the Medicare levy. The more important point is: Who allowed this massive increase in taxes and in the public deficits of this country? No one but the former Treasurer. He then said that the summit ought to be about expenditure. The question is: What sort of tax system should there be at any given level of expenditure? That is the question to ask about tax reform. The tax summit is not, can never be and will not be a discussion about expenditure control. It is about what sort of tax system there will be at any given level of expenditure. That is the question concerning tax reform in this country. This Government has placed upon itself in the trilogy the most rigorous discipline that any government has ever faced. That is more than the coalition parties have ever done in terms of expenditure control. That is why it is a red herring for the Opposition to talk about expenditure control and in the same breath speak of tax reform. The former Treasurer is found wanting in tax reform and in basic fiscal reform. He took $3 billion of the crude oil levy and spent it. He did not use any of the opportunities that were around. Although I welcome any support he is prepared to give the Government on some issues, I am still in a position to distinguish. The basic point is that he will support the things he wants and oppose the things he does not want. He is not about passing a tax reform package and he made the Leader of the Opposition recant the clear statement he made when he said that this Government had kept the tax options open and had a blank cheque to introduce its platforms. He said that on the Sunday program three weeks ago. The former Treasurer spent all of the next week breaking the Leader of the Opposition's legs and then took him with the snow bunnies to Thredbo. In terms of tax avoidance, I remember the day the former Treasurer came into this Parliament with the McCabe-Lafranchi report and said that it was a political stunt by the Victorian Premier. One needs a good memory in politics. Mr Howard —Yes, I have a very long memory. I will remind the Treasurer of a few things he said in the last election campaign. Mr KEATING —I remember the day the former Treasurer hid behind section 16 of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act. He said that he did not even know the names of the people in the bottom of the harbour debate and therefore could not do anything about it. The fact is that the Commissioner of Taxation had put these schemes under the former Treasurer's nose for years and written him pleading letters for years to do something about them. What happened? We had the greatest tax scandal ever. Yet I must say this of the former Treasurer. Without any sense of shame, he is saying to me: 'You have got to fix fiscal policy; you have a better chance to reform the tax system; you are the biggest spending Treasurer. What about your public deficits?' Let the public make its judgment. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.33) —The Treasurer (Mr Keating) never spoke a truer word than a moment ago when he said that one has to have a good memory in politics. I am delighted he said that. Perhaps I should remind the Treasurer of a few things he said about taxation measures of the former Government that he would not like to be reminded of now. I remind him of when the former Government increased the crude oil levy, the one he keeps reminding us of. What did he say? He said that the Government had established a branch of the Taxation Office at every petrol bowser in Australia. All I can say to the Treasurer is that he has been Treasurer for two years now and he has not closed down any of those branches. So much for this Treasurer who comes into the House and says these things. This has been a revealing debate in two respects. The first thing it has revealed is the extraordinary sensitivity of this Treasurer on the question of tax reform. The other revealing contribution of the Treasurer to this debate was to come into this Parliament and say: 'Listen, you fellows on the other side, we in the Labor Party have a blank cheque on the subject of taxation'. All I can say is 'Thank you very much' to the Treasurer, because when senior Ministers of any government start telling the Australian public that they have a blank cheque to do anything they like, they are heading for a big thump. This Treasurer has been too clever by half this morning in coming in here and saying to the Australian public: 'We are taking you for granted. We have a blank cheque'. How do honourable members think the people of Australia will cop this arrogant Treasurer saying to them: 'Well, we do not care what you think now. Because we did not come clean about our intentions during the election campaign, we regard ourselves as having a blank cheque'? All I can say to the Treasurer is: Thank you very much for that little piece of spontaneous arrogance. The Treasurer, in his typically arrogant manner, has said this morning, to the Australian public: 'We regard you as a load of mugs. We have a blank cheque. We kept quiet on the subject of-- Mr Keating —You are the one-- Mr HOWARD —The Treasurer is getting sensitive now that he has been caught out. The old silver tongue just went a little too far this morning, did it not? He really was just a little too clever. He was rollicking in self-delusion, and what did he do? He just went a little too far and committed the cardinal blunder for any politician, no matter what party or faction he belongs to, and that is that he took his voting public for granted. If there is one thing that the Australian public will not tolerate from any politician, whether he be a Labor politician, a Liberal politician or a National Party politician, it is that kind of studied arrogance. What the Treasurer is really saying to the Australian public and especially to the participants of the taxation summit is: 'To the devil with what you might think. You have no right to complain about anything we do in the taxation area'. Government members-No. Mr HOWARD —What else does a blank cheque mean? In other words, what the Treasurer is saying is: 'By your silence in the face of my duplicity we regard ourselves as having taken a blank cheque on the subject of taxation'. All I can say to the Treasurer is that over the weeks and months ahead he will live to regret having made those arrogant remarks. He will live to regret having taken the Australian public for granted. He will suffer the same fate as any other Australian politician would deserve to suffer if he took his voting public for granted. The truth is that the only side of politics willing to put a tax program at the last election was the coalition. We went to that election with a taxation program. What did the Treasurer do? Not only does he come into the Parliament now, with his studied arrogance, taking the public for granted and treating it in a derisory, arrogant way, as is his custom, but also in the election campaign whenever the subject of indirect taxation came up and whenever our proposals on indirect taxation were debated, he attacked them. Yet now back in government he is going to make a proposal in this regard not only to his own Party but at the taxation summit. The Treasurer has had an incredible number of positions on this issue. When he was last in opposition he joined with his then Leader and the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in attacking a broadening of the taxation base. They joined in with all the scaremongering tactics of every interest group in the Australian community. They fuelled the flames of ignorant criticism of sensible taxation reform. When the Treasurer got into government he suddenly went quiet on that subject. Last year his views were quoted in the Melbourne Age. Having been reminded of what he said about indirect taxation when he was in opposition, he made the famous statement 'Oh, now that we are in government times have moved on. What we said in opposition was for the purposes of getting into government but now that we are in government we are in an entirely different position'. That was mark II in the development of the Treasurer's position on indirect taxation. Mark III was developed in the election campaign. We put forward a taxation program that continued our consistent support for the principle of broadening the taxation base and using the revenue to lower income tax. What did he do then? He attacked it. Now we have mark IV. He has changed around again and now, to his credit, he is fighting with his own left wing the cause of sensible taxation reform. The Treasurer really put his foot in it this morning. He could not resist the temptation to try to score a cheap smart alec political point. He has been caught out. What the Treasurer of this country has said to the Australian people and what he has said potentially to the participants at the taxation summit is this: 'We do not really care what you think; because we were able to get away with what we got away with in the last election campaign, because we would not say what we were going to do on the subject of taxation, we regard ourselves as having a blank cheque'. It was not a slip of the tongue. Mr Keating —No, it was not; absolutely. I agree with you. Mr HOWARD —Of course, he now repeats it. It was not a slip of the tongue. He is really saying: 'We do not care, we are so superior. I am so clever. I have got so carried away with my own importance in my position that I do not really have to worry about the ordinary constraints and the ordinary bar of Australian public opinion'. We on this side of the House have a message for the Treasurer. If there is one thing the Australian voter, for all his alleged apathy, will not allow to happen it is that he be treated as a mug. What this Treasurer has done this morning, in his incitable, voluble arrogance, is to slip into a very, very interesting exposure of his real thoughts and his real contempt towards the Australian public. What the Treasurer has done this morning is, in effect, to say to the Australian community: 'Because we got away with our silence and our deceit during the last election campaign, you have to cop anything we give you'. That is the measure of the arrogance of this man. It is a measure of the sensitivity he feels on the question of taxation reform. The Treasurer does not like being reminded of having taken an inconsistent attitude in government as compared with his stance in opposition. He can carry on as much as he likes about differences of opinion that may have existed within the ranks of the former Government on certain issues. What he cannot get away with and what he cannot expunge from the understanding and the knowledge of this Parliament and of the Australian people is the totally negative and destructive attitude that he and his colleagues took towards every single reform measure adopted by the last Government. He sneers at the former Prime Minister of this country. The fact is that every time that Government and that Prime Minister introduced any reform measure, he was in the forefront of negative destructive opposition. He opposed import parity pricing. He opposed indirect taxation. He opposed financial deregulation when it was first mooted, and he accused the former Government of being the tools of the multinationals. Now he is very happy to bathe in the consensus and the bipartisanship of financial deregulation. But the worst sin of all was the arrogant admission this morning that as far as the Treasurer of this country is concerned, he regards the Australian public as a lot of mugs and he is going to treat them so. He will live to rue the day he ever made that admission. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(10.43) —The people I regard as a lot of arrogant mugs are the Opposition parties in this Parliament. Let us get that clear. The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) stood up at the election campaign and said: 'What the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) want from this country in this election campaign is a blank cheque on taxation policy'. That is what he said we wanted and in fact that is what we were able to secure. Mr Spender —I raise a point of order. Is the Treasurer closing the debate? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -No, he is not. Mr Spender —I am very glad to hear that. Mr KEATING —That is what he said: 'What the Treasurer and the Prime Minister want in this election campaign is a blank cheque on tax reform'. He used every trick in the book to close off the tax options for tax reform, for a genuine tax debate in this country. He tried to close off all of the options. He knows where he stands on capital gains taxes. I know where he personally stands on the capital gains taxes. Mr Howard —Tell me more about myself. Mr KEATING —He stands in favour of them, but he stood up in the election campaign and mealy-mouthed this Party for daring to suggest that that remain an open issue. He said: 'The Prime Minister and the Treasurer really want a blank cheque on tax reform in this country'. Our position is quite clear. Both the Prime Minister and I have said on tax reform in this country that there must be broad community support for it. We made that one of the nine principles in the tax statement we published. The Prime Minister has reiterated that point of view at least twice in the last week. When that summit process is over, when the Government brings in that package, that is when we have a blank cheque in this Parliament to pass it. We will crush the Opposition if it tries to oppose it. We will crush the Opposition with the public of Australia if it stands in its opportunist way against meaningful tax reform in this country. The Government has a mandate for meaningful tax reform. The blank cheque is the blank cheque in this Parliament post-summit. The honourable member understands that that is the position. If the honourable member thinks he can stand up here in this Parliament, the Opposition having lost the election on one of the principle issues of taxation, and say that the coalition has a mandate to oppose and to be obstreperous with this tax reform package, he will be quite wrong and public opinion will come down very harshly on him. Let us be quite clear: The Opposition said of us that we want a blank cheque. It was right. We wanted an open debate on tax reform. We got that right. It cost us seats to get that right by not closing off the tax options. I guarantee members of the Opposition that we will enforce that right in this Parliament, so they can cut the caper, the comedy, the laughs, the guffawing and the stupidity. The Opposition when in government could not get any of this legislation through. We will get it through. When the summit is over, when we have tested public opinion and when we have sought to get consensus on this issue, whatever is on the cheque post-summit is the price that the Opposition will pay. If the honourable member stands in the way he will wipe his Party and himself out. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(10.47) —There can be no doubt that when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) speaks the general tone of the debate gets rougher, if not even closer to the gutter. I say to him and to the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown): The people of Australia have passed judgment and returned them twice to government, but watch out, mate, for the third time! They will have to watch out not only in respect of the issue of tax reform but also in respect of the balance of payments deficit, which looks like getting up to over $10 billion this year, with its effect on the depreciation of the Australian dollar, thence on inflation and via their much-vaunted accord, on wage levels, and then further devaluation and so on. Goodness knows what will happen if people lose confidence in Australia, as they did with this Government's volte face on the MX issue. If the inflow of money to this country should dry up, the Government will be in a lot of trouble. Reference was made a while ago to the trilogy. That is something which would be a basis for confidence in the Government's economic performance-if the Government can deliver on it. We will see whether the Government can deliver on it. However, there are no bases for assuming that the Government is going to. This morning we are debating the Trust Recoupment Tax Assessment Bill 1985 which relates to unpaid company tax. This measure is designed to strike down artificially contrived taxation avoidance schemes. I challenge any one in this Committee to suggest that the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), did not go a long way-virtually the whole way-towards striking down those schemes. The amendment we are considering involves a change to the appropriate date from which the legislation is to become effective. However, we are now discussing questions of tax reform, the central clear cut issue of which is to reduce the burden of personal income tax, which has risen to record levels and to a record proportion of total tax revenue under this Government, in the context, hopefully, of reducing expenditure-this will not happen under honourable members opposite-and introducing a broad-based indirect tax as a major measure of reform. It is important to recognise that tax may be avoided through the contrived schemes that honourable members have been talking about and focusing on. However, a much larger amount of tax is being evaded by people who never declare income, income which never gets anywhere near the notice of the Commissioner of Taxation. One of the very important reasons why the tax burden should be transferred to indirect taxes in any upgrading of our taxation system is that, in an appropriate form, this tax is very difficult to evade. If the Government were really interested in lifting the burden of taxation off the pay as you earn taxpayer, the appropriate way to do it-- Dr Charlesworth —Why didn't you do it? Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Our Treasurer attempted to do it on a number of occasions but was stopped in the other place. If there is real interest on the part of the Government to lift the burden of taxation off the back of PAYE taxpayers, this is the way to do it. I agree that there are difficulties in the way of introducing a broad-based indirect tax. There are problems in relation to its impact on lower income groups. However, there are ways of going about that. For instance, one can introduce at the same time-and I think this is a very important point-a form of tax credit which applies only at lower income levels and tapers off; in that way the impact on low income groups is minimised. I hope that the Treasurer might take on some ideas like that because we wish him well in his battle to change the form and structure of the tax system in this direction. Again, I think it worth reminding the Committee that along with this change must go genuine attempts to reduce expenditure, otherwise the ultimate impact will not be altered to any extent. We do not hear anything said about expenditure. There is no way in which the Government can say that it is not the highest taxing, the highest spending and the highest borrowing Government in the history of this country. One can talk, as did the Treasurer and the honourable member for Charlton, about the transfer of medical insurance to the public sector. It would have been best left in the private sector where it would have been handled much more efficiently and effectively and at less cost to this country. As I said, the Government is the biggest taxing, biggest spending and biggest borrowing Government in our history. I say again: 'Strength to your arm in your efforts to implement your so-called trilogy' because, if the Government does not do what it says it will do, the economic management of this country will be in a lot of trouble. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.54) —It is extraordinary to hear the Opposition in this place make two claims-one about tax reform and the other about responsible economic management. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said, the present Opposition had its opportunity in regard to tax reform and missed it. The substantial point to be made about tax reform is that when the Opposition did have that opportunity, when it got that big tax grab from the petroleum import parity pricing system and it had control of both chambers, it let it go. Substantially the reason for this was that the Opposition was not persistent enough. Another reason was the relationship between the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia. Prime Minister Fraser leant on his mates, the agrarian socialists in the National Party, who said: 'For goodness sake, do not try to bring responsible economic management to this place because we want to be able to dip our hand in whenever we want to feed our electorates.' That has been the long term tradition and that is why the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) could not bring about responsible economic management. In effect, the agrarian socialists of the National Party always had a word in Malcolm Fraser's ear and were able to steer responsible economic management back to their particular goal. That was the capacity of honourable members opposite for tax reform. They did not bring it about. It is also interesting to observe the dates of application of this legislation. We were seeking to have it apply from 1 July 1980 and the amendment introduced from the other place proposes 11 May 1982. Instead of getting $10m, as my colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) said, we are getting only half a million dollars. We are losing $9.5m. That is a typical example of the Liberals closing the door after the horse has bolted. Such is the track record of the previous Government on tax reform. It always did something when it was too late. In this case again honourable members opposite are denying us the opportunity to collect money for the Australian taxpayers. They have not yet learned that the Australian taxpayers are still angry about the previous Government's failure as a responsible tax manager and a responsible economic manager. Honourable members opposite have not learned that lesson, and they will stay on the other side of the chamber until they learn it. Ordinary Australian taxpayers are still angry about the previous Government's inability to manage the tax system, and they will remember that for a long time. They also have not forgotten the fact that honourable members opposite were economic vandals when they were in government. We are still clearing up the wreckage that they left. It is an absolute disgrace. They should not try to tell us how to manage the tax system or the economy. They have only to look back three or four years to see their failures. They are everywhere to be seen and the Australian community has not forgotten them. The point to be made with respect to this legislation is that, through the other place, honourable members opposite are again denying the Australian taxpayers the collection of revenue that we as the Government are seeking to collect on their behalf. It is interesting to note that later today the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will be introducing two measures-the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill and the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill. Similar Bills have been before the Parliament before, and in the other place the Opposition chose to knock them off. We will again see how good it is, whether it is fair dinkum about collecting tax. I think we can anticipate the position that Opposition members will choose. Being the cowards they are, they will knock if off in the other place. My colleague the honourable member for Charlton has already said that one of the reasons why the Australian Democrats paid a high price in the election was the fact that they went soft on taxation. They are still behaving like a bunch of wimps in regard to taxation. Until they come good and show a bit of courage in this Parliament they will be judged by the Australian electorate, as will be the Liberal Party and the National Party. To sum up, the position is very clear. We are seeking to do something substantial on tax reform. As far as we are concerned, the Australian community has our trust. We have a clear direction with respect to tax reform. It is better to have a blank cheque than a besmirched record, and the sort of record that the Opposition has is a very dirty one indeed. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.58) —We welcome the acceptance by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of the amendment that has been made in the Senate because that amendment expresses a principle. The principle is that whether or not one likes the way in which the game is being played, one does not change the rules after the game is over. It is as simple as that. For all that we have heard from the other side, the Australian people are coming to understand how important that principle is. If the Government can change the tax rules after the game is over, it can change the rules in regard to any issue which happens to strike its interest or which happens to be prompted by the socialist Left and which the Government takes on board as a convenient trade-off to try to get something else on the books. We have heard for about the fifteenth time the Treasurer say that the previous Treasurer hid behind section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. He knows that to be untrue. He knows it to be misleading, but his remarks in this respect, like so much of what he says, are a collection, a rats nest, of half-truths, arrogance, selective memory and direct deception. I remind the Treasurer of the provisions of section 16 of the Act. He has been Treasurer for two years so he can hardly claim that he does not understand what section 16 says. Section 16 is the secrecy provision. It is a very draconic provision. We have had as yet no proposal by this Government to amend section 16, although from what the Treasurer said today, apparently we can expect one in the very near future. Under the heading 'Officers to observe secrecy', section 16 (2) states that, subject to certain specific exemptions: . . . an officer shall not either directly or indirectly, except in the performance of any duty as an officer, and either while he is, or after he ceases to be an officer, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to any person any such information so acquired by him. Later, in section 16 (4), we see a provision to the same effect. Certain specific exemptions are provided for but subject to those exemptions, no officer may divulge information which he has received as an officer under the Income Tax Assessment Act. Just in case anyone should think-indeed, anyone who had listened to the Treasurer would think it-that section 16 provides for some exemption which applies to Ministers, let me read section 16 (5A), which states: For the purposes of sub-sections (2) and (5), an officer or person shall be deemed to have communicated such information to another person in contravention of those sub-sections if he communicates that information to any Minister or to any Minister of the Crown of a State. That is, any Minister of the Commonwealth or any State Minister. It could not be plainer. For the Treasurer to suggest that there is some way to hide behind section 16 is a direct attempt to deceive the public as to the meaning of section 16. He cannot tell us that he really does not understand what it means. Is this merely another example of that selective memory so characteristic of this Treasurer and this Government? Perhaps the Treasurer can tell the Committee now, since he apparently thinks that section 16 is wrong-and if he is to be taken as a man seeking to speak his mind honestly, seeking to inform the Australian people honestly of what he believes-when he is going to amend section 16. Does he propose to allow the ordinary affairs of the Australian taxpayer to be made public? If he does, let him say so. If he does not, let us have no more nonsense, no more attempts to deceive the Australian public about the effect of section 16. While this debate has been in progress we have heard something about a capital gains tax. The Treasurer has said to us that this Government, which crawled into power and which, were it to face the polls now, would be thrown out of power, has been given a blank cheque by the Australian people and that the Australian people will crush the Opposition. Is that not rich coming from the Government which, in the three months since election, has demonstrated a capacity to blunder which would be hard to match by any democratically elected government? It has also shown the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his true colours. What is he? He is the trimmer. He trims to the Centre, he trims to the Left, he backs, he fills and he reneges on obligations entered into in this country's deepest security interests-why? It is because the pressure is becoming a little hot from the socialist Left whom he does not have the guts to confront at any time. Was it not he who said of one of his esteemed colleagues that something that colleague had done was a gutless capitulation to the Left? What have we heard of this Prime Minister since the election? We have nothing but a chapter in a book which he is presently writing. That book should be entitled How the Prime Minister of Australia Capitulated to the Left. Let me get back to the Treasurer. He has the effrontery to tell this House and the Australian people that somehow this Government has a blank cheque-to do what? It has a blank cheque, he says, to write any taxation legislation it likes, whereas during the campaign it was studiously silent and deliberately deceptive about its intentions. We now know that the Treasurer favours a capital gains tax. When, in the election campaign, did he tell the people about that? Is it not straight deception to refuse to reveal one's hand on something like that when one knows very well that, if one wins, the first thing one will say is that one favours a capital gains tax? He knew it. He and the Government went to the people and lied to them. That is one of the reasons why it just managed to crawl back into power. Mr Chairman, you will remember all that was said about us during the campaign-that we were seeking to frighten the Australian people about the Government's intentions. How accurate was our record in that campaign? How accurate were our forecasts? They were spot on, as the Australian people are now learning. Lastly, I want to say something about the summit. We have heard a great deal about the summit. We know that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are busy negotiating with the factions. We know that the institutionalised factions are dealing with each other as separate political parties. In doing so they will bring down this Government and the Australian Labor Party. But we know that it is not a question of the Government explaining to its Party. It has to explain to the factions. It has to deal with the factions, and particularly the factions on the Left. The Government has to throw the Left a few morsels. One morsel may be MX missile tests; another may be capitulation on essential matters concerning our security. That does not matter, just as long as this Prime Minister can hold on to office for a little longer. What will we have? We will have a contrived summit. We will have two, three or four days when carefully selected individuals will be called together to consider a package that has been worked out beforehand. We know very well that the Government is going to set the agenda and select the invitees in such a way that, regardless of how bad the outcome, it will somehow contrive to have a majority for the outcome. We know that in terms of consultation it is worth sweet Fanny Adams. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.07) —Today the conspiracy of silence, which has been in place since before the last Federal election, was shattered. The Treasurer of Australia (Mr Keating) convicts himself out of his own mouth when he proclaims, with an arrogance unprecedented in this Parliament, that he and the Government have a blank cheque. From this day forth the Treasurer of Australia will be known as 'Blank Cheque' Keating. In his exuberance today he let the cat out of the bag. This is, of course, the Treasurer who conspired with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other Ministers last year to deceive the people of Australia by clamming-up and not letting the cat out of the bag in relation to capital gains tax, death duties, estate duties and gift taxes. I say in passing that it is extraordinary that the real Treasurer of Australia, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), has not been in the chamber participating in this debate. The honourable member for Blaxland is the Treasurer who promised to lift the tax burden off all Australians. We can look at his record. Income tax receipts in his first Budget year of 1983-84 went up 8 per cent. In 1984-85 they increased by 23 per cent. Mr Deputy Chairman, you are looking at a situation, therefore-with your economic background you would be well aware of this-of a rip-off of 31 per cent in just 18 months. If ever I have seen a classic example of the conversion of Saul to Paul in reverse, it has happened today. Mr Chairman, you might recall that Saul of Tarsus was on the road to Damascus when, with a blinding flash of lightning, he was converted. Today we have seen this Paul reconverted to Saul and from this day on his name is Saul, not Paul. I owe the House one apology. In a recent debate I referred to the Treasurer in terms which I now wish to withdraw. I called him the world's only two-faced ferret. I was directed to the Oxford Dictionary, and found, that a ferret is defined as: 'A half-tamed variety of the common polecat'. I think my description was most unfair to common polecats. The Treasurer has but a few months to go before the medal presented to him last year is taken back. He has no right to defame and traduce in this Parliament the former Treasurer of Australia, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). He was a Treasurer of honour and integrity. He was genuine in what he said to the people of Australia and he told the people of Australia the truth. This Treasurer is living on borrowed time. I think it is going to be a race to see whether the people of Australia get him first, the Opposition gets him first or those from the socialist Left who occupy Moscow corner in this House get him first. We do not know who is the real Treasurer of Australia. The Minister for Social Security, in a very socialistic tirade in Canberra last week, spelt out what I think the Treasurer has had privately in his mind for a long time. I warn the people of Australia that when this Government talks about capital gains it is not talking about peanuts. In the Treasurer's office and in his Department there is a document which has been floating around since December last year and which considers the implications of a capital gains tax applied at the rate of 46c in the dollar. So when the Treasurer talks in muffled terms at the tax summit about a capital gains tax and mutters that it could be imposed at a rate something like that in the United States of America of 20c in the dollar, let the business community of Australia know that what he has in his mind is 46c in the dollar because it fits in so nicely with the company rate of taxation. In conclusion, I refer to retrospectivity. If ever there is a government addicted to retrospectivity, and to putting its hand back to touch not just the living but also to touch the dead, not just to deal with things on top of the earth but also to deal with things eight feet under the earth, I warn the people of Australia that it is this Government. It is committed not only to tax them in the present and in the future-as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) calls it, the 'pay as you die' scheme-but also to make history by being the first government in Australia to make it compulsory to pay retrospectively after a person dies. The hands of the Taxation Commissioner, under the direction of the Treasurer, will be into the graves of Australians who have passed from this earth before the Treasurer has had the courage to tell the people of Australia the truth. If he were to tell them what was in his evil mind about capital gains, gift duties, estate duties and death duties he would be now sitting on this side of the chamber. He will be sitting again on this side of the chamber immediately after the next Federal election. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(11.11) —In response to the last ignorant tirade, let me just refute what the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) said. He was trying to get a line in a newspaper by nominating tax rates for new taxes. Firstly, the Government has decided upon, at this stage, no new taxes and certainly no new tax rates. Mr Hodgman —There is a document in your office about 46c in the dollar. Mr KEATING —How would you know what was in my office, you clown. You can hardly read. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 22 February, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.14) —Today we are discussing the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Act under which the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs is established. The Opposition, whilst not intending to oppose this Bill, will be making it quite clear that we consider the changes proposed by it to be merely cosmetic-arising out of one of the most shabby and intellectually moribund exercises in a review process. This Bill, with its fairly minor amendments is the result of a politically motivated review into the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. I will remind honourable members of the history of the Institute. The Institute was established in 1979 after the then Government considered and implemented proposals of the Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services to Migrants, known as the Galbally report. In relation to the Institute the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser said: Because of the lack of information on multicultural developments in Australia and overseas we will establish an Institute of Multicultural Affairs, which among other activities would engage in and commission research and advise Government bodies on multicultural issues. A statement of Government initiatives added: The development of Australia's multicultural society must be guided, supported and assessed by independent experts of high calibre. The Government will provide $1.8m over the next three years to set up an Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Its functions will include: (a) commissioning research into multiculturalism; (b) education of the community, including dissemination of information to the community on multiculturalism; (c) preparation of suitable materials for use in educational institutions; (d) provision of advice to Government and civic bodies. It will provide a resource for all sections of the community and will form links with local and ethnic organisations throughout Australia. It will not be located in Canberra but in a capital city with a large ethnic community. An interim council and a Director of the Institute will be appointed in the first year and the Institute will be fully operational by the end of the third year. This body was recognised as an important part of the Fraser Government's commitment to multiculturalism, which was set out in this way: Australian society and culture has already been enriched by artistic, intellectual, lingual, culinary and other contributions of migrant cultures. The development of a multicultural society involves the recognition of the rights of ethnic groups to maintain and foster their ethnic languages and cultures, and requires efforts on the part of all Australians to adopt a multicultural perspective and to promote social harmony in cultural interaction. The Government will encourage a multicultural attitude in Australian society by fostering the retention of the cultural heritage of different ethnic groups and promoting intercultural understanding. Over the next three years we will allocate an additional $6.8m for this purpose. The then Prime Minister added that the Government and Galbally accepted guiding principles, and I think it is important to note this level of commitment: (a) All members of our society must have equal opportunity to realise their full potential and must have equal access to programs and services; (b) Every person should be able to maintain his or her culture without prejudice or disadvantage and should be encouraged to understanding and embrace other cultures. (c) Needs of migrants should, in general, be met by programs and services available to the whole community, but special services and programs are necessary at present to ensure equality of access for migrants. (d) Services and programs should be designed and operated in full consultation with clients, and self-help should be encouraged as much as possible with a view to helping migrants become self reliant quickly. The Institute was established with the support of the then Australian Labor Party Opposition, although it was evident from comments of Labor's spokesman, the Honourable Moss Cass, MP, that he had views about the way it might operate which were at issue with those of the former Government. He did not see it as an academic institution but rather as a community based resource sensitive to community needs and aspirations. Already in these words it was apparent that some differences of view were evident on the approach that should be taken not only to the operations of the Institute but also to its objectives. It was then not altogether surprising that in Labor's policy for the 1983 election there was a commitment, if it attained government, to review the Institute. We then had the change of government. On 24 July 1983 the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the present Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), announced that his Government had initiated the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, with his colleague, a former member of parliament, Moss Cass, as Chairman, aided by Ms Eva Cox, Professor Jayasuriya and Mr Alan Matheson. It has been stated on many occasions-this has not apparently been refuted or denied in any way-that at least three of those members had already criticised AIMA prior to their appointment to the Committee. If we look at one of the documents that was produced subsequent to the review, the response of the Institute, we find a very enlightening quote which I intend to read to the members of the House. In speaking about membership of the Review Committee the then Council had this to say: On learning of the membership of the Committees of Review, the Chairman-- that was Mr Galbally-- advised the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr West, on 25 July 1983 that, given its composition, it would seem highly unlikely that the Committee would undertake its task in a fair and impartial manner and that its objectivity could be most certainly questioned. At that time, three members of the Committee were known to have publicly expressed criticism of the Institute. In fact all four members of the Committee of Review are on public record as having made comments adverse to the Institute. The report goes on: Dr Cass is on public record as having described the appointment of the Director as 'a blatant and unpalatable case of patronage', the Institute as a 'new club for the old boys' and that the membership of the Institute was 'sadly unrepresentative of ethnic communities'. Mr Matheson has similarly criticised the Institute as 'seemingly determined to arrogantly discourage any attempt to foster Government and community co-operation', and also claimed that an invitation to a distinguished scholar to speak on multiculturalism was 'a political ploy to push Fraser-Reagan-Thatcher economic policies'. Another member of the review group, Ms Eva Cox, has described the Institute as the policy research institute which is '. . . most politically suspect'. These three people, with one other, were asked to undertake a review of the Institute. Despite the serious doubts about panel members' objectivity, the Government proposed this as a serious review. As early as October 1983, before the review had been completed, newspapers were reporting this exercise as a political vendetta. The review reported on 8 December 1983. It was of such import and perhaps so defamatory of individuals that it could not be shown to my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, before it was tabled in the Parliament. It was argued that this was to ensure that privilege was accorded to the report and that that could not be done until it was tabled in this place. So no notice was given to my colleague and there was no opportunity to read the report, yet a debate was expected to ensue. At that time the Minister announced that only two recommendations had been accepted. These were that the report be tabled and that there be public discussion. The Minister said that an interim council would be appointed to undertake consultations and report to the Government. No substantial debate took place on the report of the review at that time, although it was adjourned. Debate was, however, joined between the review panel and the Council of the Institute in its comprehensive response dated 17 December 1983. For the benefit of honourable members who may not be aware of it, I have here a copy of the response. It is a most comprehensive and detailed critique. It is a devastating document outlining that the Review had not discharged its terms of reference and, further, that its methodology was unsound, that it abounded with major errors, that its conclusions were at odds with evidence in the report and elsewhere, and that generalised allegations were made by un-named individuals and these were offered as fact. Time does not permit a detailed analysis of the response save as to a number of pointed examples. The response establishes that there was no analysis in the report of the significance for the objects of the Institute of such measures as the funding of ethnic schools, major increases in funding for English language teaching, extension of multicultural broadcasting in its various forms, and greater recruitment and deployment of bilingual staff. The Review was most scathing of AIMA in achieving its statutory functions efficiently and effectively. It stated: In fact it is extremely difficult to make any positive comments particularly in areas of management and operational style. That was the conclusion reached by the Review panel after consideration of the material that was before it. Yet the response correctly asks how the reviewers draw this conclusion when its own experts' report entitled 'A Management Overview of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs' had this to say: As a general comment, internal operating and administrative procedures seem to be particularly effective and efficient. Considering that the Institute commenced operations with no staff and no procedures in 1980, the establishment of comprehensive and tight administrative procedures is a significant achievement. That is contained in volume II at page 229. I think it is important to recognise that the review had before it that information from its own experts, yet it still came to the view that it was extremely difficult to make any positive comments, particularly in the areas of management or operational style in considering this question of AIMA achieving its statutory functions efficiently and effectively. The review sought to dismiss AIMA's success in presenting worthwhile research and advice for government on the basis of AIMA's former Director's previous association with the former Prime Minister and that AIMA's recommendations were politically sanitised or predetermined. These were merely assertions, but they were given particular prominence in disparaging the Institute's achievements. Nevertheless, when the Hawke Government considered the results of the 1982 decision of the Fraser Government on the AIMA report on the evaluation of post-arrival migrant programs and services for migrants, the Minister's statement of November 1983-that is, Minister West's statement-was to the effect that 90 per cent of the recommendations accepting AIMA's work had in substance been implemented by the Hawke Government and would continue unchanged under Labor. The fact that the Government found in second guessing the Fraser Government's decision that they were appropriate puts paid to the views of the review panel which portrays AIMA's Council, its members and staff as unrepresentative, politically partisan and indifferent to real social problems and central issues of multiculturalism. The response takes the reader of the review report through this review document line by line, paragraph by paragraph, chapter by chapter and nails untrue statements and misleading information and gives more detailed information where appropriate. As a result, we have on the public record a most thorough repudiation of the Cass review. As a result of the Government's consideration of the Cass review, a fresh round of consultations was undertaken. They involved the interim council of AIMA-that is, a new body established by the Government after considering the Cass review-in receiving submissions, undertaking consultations and producing a further report entitled 'Looking Forward'. 'Looking Forward' collates the views of those interested in the Institute and multiculturalism. It reveals a great support for the general ideals and philosophy of multiculturalism, while establishing that there are many issues upon which opinions differ, often markedly so. While 'Looking Forward' does not say it, many submissions revealed the Cass report for what it was. It was a document born out of prejudice, not racial prejudice but political prejudice. The Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, certainly not a captive political body of the Liberal Party or the National Party, made a damning criticism of the review in discussing the principles of multiculturalism. I would like to quote at length from its submission. FECCA stated: The Report of the Committee of Review of AIMA attempted to politicise this spectrum of opinion claiming that although all political parties ostensibly gave bipartisan support to policies of multiculturalism, that there was-- and it quoted from the AIMA report-- a significant difference in emphasis between the policies of multiculturalism advocated by the two main political parties. The Coalition's policy on immigration and ethnic affairs, as well as being the main thrust of the Galbally recommendations, indicates that the new multiculturalism was firmly anchored in policies and programs of cultural enhancement and maintenance for ethnic groups. It also supported the value of personal identity achieved through expression of cultural distinctiveness and sense of ethnicity, and reaffirmed the need to understand and tolerate diversity and the right to be different in matters of individual lifestyles. However, while the Report (Galbally) clearly recognised social inequalities and disadvantages suffered by migrant and ethnic minorities and the need for redress in this regard, there was less conviction (in its espousal) of the right to equal opportunity. It quoted Liffman who was one of the consultants to the review. It continued: Another of our consultants, Jeannie Martin, writes in similar vein that the concern with disadvantage or more specifically with structural inequalities was dropped from the multicultural policy as it had been formulated by the Labor Government. That was by Martin, also in Volume II. It continued: There was, in short, no commitment to the need for social change, especially at structural and institutional levels. That was a further quote from Liffman. The Federation then concluded in these terms: The Federation, while accepting that this spectrum of opinion on multiculturalism exists, rejects this analysis in the report as biased, and party political. That was the view of a non-partisan political player in this exercise. But it saw the review as biased and party political. FECCA-that is, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia-also notes in its continuing criticism of the former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr West, that he did not involve that umbrella organisation in either the review or the interim council. FECCA was of the view that, while criticism of AIMA may have been that it had little input to its deliberations from ethnic communities, such was equally true of the review process. Many of those who contributed to the second review were quite pointed in their comments about the purpose of some of the recommendations, that they are no more than change for change's sake and that it is a mere justification of the review process. 'Looking Forward', the document of the reconstituted council of AIMA, notes that a number of people simply inquired whether the change of name from an institute to a commission-one of the review panel's principal recommendations-had any real consequences for the nature and operations of the body. Great moments of history were created while deliberations centred on whether the Institute would be accountable to the Prime Minister or the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. A very detailed consideration was given in the review to the question of the objects of the restructured AIMA. Some saw the new objects as an improvement, while others saw them as too negative. Some sought to change the order or to substitute a word here and there. Similarly, a whole range of functions were considered and restated. What becomes abundantly clear, of course, is that many more tasks were available for the Institute-that is, AIMA-to undertake than there were resources to meet them. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) in his speech made it clear that resources are a difficult matter. I think that was something that the review in its work should have more correctly taken into account in terms of developing its own criticism. It becomes very apparent that the expectations of government and academic communities for research from AIMA and ethnic communities' desires for a more independent and responsive body are not easily reconcilable or compatible. 'Looking Forward' highlights this problem in my mind and obviously helped the Government in its deliberations. On 11 October 1984, the Minister-that is, Minister West-announced the decision of the Government to retain AIMA. Again, there was no effective debate in this chamber. It was the last day before the dissolution of the House of Representatives for the election. Honourable members may recall that the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Denison, was under suspension at that time. My colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) at short notice had to respond on behalf of the Opposition. His contribution was excellent, but it was not a debate. No other members spoke and the debate was wound up so that the House could be dissolved for the election. It is for this reason that I have at long last canvassed the reasons for the review and its inadequacy and I wish now to look at the result. The review and 'Looking Forward' recommended that the AIMA Council should be replaced by a commission. This view was not accepted by the Government. The review recommended rewriting the objects. The Government amended one object in a minor way and added another to include an affirmation that AIMA should promote a just and equitable society and to enable Aboriginal affairs to come within the Institute's purview. In relation to its functions, the Government accepted a few of the review's recommendations on the need to liaise and consult with governments and agencies at all levels of government and outside government and, further, to undertake community representations and to encourage other bodies to conserve materials relating to migrant communities. This replaced the repository function that AIMA formerly had. This function for promotional and community educational activities was to be strengthened. Finally, the Council was to be enlarged from nine to 12 members, rather than 17 as recommended by the AIMA review. While the response of the Government suggested that some of the recommendations of the review could still be matters for the new AIMA Council to decide on, the reality is that most of the substantial recommendations of the review have been rejected or ignored by the Government. Certainly no change in portfolio arrangements took place. No parliamentary committee has been established or foreshadowed. No role has been given to AIMA in combating prejudice and discrimination against members of cultural and ethnic minority groups. No complaint handling powers on discrimination matters were given to AIMA. As the Minister has explained, these functions are properly left to the Human Rights Commission. This is not the present Minister's Bill. It is the result of a review commissioned by his predecessor. This Bill is not opposed by the Opposition. As I have described it, it is an innocuous piece of camouflage in an endeavour which the Government itself now recognises to be an abject failure and of enormous cost to the community and to individuals and their reputations. No apology is offered to the Council of AIMA or its former director, whom the Government's own Bill really absolves. An apology would be appropriate. I spoke of cost. What has been the total cost of the inquiry? What was paid to each member of the inquiry by way of remuneration? What sums were paid to consultants? What was the cost of the consultations across Australia? What was the cost of the service to the review, particularly the costs of its staff such as accommodation, stationery, printing, advertising and the like? We then had the second review with all those costs duplicated for the production of the report 'Looking Forward'. This process, for the results we have achieved, has been an enormous and unnecessary waste of time and effort and taxpayers' funds. An analysis of the major provisions of the legislation reveals that clause 3 amends section 5 of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act 1979, the principal Act, to substitute a new paragraph concerning objects of the AIMA. Sub-paragraph (1) (i) and paragraph (d) are omitted from section 5 and the new paragraph (d) reads: (d) to promote a just and equitable society that- (i) accepts people irrespective of their particular ethnic or cultural background (including linguistic background or immigrant origin); and (ii) affords the members of the different cultural groups and ethnic communities in Australia the effective opportunity to participate in Australian society and to achieve their own potential. Clause 4 refers to the functions of AIMA. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 6 are omitted and new sub-section 6 (1) provides that the functions be, inter alia: To provide advice to the Commonwealth Government related to the achievement of the objects of AIMA; to assist in the achievement of AIMA's objects by encouraging and promoting relevant educational activities and commissioning and encouraging research; to liaise and co-operate with Commonwealth departments, State and local government, trade unions, employer groups, the media and other organisations; and to promote co-ordination of projects which may contribute to the objects of AIMA. Clause 5 amends section 20 to increase the governing Council of AIMA from nine to a maximum of 12 members. Clause 5 also amends section 20 by the addition of clauses (3A) and (3B) requiring advertisements for Council positions and inviting nominations from individuals and organisations. This is a welcome response to ethnic organisations concerned at the lack of consultation and representation on the Council of AIMA, its interim counterpart in the Cass review. Clause 6 inserts a new section 46A which declares AIMA to be a public authority to which Division 3 of Part XI of the Audit Act 1901 applies. Clause 7 substitutes a new section 49 covering certain issues on which the AIMA must report annually. The Schedule to the Bill makes many minor and consequential amendments. Most are concerned with eliminating the sex specific terminology of the legislation. I mention these matters because I think they really demonstrate the nature of the legislation before us, why the Opposition has no substantial objection to it and why I think this really is a camouflage for this major political exercise which has been undertaken by the Government and which I have so clearly condemned. Since my appointment I have been at pains to emphasise that the most appropriate way to achieve a bipartisan approach on immigration and ethnic affairs generally is by co-operation and discussion between the Government and Opposition. It is a two-way street. It cannot be achieved by government action taken unilaterally and decisions being handed down from on high. Here we have a case study of such a high-handed approach by the Government compounded by the fact that this is the first real opportunity in two years for the Opposition to discuss the questions involved. I do not blame the successor of the previous Minister with whom I believe there has been established a most helpful and, for the nation, a most beneficial relationship. I trust that when this matter is behind us a truly bipartisan approach on the major questions facing this nation in the area of immigration and multiculturalism will ensue. I make it very clear that the Opposition supports the concept of multiculturalism. Its policy document for the election just passed made that very clear. For the benefit of the record, I make it clear that this is our approach. Page 5 of the policy statement reads: We believe in multiculturalism as an enhancement of the Australian way of life; to be welded into our national tradition and to be recognised as strengthening our nation We recognise the desire of ethnic communities to participate equally in all aspects of Australian political, economic and cultural life. We agree this means that all Australians should be able to relate to our institutions and that measures should be taken to ensure equal opportunity to participate in both the benefits and the sharing of responsibilities. I will read other sections of that policy document dealing with matters which I know are of interest to ethnic communities. The document states: Special services . . . need to be maintained and enhanced in areas where specific ethnic needs cannot be properly accommodated within community services. We believe the opportunity to learn English must be given priority. Improved programs to ensure English skill as a second language will be available to all new arrivals and those here now who have such a need. We accept the introduction of community languages in government and non-government schools will provide a valuable role in obtaining social cohesion and understanding within the whole community. These points are made because it is important to understand that the Opposition is committed to multiculturalism. We were concerned at the way the review took place. Nevertheless, the matters I have raised in relation to this Bill and the treatment of AIMA cannot be ignored. Therefore, on behalf of the Opposition I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government's appointment of a Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs was a wasteful extravagance and a purely politically motivated exercise involving the unnecessary expenditure of public funds'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the amendment seconded? Mrs Sullivan —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(11.43) —In this debate on the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill I will be forced to say some things that were not part of my prepared speech because I did not expect to come in here today and hear the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), carry out a disgraceful attack on the objectivity of a review panel appointed by the Government. I say that it was a disgraceful attack because it appears that honourable members opposite, who still do not understand that a majority of the Australian people voted for a progressive government, expect us to accept as objective the decisions of every review panel or body with persons of a conservative or even extremely reactionary reputations appointed to it. However, when a person with a progressive reputation, such as the distinguished former member of parliament and Minister, Dr Moss Cass, is appointed to a review panel, the honourable member for Dundas, under parliamentary privilege, disgracefully attacks the report and activities of Dr Cass. If you want to open up a debate on what you did with the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs we will open up that debate right here. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will speak through the Chair. Dr THEOPHANOUS —The fact of the matter is that the report of the Cass Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs was scathing because of the misbehaviour that took place under the honourable member's Government in relation to AIMA. Under the previous Government AIMA became nothing more than a tool of certain conservative elements in this country, including the Liberal Party. That is the fact of the matter. If the Opposition wants to challenge that fact, it should seek to defend the appointment of the Director of AIMA, who before his appointment was nothing more than the secretary of the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. That was his distinguishing mark before he became Director. It was his only distinction in the whole area of ethnic affairs. Nobody had ever heard of him in ethnic affairs and he was appointed Director of AIMA for no other reason than that he had been an assistant to the former Prime Minister. If that is not disgraceful stacking, I do not know what is. The Labor Government undertook a review of the position, and indeed a second review-two reviews, not just one-to give everybody an opportunity. What happens after the two reviews have taken place? The shadow Minister comes into the House and seeks to attack the reputation and standing of that great Australian, Dr Moss Cass. The Committee of Review produced important evidence that the operations of AIMA under the previous Government had been such as to warrant substantial revision. Let me read a paragraph from the review: Among AIMA's clients on whose behalf the research and studies have been undertaken, migrants and ethnic communities have had to no say in the selection of the topics for investigation and have had considerable difficulty in gaining access to research findings. Mr Ruddock —What page was that? Dr THEOPHANOUS —Page 65, for the honourable member's information. It continues: Consequently, they have frequently expressed the view that AIMA's research and studies were marginal to their needs, and even inimical to their interests, because they were of little utility value to them. It was also widely believed-- The honourable member for Dundas should note this-- in the community that it was the government which set the agenda for the Institute, though in fact only two research projects were initiated at government request. Only two during that whole period. It continues: This belief created the impression that AIMA was just another government department, albeit one politically more powerful and influential than usual. Mr Hodgman —Who wrote this speech-Franca Arena? Dr THEOPHANOUS —This is from the report itself. The honourable member for Denison should not show his ignorance by such interjections. Let me go through some of the conclusions of that Committee. The Committee of Review found, among many other things, the following. It found no evidence of forward planning, particularly in relation to the research agenda; that the Council was unrepresentative of the Australian community socially and structurally. Is the Opposition challenging that sort of finding when Opposition members say that the report was non-objective. Is the Opposition challenging the finding that the Council was unrepresentative? Only one quarter of its members were women; it was heavily biased towards people of professional, academic, Public Service or business background; and it was unrepresentative socially of the ethnic population, particularly of migrant workers. What is the Opposition's reply to that? Anyone who raises questions about the Council's unrepresentative nature must be a left wing ratbag, in the view of the honourable member for Dundas and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who make a terrific duo in putting forward propositions of that kind. Mr Hodgman —I haven't even spoken yet. Dr THEOPHANOUS —But the honourable member for Denison has interjected, and the more he interjects the more of this he will get. The position of the members of the Council was largely token. There was little chance to contribute; they were rarely consulted and had no influence in determining policy. The reason for that was that the infamous Director, to whom I referred previously, was making all the determinations. What about the staffing of the Institute? Decision-making was highly centralised, with little co-ordination. The staff members were often inexperienced or worked on research outside their area of expertise. Many researchers were reported to lack perception, sensitivity or awareness of multicultural issues. The Opposition has not addressed itself to any of those questions. In attacking Dr Cass, the Opposition has not addressed itself to those sorts of questions about AIMA and its problems. Staff was moved around, causing insecurity, inefficiency and lack of continuity. There was an emphasis on speed and meeting deadlines to the detriment of clear goals and in-depth research. These are some of the conclusions of the review. On the subject of the output of AIMA, the conclusion was that, given the budget and resources, it was extremely limited. The views collected by the report were that AIMA was a closed and secretive organisation. Why a body purporting to represent the interests of communities and established in that way as a public body should be secretive one does not know. I quote from page 33 of the report: Vast amounts of secrecy, concealment, unwillingness to share professionally. That was the view of a director of an academic institute. The paragraph continues: AIMA seems deliberately set up to be secretive. That is the view of a commissioner of a State ethnic affairs commission. The honourable member for Dundas claimed that the material collected by the Committee of Review did not come from various organisations and bodies representative of the ethnic communities. These are some of the persons who were consulted. Let me quote another comment: They had no wish to consult openly with us on what we were interested in. They had already made up their minds as to what they wanted so they were not interested in our views. That was the view of the chairperson of an ethnic communities council in relation to AIMA. The Opposition now says, after the Committee has reported, that it did not take evidence from the appropriate people and did not come to appropriate conclusions. How does the Opposition explain direct quotations of that sort as to evidence given to the Cass Committee? Let me continue with the conclusions of this body, which was established with great purpose, following a recommendation of the Galbally Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services to Migrants, to serve the ethnic communities of this country and which was disgracefully misused and abused in the period of the Fraser Government. It necessitated an inquiry and the kind of restructuring which has become necessary since Labor came into government and which has led to this Bill. The Committee of Review also stated that it was difficult to obtain information from AIMA and that there was little consultation with community groups. Not only was it secretive, but it was difficult to get information about what the body was doing. It was said that ethnic communities and academic communities often viewed AIMA with suspicion and were hesitant to provide assistance due to distortion of that material. That is a serious indictment of any institution that claims to have a research potential. The Cass report recommended a series of actions, and in particular the need for expansion of the Council, broader representation of the community, and broader community input. It recommended the need for further consultation with the ethnic communities, workers, government and welfare agencies. In other words, it recommended that AIMA, instead of becoming an ivory-tower institution, go out into the ethnic communities, into society, and find out about the problems of those communities. What is wrong with that recommendation? The Committee also indicated that AIMA should establish priorities in relation to the needs of the ethnic communities and the community in general. In other words, it recommended that AIMA should carry out its research function in regard to what was needed by those communities. It should consult with them and get together with them to develop its research function. The Committee set out a list of detailed recommendations. I quote from page 51 of the report, which states: There are three issues which need to be considered: the research agenda, the funding sources and the research models. It then says: Given the stated aims of the present Federal Labor Government, the research agenda, as well as the priorities for other activities of the organisation, should be linked to achieving equity for the most disadvantaged. A process will need to be established by which research priorities can be set in future years. This should be by consultation with ethnic communities, workers in the field, experts and policy makers. There needs to be an acknowledgement of the diversity of interests such consultations will expose and a system of rigorous priority setting will need to be established. For the initial stages, however, the consultations and submissions to the Review Committee have indicated areas requiring immediate attention. These include inter-relationships in the workplace, where there is evidence of growing racism; occupational health and safety; and the problems of language learning for people who have been in Australia for some time, but still have inadequate English skills. The problems of women in the workplace and at home need consideration as do particular exploitative situations such as outwork. As a person who has had substantial contact with the ethnic communities and their problems, I heartily endorse this recommendation from the Committee. Those areas do need investigation by research organisations. We need to know more about all of those matters. If we are to have an institution like AIMA, which is funded from the public purse, it should be inquiring into the concrete problems of the migrant communities. What happened when the Cass Committee of Review brought down its recommendations? The honourable member for Dundas came into this place and tried to tell us that it was not an objective report and that it should have been thrown out. He dared to move an amendment to the effect that the review should not have been held. What should have been done? Should we have allowed AIMA to continue in the disgraceful fashion in which it was acting prior to the time when the Labor Government was elected? Should we have allowed it to continue with the damning behaviour which is clearly stated in the Cass report? Is that what honourable members opposite wanted when they said that we should not have had that review? What nonsense! Obviously, what honourable members did not like was the outcome of the review because it was damning in its criticism of their performance in government in relation to AIMA. Mr Coleman —Why does your Government say it is worthless? Dr THEOPHANOUS —Our Government has never said that the Cass report is worthless. I ask the honourable member to stop misrepresenting the situation. Mr Coleman —It rejected it as ridiculous. Dr THEOPHANOUS —One does not bother to answer interjections from fools. The fact of the matter is that the honourable member for Dundas in mentioning the consequent report entitled 'Looking Forward: a report on consultations concerning the recommendations of the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs' did not mention one thing, namely that Report came from the Council of AIMA. I say to the honourable member that the Government has the right to look at the Cass report and at the other report to which the honourable member referred, which, I might say, was produced by taking all the staff of the Institute from their duties and projects for a lengthy period to do nothing else but respond to the Cass report. I have this from inside information. That is why a report about four times the size of the Cass report was produced by the Institute itself as an answer to the Cass report. If this is not an example of the misuse of the Institute's resources which the Cass report condemned, I do not know what is and I do not know how the honourable member for Dundas can justify it. Let us look at the positive aspects of this matter. We are proposing in this Bill that AIMA be structured on the principles of multiculturalism, namely, the acceptance and active encouragement of cultural diversity. This includes the preservation and practice of community languages, community cohesion and the rights of ethnic communities to organise and represent themselves on the basis of their specific cultural and general needs. At the same time, multiculturalism is the practice of maintaining a harmonious community marked by understanding, where all people and groups have rights to equality in resources, representation and participation. This Bill, then, is aimed at broadening the functions of AIMA so that it promotes all aspects of multiculturalism. As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many agencies, groups and organisations in the community involved in researching, representing and working to provide for the needs of ethnic groups. Many of these bodies represent specific ethnic groups or a range of ethnic groups such as the various Ethnic Communities Councils. Some bodies are not specific to ethnic groups but represent significant ethnic membership and deal with issues that are important to ethnic communities. Such groups include government agencies and departments, welfare, health and education agencies and trade unions. This Bill seeks to ensure that AIMA should consult, liaise and co-operate with a variety of groups so that services, communication, research and implementation of its recommendations are complemented rather than duplicated. It also seeks to ensure that a broader and more accurate flow of information can occur between ethnic groups, agencies and government. Those are the two key recommendations in the Case report which I read out earlier. The provision to which I have referred will also ensure greater participation by the community. If the ethnic groups in our community are to have a real say on their needs and an input into decisions relating to their welfare, this participation and consultation with AIMA is essential. It is all very well to have an institute engaged in extensive research and giving subsequent advice to the Government on multicultural and ethnic affairs, but this can never be accurate nor can it be a genuine reflection of the real concerns of the people involved without full liaison and co-operation with the communities. The provision to promote the use by ethnic community organisations of their rights to make representations on particular issues and, where needed, to provide guidance in relation to the process of making such representations extends the role of AIMA beyond detached investigation and observation to the core of the multicultural objective of active participation and independence. In this way AIMA can be of direct benefit to the ethnic communities not only by providing reports and suggestions on what needs may exist and what may be done to meet those needs but also by directly assisting the ethnic communities in self-help and in direct participation in making their concerns known. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(12.04) —In relation to the speech of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill which we have just heard from the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) two things should be put on record. The first is that the honourable member for Calwell said at the beginning of his speech that he would depart from his prepared text in order to respond to statements made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). For the benefit of those who may read his speech in the future, I point out that he returned to his prepared text during the last five minutes of a 20-minute speech. I say that because it might otherwise be impossible for anyone reading his speech to understand the relevance of the first three-quarters of it to the last quarter. The honourable member for Calwell, in the first three-quarters of his speech, went to great pains to advance the cause of the Cass Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. For the last quarter of his speech, he spoke on the Bill. I am sure that it will be noted more than once in this debate that the content of the amending Bill that we have before us on the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs owes virtually nothing to the report of the Cass Committee of Review. That was a point that my colleague the honourable member for Dundas was trying to make. It was the point that the honourable member for Calwell took such strong exception to. The second point I make about the speech of the honourable member for Calwell is that he is obviously a very disappointed man-could I even say a bitter, disappointed man. It was very clear in the first three-quarters of his speech that he is a very strong advocate of the sorts of views that were expressed by the Committee of Review of AIMA and that he is strongly in agreement with comments and conclusions in it. Indeed, he made statements that indicated that he took sections of it to be statements of fact. It has been very seriously challenged whether the content of that report of the Committee of Review could pretend to fact in a number of its areas. I take issue with one point the honourable member made. As I recall, he said at one stage that the Cass report was of considerable value. I remind the honourable member that today we are not debating the words of intention, we are debating the deeds of fact. The simple deed of fact of this amending Bill is that very little change has been made to the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. The honourable member for Dundas has already indicated that we support the amending Bill. If this amending Bill achieves, as we hope it does, improvement in AIMA, in its activities and in its abilities, then that is to be applauded. However, I think the fact that there is so little change of substance of the original Act is a vindication of the decisions of the Fraser Government in setting up the Institute and in the operations of the Institute. Whilst we have before us a Bill of several pages, in fact the substance of change to the original Act is very small. When we look at clauses 4 and 5 of the amending Bill we find that nearly all the matters covered in those clauses are covered in the original Act. There is some rearrangement of words and some small additions. We have decided the additions are good additions. I do not think it hurts a body such as AIMA to be subject to review. I do not think it hurts at all when such an innovative body, which has been operating for a few years, has a review of its functions and its operations. It was innovative and experimental when it was set up by the Fraser Government. It is appropriate that a body as socially important as AIMA be examined from time to time. It certainly would not be desirable if this body or any similar body ever got the idea that because of the subject it dealt with-that is, multiculturalism-it was some sort of sacred cow and could not be examined, questioned and criticised. The main issue in debate today is the substance of the report that came out of that review and, how little of the substance of that report has been implemented by the Government. AIMA has been vindicated from much of the criticism made by that Committee of Review when it is judged by the action that the Government, under its newer Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), has decided to take. The Bill is largely window dressing on an embarrassing incident. The embarrassing incident was the Cass report. The Minister in his second reading speech said that the Review reflected the Government's desire to ensure that the administrative arrangements to implement our multicultural and community relations policies were effective in meeting the needs of both migrant groups and the community generally. As I have said, we do not have any objection to that sort of review and we do not have any objection to the desire that is expressed by the Minister on behalf of the Government in his speech. That bipartisan approach is welcome. Nevertheless, it ought to be pointed out that the Review was essentially a failure in its first instance. It provoked two further very substantial reports. One was a report by the Council of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, a report called 'Looking Forward: A Report on consultations concerning the recommendations of the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs' and the other was a report from the Institute entitled 'Response to the Report to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs'. The honourable member for Calwell took some exception in the course of his speech to the fact that some substantial resources of the Institute were used in preparing this response. Dr Theophanous —For a long period of time, too. Mr Coleman —Six days. Mrs SULLIVAN —The honourable member for Calwell says 'for a long period of time'. The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) says 'for six days'. I have not investigated the issue, but I dare say it will be discussed further in debate on this Bill and that that can be settled. The point really at issue here is that made by the honourable member for Dundas. What an enormously expensive and wasteful exercise-wasteful of public resources-this has been. The whole process has been lengthy. The objectives may have been worthwhile but the outcome has been very little change, albeit worthwhile change, at enormous expense. It shows the risk of letting ourselves in for the sort of report that came out of that first exercise. The Bill is largely window dressing. The substance of it is minor. I welcome the move of the Government to spell out the fact that Aboriginal affairs should be specifically included. Mind you, I do not accept this statement by the Minister in his second reading speech: The amendment proposed by Clause 3 (a) of the Bill will remove the current restriction of the Institute's activities on cultural matters to those relating only to migrants. That is some overstatement of the problem. There were some people who had some doubt as to whether the Institute of Multicultural Affairs ought to embrace in its activities the matter of Aboriginal culture. However on reading the previous speeches made on this matter, and in particular reading the speech by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) in response to the statement by the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on 11 October 1984 in which the honourable Member for Warringah referred to the second reading speech he made as the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs when setting up the Institute, it is very clear that that was never the intention. There was some specification in relation to a research function of the Institute of Multicultural Affairs and the Institute of Aboriginal Studies, but it was never the intention of the Act-in fact, it was specified that it was not the intention-that Aboriginal culture would not be included in AIMA's charter. Nevertheless, if some people had that doubt and thought that there was a constraint on the activities of the Institute of Multicultural Affairs, it is welcomed that their doubts be resolved. I have been actively interested in the subject of multicultural affairs, particularly through my involvement in education matters since I have been a member of the Commonwealth Parliament. On the many public occasions when I have had an opportunity to speak on the issue of multicultural education I have always drawn out the point that, when looking at multicultural education, we should be sure to pay heed to the many riches of Aboriginal culture and the many ways we can benefit by knowing more about it. I have always seen Aboriginal culture, as I think those truly interested in multiculturalism do, as part of the total debate. The only other comment I make relates to what is really quite a substantial difference between AIMA's annual report, and the reports of other statutory authorities. It has been passed over in debate so far. Clause 7 refers to the normal minimal reporting requirement of statutory authorities as provided in the Audit Act, but it goes further than the provisions for reports contained in that Act and spells out that certain other information must be contained in the annual report of the Institute. Clause 7 refers to requests made by the Minister under section 17, that is, requests made by the Minister to the Institute to furnish reports on such matters as the Minister may request. It also includes other directions and communications from the Minister to the Institute. It is welcome that this sort of communication between a statutory authority and a Minister is contained in an annual report. Given the sort of heat that has been generated in the debate so far, I am not sure why that clause of the Bill does not extend to the Institute's responses to the Minister. However, I think probably no great harm is done by that omission. I bring to the attention of the House that this detailed reporting is in many ways a quite innovative provision and one sincerely to be welcomed. The question of the reporting of statutory authorities is a vexed one. The issue of reporting and the content of reports will be a matter of some public dissension in respect of other Bills on the Notice Paper. I thought it worth highlighting this particular provision of the legislation as it relates to a fundamental aspect of accountability of statutory authorities; that is, the production by statutory authorities of reports concerning their activities to the Parliament and, thereby, to the people of Australia. In conclusion, I am pleased that the amendments to the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act are such that the Opposition can, and does, wholeheartedly support them. Nevertheless, I also very strongly support the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) and seconded by me, which highlights and criticises the wasteful nature of the way in which this exercise has been conducted by this Government. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(12.17) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking in this House for the first time under your stewardship. Obviously you are doing a tremendous job. If there is one difference amongst many between the Party that now occupies the Government benches and those opposite, it is that the Australian Labor Party seeks constantly to refine in this place and in policy generally the processes of government for those most in need of intervention by government and government resources on their behalf. That is an article of faith with those on this side of the House but a political expediency on the part of those opposite. Certainly the ethnic and Aboriginal communities throughout this country, those communities which provide that rich fabric of Australia's vast multiculturalism, are amongst those sections in our community in greatest need. To that end and to help our Government better meet those needs with the perennial problem of scarce resources that this and every other government in this country has had to face, it has been decided to expand the objects and functions of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs to enable it to assist in government policy making designed to help the ethnic communities and the community generally. I would like to speak specifically to the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill 1985 which we are now considering, unlike several speakers from the other side of the chamber who used this morning's episode merely as an opportunity to have a sectoral bash at one report-a report by a former Labor Minister-and to put a political spoke in the wheel. I am reminded of a speech I made in the House some time ago in which I showed quite categorically that in their years of government, the only occasions-- Mr N. A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for interrupting the honourable member's speech but I wish to take a point of order. I hasten to add that my point of order has nothing to do with the honourable member's speech. Unless I overlook something, there is no Minister in the chamber. I take the point of order that the House should not proceed while the Government is taking such a contemptuous attitude to its responsibilities that a Minister is not present. So far as I can see the Government is not represented in this House by a Minister and therefore the Government is not in control of the affairs of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —If the shadow Minister sits down, I will resolve the point of order. Mr N. A. Brown —I must say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this must be an historic event. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The point of order is not sustained. The responsible Minister indicated to me that he had to leave the chamber to deal with an urgent matter. He will be returning forthwith. Nothing in the Standing Orders prevents the debate from continuing. Mr N. A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance on the matter and I do not wish to argue the point with you. I simply make the point that there has not been a Minister in the chamber for some time. It is, if not contrary to Standing Orders, the grossest departure from accepted constitutional practice in this country. It is historic and it should be condemned. Mr PUNCH —I was feeling a little like General Custer for a moment. I was saying that in a previous speech to this House I proved quite categorically that the only occasion during the term in government of honourable members opposite on which there were significant increases in budgetary allocations to the portfolio of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs were those years immediately preceding the due dates of Federal elections or those years immediately preceding actual Federal elections. In other words, when they were planning early elections or when they knew that an election was coming up they bumped up the financial contribution to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. When we marry that fact with the speeches honourable members opposite made in this place this morning, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that the interest they show in the portfolio of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is only a vote-catching exercise. Honourable members opposite have very little genuine concern for the real plight of migrants and the ethnic communities of Australia. Having said that, I should explain to the Parliament that the amendments to the AIMA legislation resulted from the recommendations of two reports. Listening to what has been said by honourable members opposite, one would think that there was only one report. The first report, of course, was the report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. This very important review identified new areas of concern. It placed a new emphasis on equity, on access of ethnic communities to government and government-related areas and on the necessity for harmony between ethnic groups and the community generally. It also placed a new emphasis on participation by these people in the administration and social order of this country. Honourable members opposite would do well to take note that it also placed a whole new emphasis on social cohesion in this country. The second report, of course, was entitled 'Looking Forward'. It demonstrated that there is widespread support for multiculturalism. It demonstrated the necessity of addressing the social inequality that pertains in ethnic communities. It showed the necessity of relating to all Australians the benefits of multiculturalism. How very important that is, because only a very short time ago we saw a prolonged political effort to bust up the aura around multiculturalism which has been of such benefit to this country. How important it is to explain to all Australians the past, present and future benefits of multiculturalism to this country-that it is not a bogy to be frightened of and that it is not a sociologists' buzz word but a description of a commonly accepted means of social cohesion adopted by many kin countries. Clause 3 of the Bill is very important in this regard because it states a positive affirmation of multiculturalism. Members of this Parliament have a bipartisan duty to strive to fulfil this concept. The clause provides that the retention of cultural identity, with equal access and rights to play a part as every day Australians in the ongoing administration of this country, is an end in itself. It reminds me of an expression often quoted by some very good friends of mine from the Order of Ahlepa, one of the largest Greek organisations in this country and probably the world. That expression is: 'One has nothing to fear from one who loves two countries, but watch out for the one who loves none'. I think that is a positive description of what the affirmation of multiculturalism in clause 3 is all about. It recognises that, whilst members of the ethnic communities in this country are Australians and proud to be Australians, they are also proud of their heritage, and that is an important thing. Clause 3 (a) is very important for the inclusion of the Aboriginal community in Australia and deserves special merit. Clause 4 is really the nitty-gritty of the Bill. It contains new and more specific statements of functions for AIMA. The Institute will now have the responsibility for providing advice to the Government, for research and for community education. This means that AIMA will be orientated more towards achievement than towards research. In the longer run it will certainly be more useful to the ethnic communities and to the broader Australian community than it has been. Proposed new paragraphs 5 (c) and (d) as set out in clause 4 are also very important in this regard. I think all sociologists in this country would agree that in our pluralistic society one of the major concerns of disadvantaged ethnic groups is dealing with the bureaucracy and the other main players such as employers, union groups and the media. It is to the bureaucracy that I pay special attention in relation to clause 4 of this Bill. Lord Samuel once said of the civil service: 'They would find a difficulty for every solution'. One could certainly excuse the ethnic communities of this country for seeing the administration of government at all three levels through those eyes. Clause 4 specifically places the onus on the Institute for liaison, consultation and co-operation between and co-ordination of activities and services of government departments, various government and semi-government authorities, the other two levels of government-State and local-community organisations, the media and employer and employee groups, where they affect the ethnic population. That is extremely important. This represents a means to the end that we spoke of earlier. This is both a social and a financial progression. The social benefits are obvious, and include the linking and streamlining of scarce resources in this area. It will also maximise assistance and help stop the breakdown in public confidence in the public sector's ability to produce results in the everyday lives of ordinary Australians. Financially, it greatly reduces the dangers of duplication and provides clearer identification of future financial needs in the multicultural area. Proposed new sub-section (1) (e) in clause 4 is the effective embodiment of all this in a statement of the rights of ethnic communities. To embody this in legislation is a fine hallmark of social achievement and I congratulate the Labor Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) on this achievement. As the Minister has said, most disadvantaged in the ethnic communities are the smaller groups. They will be the ones who benefit most from this change. Previously they have gone largely unheard. I think it is significant that an examination of the structure of ethnic communities in this country shows that all those communities were once small and, of course, have grown as time has gone by. If this Bill results in these smaller communities having greater access to better planning, as I think it will, future settlers will truly benefit from the hard row that so many of their predecessors in their own ethnic communities and, more importantly, other ethnic communities-earlier arrivals in this country-have had to hoe. Lest anyone have any real doubts about the real value of the work being done in this area, although AIMA has had problems in the past I shall cite two examples of the good work done in the past which AIMA, under a new revised structure, will be capable of improving on in the future. AIMA has completed a report entitled 'Labour Market Programs and Services Affecting Migrant and Refugee Youth'. This Government is very active in the field of young Australians generally in the hope of combating high youth unemployment and all that goes with it, the great social morass of the poverty that surrounds it. This report is most timely and useful as an input to the Government's strategy. This Government is, as I have said, placing a heavy emphasis on turning all young people in this country from the liabilities of the social scrap-heap on which those opposite placed them to the future assets, living useful and productive lives. Young ethnic kids in my electorate are amongst the worst afflicted by the problems of youth unemployment and the ancillary problems that go with it. They are undoubtedly, particularly in the Rockdale region, amongst those in greatest need of urgent help. That this country has stood by and watched what has happened to these young people in being turned from tomorrow's assets into liabilities is a national disgrace. I am sure that the timely arrival of this AIMA report, with the revised structure of AIMA, will help this Government alleviate much of their plight. The second example is the ethnic aged project. This particularly concerns my electorate. I represent an electorate with one of the fastest rates of population ethnicisation in the area of Sydney. I think the rate would be faster than in electorates in most capital cities. The area already has a very aged population. The combination of these two demographic trends is a major concern to me because we do not have enough nursing homes and retirement villages in my electorate to cope with the present need, and we certainly have no facilities whatsoever to cope with the special needs of the old and essentially non-English speaking migrants needing this type of care and these facilities. It was Plutarch who said: 'Time which diminishes all things increases understanding for the aging'. That is a most appropriate quotation, because AIMA is conducting a national study of this very problem of the aging ethnic population, a study which is now well advanced. Its findings so far have been quite startling. It has found that aged immigrants will make up over a quarter of the aged population by 1986 and almost one-third by the year 2001 and that the number of people over 60 years of age from non-English speaking countries will double by the end of the century. In the past there has been no place for these people in this country. There has been no planning for that which is about to hit us. One could be excused for saying that that is typical of the sort of forethought of those opposite when they were in government. However, what is available in the way of facilities shows the problem. A New South Wales survey of 160 nursing homes showed that 69 per cent of Italians, 92 per cent of Greeks, 85 per cent of Hungarians and 75 per cent of Chinese residents in those nursing homes spoke little or no English. That highlights the major problem for planning. Funding for such projects, if started now under the present guidelines, is likely to be rejected because nursing bed ceilings in specific regions do not recognise the special regional and language-related social role that they would play. I mention those two examples to show the good work that has been done by AIMA and what needs to be done. More importantly in relation to this Bill, I mention them to show that these amendments were well thought out by the previous Minister, the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West), and the current Minister. They will greatly concentrate and accelerate this type of work into specific government policy. That is what needs to be done now. We are recognising the problems. As a government we are helping, by the amendments to the Act contained in this Bill, to set about establishing a structure to give effect to the research. I commend the Bill to the House. I look forward to many more years of progress in the area of immigration and ethnic affairs under the Hawke Labor Government. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(12.36) —I briefly join this debate on a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act 1979. It would be immediately noted by those with an interest in these matters that the parent Act was an action of a Liberal-National Party government motivated by the best of intentions. We are now engaged in debate on an amendment to that Act brought into this House by the government of the day. One might fairly ask why, when we seem to be mutually engaged in a common objective, there should be some disparity in view. I think the nub of the matter may be found in the response from the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) to the contribution of the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) who opened the response for the Opposition on this measure. I digress to say that I thought the honourable member for Dundas made a very well considered and analytical contribution to the debate. But that evoked a response from the honourable member for Calwell, hinging essentially on the fact that the appointee as director of the Institute was less than adequate, to put it euphemistically. I ought not to canvass argument as to the qualifications of that gentleman. But the honourable member's contribution demonstrated clearly that if the appointee had been a person totally acceptable to the honourable member for Calwell, or to any other government member, it may have evoked a similar response from our side of the House as to the suitability of that candidate. So, as I say, the nub of the matter is not so much what we are doing or what we are trying to achieve, but the spirit that attaches to that undertaking. The spirit of the Institute, as originally established, was clearly understood-that is, to attend to those legitimate difficulties and shortcomings attaching on the settlement in a strange country of people quite often from exotic parts of the world. But there is a strong suggestion that the Institute, in common with all instrumentalities and all bodies dedicated to a laudable objective, could become a victim of attitudes peculiar to those entrusted with the commission of those undertakings. To put it bluntly, if the purpose of the particular measure is denigrated or aborted by the peculiar attitudes of people who have an objective not in common with the concept of the measure, it can become counter-productive. I give this illustration quite objectively and pragmatically. Those laudable measures undertaken by this Parliament to alleviate the problems of the original Australians, the first migrants to this country, the Aborigines, which had the overwhelming support-not necessarily well-informed-of the community at large, contained programs which ostensibly were designed to accommodate the objectives of the legislation in this Parliament. It is a matter of record to this day that as a consequence of those endeavours our country is very strongly divided on a matter on which it had a uniform view. State governments, various industry groups and individuals are becoming quite disconcerted at what is happening in that activity designed to attend to the difficulties and predicaments of an identifiable group who may argue that they have been denied the entitlement common to all other Australians. That illustrates quite clearly that what starts off as a laudable undertaking can, by the manner in which it is addressed and applied, have a totally counter-productive result. To refine that point a little, the consternation rests in the fact that all our activities addressed to the Aboriginal people accrue a benefit to those who may have a tenuous claim on Aboriginality but who prosper from the very substantial taxpayer fundings through government for the purpose. The same thought applies to the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. The Opposition has indicated that it will not deny the passage of the Bill through the House, nor do I venture to suggest that it should. This is, quite properly, an action of the Government which is empowered so to act. But the point remains that in the ultimate the measure of success will attach to the spirit prevailing throughout the course of the activities in which the Institute must involve itself. I am mindful that the honourable member for Calwell also felt bound to make an allusion to the agrarian socialists among whom I must, of course, by my very presence here, be numbered. It is a quaint term. I think that perhaps the singular character of such members may evolve from the environment in which they labour and in which they are required constantly to have their feet on the ground and not their heads in the clouds. That may bring a practicality to their deliberations which is denied to others who have not benefited from the circumstances in which the agrarian socialists are constantly placed. Whilst the honourable member for Calwell made a derogatory aspersion in that respect, he is probably totally unaware that, whilst he is the representative, pro tem, for the seat of Calwell, I had the privilege of working for Arthur Augustus Calwell, the Minister of distinction after whom the seat was named, as a foundation officer of the Department of Immigration. With that experience I gained an insight of things that were happening in those days which has remained with me ever since. I am mindful of the words of the Minister of the day, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), in addressing the Bill in 1979 when he said: During the past 30 years we have experienced one of the great mass migrations of history. Over three and a half million people from more than 100 countries have made Australia their home in a magnificent saga of voluntary, planned migration. He went on to say: Australia has succeeded in maintaining social harmony and national cohesion throughout this period of immigration. This has been achieved by adjustments on the part of the host community and of the new settlers themselves. The Australian-born population has shown itself to be remarkably adaptable by progressively accepting many of the cultural values the newcomers have offered this nation, without significant racial antagonisms and tensions which have marred life in some other nations. Migrants themselves have made adjustments in order to adapt to life in their new country. That sums it up exquisitely: It all happened. With no draconian government direction to do this or not to do that, we are left exposed to the subtle influence of each other and we have jointly become assimilated. That is a word that offends some people but it is a mutual assimilation. As the migrants were adapting to us and we were deriving from them the best they had to offer, so the reverse applied to the extent that today the Australian-in the use of the common term relating to all those who permanently reside within this country-is a vastly different creature from what he or she was in the 1940s. I am about to embark on an exposition that may interest the House. I will delay doing that rather than abridge it at an inappropriate spot. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member for Wide Bay will have the opportunity to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer him to reports that the United States Secretary of Defense is formally inviting Australia to take part in a program researching the possibility of the strategic defence initiative. I ask whether, if the reports are correct, the Government will respond positively to the invitation by our most important ally, particularly in the light of this statement last year by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his paper 'Uranium, the Joint Facilities, Disarmament and Peace': President Reagan has asked that research be undertaken on the possibility of developing a US capability to intercept all incoming ballistic missiles. The purpose behind this is a highly moral one. It is to seek to replace the doctrine of assured destruction, based on attack, with a morally more acceptable concept of assured defence. If the Government does not intend to respond positively, why not? Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition has been in politics long enough to know that I do not answer hypothetical questions. But I will say this: I have not received any such invitation or communication from Mr Weinberger. Mr LANGMORE —Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of reports of the widespread incidence of repetition strain injury, such as the results of a Public Service Board survey which were published this week? What has been done so far to prevent and treat the injury? Is the Government considering any further action? Mr WILLIS —I know the honourable member is particularly concerned about the effect that repetition strain injury is having on many of his constituents. I assure him that the Government is also very concerned about this matter. Repetition strain injury is becoming an enormously important factor which is cutting a swathe through government employment and obviously is having an impact on private employment as well. As the House would be aware, repetition strain injury is an injury which affects the hand, wrist, arm, shoulder or back of persons who undertake repetitive work, and is particularly prevalent amongst office workers using keyboard equipment. The dimensions of this problem are only now beginning to be revealed. As the honourable member said in his question, a survey was conducted recently by the Public Service Board of repetition strain injury in the Australian Public Service and the results of that survey are indeed devastating. They show that, as at 31 December 1984, 3,029 staff were reported as suffering from RSI. That represents 2 per cent of all staff in the Australian Public Service. Over 80 per cent of the sufferers use keyboard equipment. The figure of 3,029 represents one in five of all APS word processing typists, data processing operators and steno-secretaries, and just under one in 10 of all typists were reported as having it. Over 90 per cent of the sufferers were women. Forty per cent were in the Australian Capital Territory and 81 per cent lost time from work because of RSI, with a median time loss of 28 days but an average time loss of 60 days. In total, the number of days lost by all RSI sufferers in the Australian Public Service is 152,400, or 610 staff years. I think those figures indicate that we are looking at something which is having an incredible effect on employment and on people employed in the Public Service. From that we can extrapolate that it is having a tremendous effect in the whole economy on employees on keyboard equipment and in office and other work involving repetition. The Government is very concerned about all that and has taken action to obtain two substantial reports. Firstly, I have asked the newly formed National Occupational Health and Safety Commission to examine RSI as a matter of high priority. That body has established an ad hoc committee to examine RSI in industry and commerce, across all occupations, and to develop a national strategy for its prevention and management. Secondly, we have established a task force on repetition strain injury in the Australian Public Service, to make recommendations on how the problem may be dealt with in the Public Service. Both those reports should be received by the middle of this year. When we receive them we will be keen to take whatever action is possible for the Government to try to limit or prevent the recurrence of this injury. Early research indicates that an early diagnosis is tremendously important as once the injury becomes entrenched it is very difficult to get rid of it; that a multiplicity of factors are causing RSI; and that the resolution of the problem will involve addressing a full set of contributing factors, including a detailed assessment of work organisation- Mr Carlton —You are wasting our time. Mr WILLIS —Is the honourable member not interested in the effect this is having on his constituents? In conclusion, the resolution of this matter will require addressing a full set of factors which will involve a detailed assessment of work organisation, the work station, and the way tasks are performed by individuals. In addition, worker training and education will be essential. When these reports are received the Government will act with alacrity to try to eliminate this scourge from our midst. Mr SPEAKER —I think honourable members are aware that I have adopted the practice that, when I am conscious of the presence in the gallery of former members of this House with long and distinguished careers, I usually welcome them on behalf of the House. I note the presence of His Honour Sir Nigel Bowen in the gallery. I welcome him on behalf of the House. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr N. A. BROWN —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Will he now report to the House on the outcome of his meeting today with Mr Justice Stewart and the Director of Public Prosecutions and, in the course of that, will he tell us what precisely are the matters that will be covered by the letters patent to establish the new royal commission into the New South Wales police tapes and related matters? Will he also explain how it is proposed, if Mr Justice Stewart is to conduct this new royal commission, that he will fit in this new work with his unfinished work on the Mr Asia drug syndicate, the Nugan Hand Bank, and the National Crime Authority? What new resources and staff will he be provided with to ensure that the work is handled efficiently and properly? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We did see Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby today. The matter will be dealt with by Cabinet and I would think a statement will be made tomorrow. Mr BLANCHARD —I ask the Minister for Social Security: Do the most recent figures on unemployment beneficiaries reflect the improvement in economic conditions and unemployment in Australia? Mr HOWE —One of the great problems we face in this country in terms of the level of Government expenditure is the result of the very extended recession which was concurrent with the conservatives' period in office. The level of benefits in 1976 was of the order of $500m. When we came into government unemployment benefits were in the order of $3 billion a year, which is a significant burden on the taxpayers and reflects the mismanagement of the economy by the coalition partners. I would like to make a couple of points about the current statistics, without making too much of them. I say simply that between 22 February and 22 March we have seen a drop in the number of people who are receiving unemployment benefits from 636,300 to 605,238, a drop of 31,000, or in percentage terms 4.9 per cent. There is one other very significant point when we look at what is happening in terms of the various States. I think the point made last week by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations needs to be very much underlined. For example, one finds that in Victoria there was a reduction of 9,940 in the number of beneficiaries, or a decline of 7.7 per cent. By comparison, in Queensland the reduction was from 110,107 to 109,710, a reduction of a mere 397 or 0.4 per cent. So it is very clear that while the economic situation-and the level of employment-is improving overall, it is not balanced and there are very significant problems in Queensland in terms of the rate at which unemployment is dropping in that State. Indeed, seeing that I mentioned the situation in Victoria, if we do not see a significant improvement in the economy in Queensland it will not be very long before the number of people unemployed in Queensland-not a heavily populated State when compared with Victoria-in absolute terms will be greater than the number of unemployed people in Victoria. So it is a very serious situation which the current figures on unemployment beneficiaries show. Of course, that does represent, as I suggest, a significant problem in terms of improving the overall level of pensions, because while we continue to have this very high level of unemployment, which I think quite clearly we inherited, it does place a burden on the taxpayer. Mr COBB —I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the article in yesterday's Age headlined 'PM takes 'Time' to task', which reports on defamation actions resulting from the reporting of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies and which states in part: The Prime Minister also sued the 'Sydney Morning Herald' and the ABC over their reporting of the issue. Both of these claims were settled out of court. Is that statement true? If so, will the Prime Minister advise the Parliament of the terms of these out of court settlements? Mr HAWKE —The answer to the first part of the question is yes, I am aware of the article. The answer to the second part is that it is not an accurate report. Mr GAYLER —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry-the Bob Hawke of the bush. It relates to the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign program. I ask, firstly, whether he would relate to the House the present situation in relation to that program and, secondly, what position the Government now holds in relation to that program in far north Queensland. Mr KERIN —The Prime Minister and I-the Prime Minister is also known as the John Kerin of the metropolitan areas-both take a keen interest in the BTEC program, as does the honourable member for Leichhardt. As honourable members will realise, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on this program and now the program is moving into its most intense phase in the remote areas of Australia, that is, the Kimberleys and the Northern Territory, the Gulf and the Cape, which take up much of the honourable member's area and also the area of the honourable member for Kennedy. The Kimberleys area was recently declared brucellosis free. We are making some progress in these areas. There are many problems in the Northern Territory with respect to buffaloes, brumbies and donkeys, not including some of those species which have recently entered this House. Mr Peacock —Do you mean the honourable member for Bendigo? Mr KERIN —No, I am referring to donkeys from the Northern Territory. The Federal Government has virtually doubled the amount of money allocated to BTEC as it moves into these difficult areas. We are now paying 75 per cent compensation for destocking. Once the Commonwealth implemented that scheme, some Queensland officials, some of the district veterinary officers, thought that this was an easy way out and they adopted something of a gung-ho attitude. Some of the properties were virtually sent broke. As the honourable member will realise, some of the people in Coen in his electorate, and also people throughout the Gulf and Peninsula areas, have written to us in that regard. The Queensland Government has now changed its operational procedures and a special committee was set up to look at additional measures in these remote areas. The Commonwealth cheque book, of course, is not inexhaustible, although it is always very hard to convince the Queensland Government of this. But as a result of that committee we did set up a multi-disciplinary approach, taking into account property viability and social and economic aspects of the campaign, rather than a straight veterinary or technical approach to the campaign. Following the last meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, I can assure the honourable member that two committees have now been set up, one to look at the remote areas and the other the ongoing committee that is concerned with the administration of the final years of the BTEC program. It has been marked by problems in the latter stages, due to the remoteness of the areas and problems with the tests which take place in conditions where cattle are stressed and do not always give the same predictable result to the test. The honourable member has taken a close interest in this matter. I believe that by taking a multi-disciplinary approach we will bring this campaign to a successful conclusion in the next few years. Mr TUCKEY —I refer the Prime Minister to his answer to the honourable member for Parkes when, of course, he did not deny an allegation made in the Press article which suggested that the Prime Minister settled out of court a defamation action with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that section 44 of the Constitution states: Any person who- (v.) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons: shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. Was there such an out of court settlement? Can he assure the House that as a consequence of that out of court settlement he is still entitled to sit in this place as a member? Mr HAWKE —As the premise of the honourable member's question is unfounded, all that flows from it is irrelevant. Mr BRUMBY —I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: What progress has the Government made in honouring its pre-election commitment to co-ordinate, at both a ministerial and departmental level, the policies affecting rural and provincial Australians? Mr KERIN —During the election campaign the Prime Minister undertook some promises in respect of rural and provincial Australia, taking into account the long-held views of the Australian Labor Party that the four and a half million non-metropolitan Australians are not all farmers. It is often assumed by the conservative parties in this House that the only policies for rural Australia are agricultural policies. In honouring the promises we have now set up a committee of the Caucus that takes into account rural and provincial Australia. We have taken steps to put an additional unit into the Department of Primary Industry to look at those dimensions of Government policy that are peculiarly rural or provincial. As well we are helping what was known as the Rural Adjustment Unit-now known as the Rural Development Centre-with some financing so that it can continue its job of helping rural communities cope with some of the problems they are facing. The peculiarly rural aspects of policies relate to the problems of isolation, distance and communications. They need to take into account, as I have said, those things peculiarly rural. For example, one could point to the assets test and say that there are some people living in rural Australia in situations that do not accord with some of the parameters being set by public servants living in Canberra. Of course, as a government that is sensitive and humane we will take these things into account, as we are doing at present. The second matter that the unit will focus on in the Government's approach to rural and provincial Australia is the view often put forward by the conservative parties, particularly the National Party of Australia, that we can deal with complex problems such as rural unemployment and rural poverty just by fixing up a particular agricultural commodity problem; in other words, the old disparaged and denigrated theory of 'trickle down'. We believe that some of these complex problems need to be attacked with a wider range of approaches than simply saying that if a township or a region is in trouble the people living in those communities will thereby have their problems solved if we fix up the commodity problem. We on this side of the House reject that. There are also questions relating to major investment decisions. I suppose that one of the better examples is that this Government is financing the Burdekin Dam, which in time will probably be known as the Eamon Lindsay dam. Flowing from that are a lot of decisions relating to what the water is used for, relating to roads, relating to communications and relating to research. Again, in terms of co-ordination and fine tuning, it seems to us a very sensible approach to have this additional sieve in respect of the decision making. The rural and provincial approach of the Commonwealth Labor Government is not going to be a pork barrelling outfit. It is not to do with decentralisation, either pork-barrelling or selective. As I have said, it is about fine tuning and getting that sensitivity that takes into account that rural-provincial Australia is about people. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Minister for Communications to this morning's edition of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation public affairs program AM and to an interview in that program with the journalist Mr Maxwell Newton. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the Newton interview named a now deceased former Premier of New South Wales, yet reference in that same interview to another person allegedly involved in the same set of circumstances canvassed in the interview was censored on the grounds that he is 'a very senior politician in New South Wales'. In view of the extraordinary sensitivity of this issue, can the Minister approach the ABC for an assurance that the decision to censor reference to the now serving very senior politician in New South Wales was on legal grounds alone? Mr DUFFY —There are some areas in which it appears members of the Opposition are extremely slow learners. I am surprised that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is following down that path. I think it ought to be pretty clear now that as far as I am concerned, and it has been the position throughout this Parliament, the question of programming-- Mr Sinclair —Except for your Prime Minister and any member of the Government. Mr DUFFY —The honourable member might care to repeat that when I am ready; I might then respond to it. The position of programming of the ABC is, as far as I am concerned, a matter in which it has total independence. I do not propose to approach the ABC to ask it anything. Mr LEO McLEAY —Has the attention of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs been drawn to the plight of some former residents of Australia who came to Australia as young children with their parents, who in many instances completed their education in Australia but who returned to their country of origin with their parents before they were old enough to apply for citizenship? Is the Minister aware that many of these former residents are keen to return to Australia? Will the Minister investigate ways and means to facilitate the return of former residents whose long residence in Australia would make them excellent immigrants? Mr HURFORD —I am aware of this category of possible new entrants to this country; I am very grateful to the honourable member for Grayndler for making me so aware. I have great sympathy with the group of people whose situation he has drawn to the attention of the House. Indeed, I believe that in the immigration program we are at the moment formulating for the 1985-86 year we shall include, if my colleagues agree with my judgment-and I believe it will be the judgment of the House-the possibility of people who have been brought up as Australians and who would obviously settle very well in this country being allowed back. In formulating that program officers of my Department and I have been consulting with a wide group of people in the community. We have consulted with people in the business community, with trade unionists and with academics. I am pleased to say that such is my magnanimity that we invited even Professor Blainey to be included in the group of academics with whom we would consult. Unfortunately he was out of the country at the time, but the wish was there. We have even gone as far as to put out an invitation to the Opposition's immigration committee to entertain the Secretary to my Department and to look at the possibilities. I hope that it will be included, because I believe that every member of this House who has climbed up that greasy pole to get here ought to have an input into the future composition of the population of this country. I will be putting the results of all these consultations to Cabinet about halfway through May. I repeat that I have reason to believe that the former residents of this country mentioned by the honourable member for Grayndler will be included in the program. I mention also an anomaly which has been allowed to rest for far too long whereby former Australian citizens who have lost their citizenship, for instance, GI brides, have no way of coming back into this country. I have in mind a way of accommodating them as well. I believe that every member of this House will support these reforms. Mr NEHL —Will the Minister for Social Security please advise the House, in regard to retired people who have lost all or part of their pension entitlement under the assets test and who are either appealing against a Taxation Office valuation or seeking to continue to receive the pension under the hardship provisions, what action he will take to provide emergency finance for pensioners left with little or no income? How long will it take for all appeals, hardship and pension loan applications to be finalised? Is the Minister aware that some pensioners' files are rubber stamped 'Assessment made from local knowledge. No inspection made'? Is he satisfied that that is a satisfactory basis on which to stop elderly Australians from receiving the pension and push them into poverty? Mr HOWE —The honourable member has asked a number of questions and it is important that I remind the House what the steps are in respect of the asset test. When the Government introduced the asset test it was made clear that it would be introduced in such a way as to provide not only for an assessment to be made of hardship under hardship provisions, which were broadly speaking in principle included in the legislation, but also that after that initial assessment was made at the level of the regional office there ought to be, both at the level of the regional office and at State level, a further review to ensure that decisions made with respect to hardship were fully in accord with the legislation and with Government policy. Also provided for with respect to the asset test, as it is for all people who are denied eligibility to a pension, a part pension or an allowance, is that there will be an appeal process which includes at State level the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and beyond that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. So the test has been introduced in a way to provide thoroughly for assessment of genuine hardship and also for a proper review through an appeals process which enables the evidence to be properly judged, not within legalistic terms but in a way in which it is possible to contest in an independent way judgments made within the Department of Social Security. There are two other principal issues. Nowhere in the social security appeal provisions, whether applying to the asset test or in any other circumstance, is there generally speaking a payment made during that appeal process. Mr Hodgman —That is not right. What about special benefit? Mr HOWE —There are circumstances in which special benefit may be paid, but generally speaking that provision which is being sought by the member does not apply. If we did open the door in that area, there would not be too many people in Australia affected by any means test provision who would not be getting into the appeal process. I think that proposition contains dangers. The Government also made a clear commitment that we would monitor the operations of the assets test. It is too early to draw any conclusions about that, but over the next few months we will be carefully monitoring the assets test to ensure that there are no inequities. Finally, I pick up the complex question of valuation. It is true that we wrote into the whole approach of the question of valuation of property a commitment to being non-intrusive. I have said in this House, and I repeat now, that there has been no intention at any stage through this process to enter anyone's home. There is not now and will not be in future. With respect to rural properties, we are anxious that there be a proper valuation. If the honourable member likes to give me the details of the case, I will ensure that that particular valuation can be reviewed. It can be reviewed immediately and a decision made immediately with respect to it. But when people appeal through the social security appeals tribunal they can invite the Taxation Office to carry out a comprehensive valuation-which clearly would involve entering the property, but I repeat not the house-or, alternatively, there is provision for them to seek an independent valuation of their own choosing, which would be the basis of evidence which no doubt they would be putting within the context of the appeal tribunals. If the honourable member has any other details I will be interested to talk about the particular case. But I believe that the Government has been extremely careful with respect to the assets test to ensure that a proper review is carried out in a way that enables people to test evidence in a totally objective way which does not depend on any factors other than the legislation itself as provided for in the House. Ms JAKOBSEN —Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to the practice of some specialists of not placing item numbers on accounts, thus forcing patients to pay their accounts in full before any refund can be made through Medicare? Dr BLEWETT —I am familiar with the deplorable situation which has developed with some surgeons in some States, which is quite clearly another tactic designed to discredit Medicare and to exacerbate the doctors' dispute. The Government condemns this irresponsible action and it does so on three grounds. I believe that all responsible members of the House-and I exclude the right honourable member for New England-would also condemn this action. The first ground is that the doctors concerned in this matter have chosen simply to use their patients as pawns to further their own unrealistic demands. Secondly, in using their patients in this way they are causing unnecessary inconvenience and often considerable hardship to sick people, that is, hardship to their own patients. Thirdly, when one looks at the letters that they have sent out, one sees that the alleged grounds for the actions are a complete distortion of the real issues. The Government is not prepared to allow sick members of the public to be used in this despicable power play. It is therefore proposed in relation to these actions to seek the co-operation of the Australian Medical Association and responsible members of the medical profession in dealing with this group. In addition, the Government will take action to inform the members of the public so affected of the real issues in dispute. Mr LLOYD —I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether the real reason for the Government's dairy industry plan which will ruthlessly reduce the size of the Australian industry and terminate its $300m a year exports is a deal with New Zealand- Mr Cunningham —On a point of order, I submit that the honourable member for Murray is seeking an opinion of the Minister and is out of order. Mr SPEAKER —Order! No point of order is involved. Mr LLOYD —Is the real reason a deal with New Zealand to renegotiate closer economic relations so that in the 1990's there will be unlimited imports of New Zealand dairy produces and, in return, special access for Australian steel or manufactured goods to New Zealand? Is this policy or deal confirmed by a leaked Standing Committee on Agriculture minute of February 1984 which states that it is the Labor Government's intention to encourage unlimited New Zealand dairy imports? Mr KERIN —The short answer to the honourable member's question is no. This is a figment of his imagination, and he is busily running around with some of the nonsense that he is being fed by agro-politicians who feel that their political lives are at stake within the dairy industry. The only reference to New Zealand, and that reference has been consistently made, by the Government, is that as the international market is totally corrupted by subsidisation, particularly by the European Economic Community and North America, there is no benchmark in terms of an export price and the level of protection and assistance that we should aim for in the Australian dairy industry. At present the calculation is that the Australian dairy industry, in terms of export manufactured products, has about 72 per cent protection. That figure is the same as that which is applied to our manufacturing industries and to all our other rural industries, but it is an unreal figure because it is referring to a corrupted international dairy product market. The market was even further corrupted when the EEC quite happily breached the international dairy agreement and, recently, virtually gave 223,000 tonnes of butter to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. We are looking at trying to get some sort of benchmark. What is contained in the Government's plan and what was contained in the Australian Dairy Industry Conference plan at the end of six or seven years was a level of protection of about 130 per cent. That is 30 per cent protection as opposed to 72 per cent at present. Part of the calculation involved in arriving at that figure is that based on the New Zealand import parity undumped, unsubsidised and not taking freight into account. I am quite confident that the Victorian and Tasmanian industries in particular with their production efficiency-as they are the industries on which 90 per cent of Australian exports are now based-can meet that sort of competition. All that the reference to New Zealand is about is a benchmark and not the heightened fancies of the honourable member, not the allegations of the industry or those of some of the officials in the various States. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I ask the Minister for Science whether he would explain to the House what is meant by 'fifth generation computers'. Is any significant degree of research being undertaken in Australia in relation to those computers? If so, is there any interest on the part of the Government in this research? Will any form of assistance be provided by the Government? Finally, do these fifth generation computers have anything to do with artificial intelligence? If they do, and if the Commonwealth Government provides financial assistance towards their development, will the Minister ensure that some of them at least are made available to the Opposition? Mr BARRY JONES —Where natural intelligence fails, artificial intelligence, like artificial insemination in another context, may be the only way out. The essential form of the so-called fifth generation computers is that they are 'smart' machines, computers not dependent on software. The point about conventional computers as we have become used to them-the so-called 'Von Neumann' machines-is that one has to give software with very precise sets of instructions to the computer. Without this precise set of instructions the computer fouls up and one does not get an appropriate answer. This is where the natural intelligence of human beings has the advantage over artificial intelligence. Because humans have a wider range of reference, we can do things that computers cannot yet do. Computers are wonderful at number crunching but they have not been good at things like pattern recognition-reading maps or photographs-or in cases where it is necessary to extract information from them, for example, on matters such as drug control. The point about-- Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I wonder whether we could adjourn this lecture to one of the Committee rooms of the Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I must warn the honourable member for Mitchell again. He persists not in taking points of order but in making statements. While the honourable member may not be interested in the subject matter, the question is a proper question under the Standing Orders and is within the Minister's areas of responsibility. I call the Minister. Mr BARRY JONES —It is very important to us to involve ourselves in fifth generation research because, if fifth generation computers are perfected, it means that software will become irrelevant. If we can instruct computers through using plain language, just by inserting a letter or by telling it what to do without having to provide software, an area which has been a very important area of growth in Australia will simply disappear. There will be enormous economic implications for the nation which is there first in developing fifth generation computing. We are very fortunate to have attracted and, thanks to the foresight of the Commonwealth Government, to have retained the services of a group of key personnel led by Dr Jean-Louis Lassez, who are internationally recognised and who are making a very significant contribution. There is a collective involvement among Melbourne University and Monash University, the New South Wales Institute of Technology and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I pay tribute to that group. We are well in there. Despite the small size of our nation, I think that we are in an excellent position to make a significant contribution to fifth generation computing. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of the Special Minister of State annual report for 1983-84. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —On behalf of the Minister for Finance and for the information of honourable members I present a summary relating to the report of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Department of Finance Joint Working Party, which was tabled on 25 March 1985, together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Finance relating to the document. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(2.43) —Before I move the motion that the debate be adjourned, I seek leave of the House to table the statement that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) was due to make yesterday in relation to this matter. I ask the Minister whether he has his statement? Mr Hurford —It is the one I just tabled. Mr MacKELLAR —May I have a look at it? I thought the Minister tabled the statement by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh). Mr Hurford —It is exactly the same as my statement. It is one that the Minister for Finance made in the Senate. Mr SPEAKER —Order! This is not a matter for debate. Mr MacKELLAR —Yesterday, as was quite proper, a member of the staff of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs came to me with a copy of a statement that the Minister intended to make on his own behalf in relation to a matter that I raised in the House. I understand that today the Minister has tabled a statement of the Minister for Finance and not the statement of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that he was due to make. Mr SPEAKER —Order! This is not a matter for the Chair. This is not an appropriate time to debate it. Mr Hurford —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a statement. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will allow the Minister the indulgence to respond but I cannot let this become a free-ranging debate. Mr HURFORD —It is a fact that I am tabling something today on behalf of the Minister for Finance. It is a statement that he made in the Senate. Yesterday I sought the permission of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) to make exactly the same statement myself. Time was not available for that to be done. So to save time I have just tabled the same statement today. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Warringah-- Mr MacKELLAR —I will investigate this matter. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will move for the adjournment of the debate or he will resume his seat. Mr MacKELLAR —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the statement which was provided to me yesterday. Mr SPEAKER —Is leave granted?. Mr Young —No. Mr SPEAKER —Leave is refused. Does the honourable member now intend to move the adjournment of the debate? Mr MacKELLAR —Mr Speaker, this is an abuse- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is abusing the procedures of the House. Does he intend to move the adjournment of the debate? Mr MacKELLAR —I am seeking leave to make a statement in relation to this matter. Mr SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Young —No. Mr MacKELLAR —As that has been refused, I move: That the debate be adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 46 (3) of the Management and Investment Companies Act 1983 and, I may say, with a great deal of personal satisfaction, I present the Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board annual report for the year ended 30 June 1984. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 33 (4) of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962, I present the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority annual report 1983-84. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 17 of the Consumer Affairs Ordinance 1973, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council and the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Bureau for 1983-84. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council and the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Bureau for 1983-84. Mr MacKellar —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Just a few moments ago we heard the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs say that the statement he tabled today was the same as the one he was going to table yesterday. I have both statements in my hand. They do not coincide and perhaps he would like to make a personal explanation as to why they do not coincide and why he misled the House? Mr SPEAKER —Order! It is really not a point of order. Unless the Minister seeks the indulgence of the Chair to make an explanation, I think it is a matter between the Minister and the honourable member for Warringah to discuss outside the House. What was circulated yesterday is not a matter within the knowledge of the House. I suggest that it is a matter for private discussion between the Minister and the honourable member for Warringah. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr HAYDEN —Rather unusually, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) this morning quoted approvingly something for which I was responsible. He was referring to the strategic defence initiative and he said that in the document 'Uranium, The Joint Facilities, Disarmament And Peace' the following appears about SDI: The purpose behind this is a highly moral one. It is to seek to replace the doctrine of assured destruction, based on attack with a morally much more acceptable concept of assured defence. That appears at the bottom of page 13. He should have gone on to page 14 because at the top of that page it goes on to say, in a highly qualified and restrained way: There has been a considerable debate going on as to whether, in practice, this highly laudable goal can be achieved, and whether it might unintentionally create a more unstable situation than that which it seeks to replace. In this debate a range of major difficulties has been raised. The document then goes on to discuss five major reservations which have been raised in respect of SDI. In the circumstances, the context in which the Leader of the Opposition sought to use that quote is scarcely justified. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. I claim that the Minister has-- Mr SPEAKER —Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to make a personal explanation on the basis that he has been misrepresented? Mr PEACOCK —Yes. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition may proceed. Mr PEACOCK —Whilst, with very good grace, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) introduced his remarks by reminding the House that it would be rather unusual for me to misquote him, he then went on to seek to persuade the Chair to the view-- Mr Hayden —To quote me at all, and I would wish you would not do it often. It doesn't help me at all over here. Mr PEACOCK —I wish the Minister would speak with greater clarity. To me he sounds as if he is talking to the Centre Left and the Left all at the one time. Mr Hayden —Oh, that is not like you at all. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed. To return to the point that has been raised, he sought before concluding his short remarks to allege that I have deliberately or otherwise, misquoted him. I have not. The statement virtually stands on its own. To the extent that I use the term 'virtually' it is only because it is contained within a lengthy document. In the sentence referred to by the Foreign Minister, he referred to his reference on the next page to considerable debate going on. That is a statement of fact. No one denies that there is considerable debate. It in no way qualifies his remarks, which I quoted today, that the aim of the President is to seek to replace the doctrine of assured destruction and that the purpose behind his actions is a highly moral one. In no way is it qualified by reference to debate in the community. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —I should like to put the record straight. I think if honourable members care to read-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will give the Minister for Foreign Affairs the call, but I remind honourable members that the mechanism for personal explanations is as to where they are personally misrepresented. They are not an excuse to call on debate on extraneous matters. I trust that the Foreign Minister will be brief. Mr HAYDEN —I merely observe that if the two quotes are looked at with the examples cited, it will be readily apparent that it was a rather tactful way of raising major reservations. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition, I take it, also wishes to make a personal explanation. I trust that he will observe the warning I have given from the chair and be very brief in this matter. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed, Mr Speaker. I wish to wind it up. I want to show some understanding. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is clearly confused. It is alleged that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has informed him that there have been no Vietnamese troop movements over the Cambodian border. He does not know whether to believe him or not. The reality is that placing those two together in no way qualifies his, I think, proper statement in support of SDI. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —by leave-On 16 September 1982 Mr S. A. Lusher, MP tabled a report on taxation expenditures by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. The report was concerned with the implications for the level of public scrutiny of not having comprehensive information about revenue forgone through particular taxation provisions which reduce or defer tax otherwise payable. Such provisions are as much a call on the Budget as are direct budgetary outlays, and in many cases they are alternatives to direct outlays. They have come to be referred to as taxation expenditures. Since coming to office this Government has subjected taxation expenditures to similar review as direct outlays. I can say that the Government wholeheartedly supports the general thrust of the Committee's recommendations. The Government agrees with the Committee that it is important that adequate information be generally available on taxation expenditures, particularly on costings. Only if that is done can the various provisions be evaluated and an adequate level of public accountability secured. The Budget documentation on taxation expenditures has been expanded in recent years. The Committee's report noted that such developments had occurred in 1980-81 and 1981-82. Since the report was completed, Budget documentation has taken the trend further. It is the intention to introduce further improvements over time. Before addressing specific steps which might be taken to meet that general objective, I mention some background about the costing of taxation expenditures. The main sources of data used in costing taxation expenditures are taxation statistics derived from taxation returns. Figures for selected items are extracted when returns are being assessed, and detailed tables are prepared after most assessments have been completed. Existing returns, of course, are designed primarily for assessment purposes, not for statistical purposes. Also, resource constraints require that only part of the quantitative information derivable from returns can be statistically compiled in any year. I turn now to specific steps which will be taken. I intend that the Treasury submission to the Committee be taken as a basis for further work. That submission examined the concept of taxation expenditures. It provided a comprehensive list of such expenditures, together with a statement of their broad objectives and, where possible, an indication of their gross cost to revenue. The submission was published in the 1982-83 Budget documentation. The intention is that the list attached to it will be published annually with updated costings, although that may not be possible in time for the 1985-86 Budget because of the weight of work connected with the review. The objective is to fill in gaps in the figures and to develop the information presented. I consider that that will go a long way towards meeting the Committee's objectives. No doubt data unavailability and other problems will prevent the costing of all items. The Committee recognised that when it said at paragraph 53: The Committee does not expect all taxation expenditures to be costed. In the United States cost information is given for items whose annual costs are expected to exceed $5 million. The Government should provide cost information for what are considered to be the major taxation expenditures, for example those with an estimated cost of more than one million dollars a year. I shall now respond more specifically to each of the Committee's recommendations. Recommendation 1 states: The Government gives the Parliament an undertaking to provide comprehensive information on taxation expenditures within three years from the tabling of this Report. Recommendation 2 states: All taxation expenditure items together with their objectives be listed in the Budget Papers. What I proposed earlier in this statement will go a long way towards meeting these recommendations. However, the content of the basic income taxation statistics which will be available by July or August 1985 is already determined and they are already being extracted from 1982-83 and 1983-84 tax returns. That will limit the amount of additional costing which can be done within what remains of the three years. Recommendation 3 states: The Treasurer consult with other Ministers to ensure that the listing covers taxation expenditures in areas outside the Treasurer's principal responsibility. I generally accept this recommendation. My only proviso is that I would not envisage that the material published would cover Customs duties. While preferential Customs duties are used to pursue objectives such as sectoral assistant, except in the case of the 2 per cent revenue duty, there is-unlike the income tax and sales tax system-normally no ready benchmark treatment under a Customs duty system from which to measure departures as taxation expenditures. Taxation expenditure information prepared by other countries does not normally extend to Customs duties, the revenue raised by which is incidental to their prime function. It might be noted, however, that the Industries Assistance Commission regularly publishes information in its annual report on assistance to industry which is provided mainly by way of tariffs and quantitative import restrictions. Recommendation 4 states: In addition to the listing of all taxation expenditures and their objectives, the information in the Budget Papers contain the estimated cost to revenue of the major taxation expenditures for the Budget year that is current and the two preceding years. The proposal that I have already mentioned will go some way towards meeting this recommendation, which the Government accepts as an ideal to aim at. Some of my earlier comments, however, indicate that expectations have to be tempered with realism. In particular, the number of 'major' items of expenditure for which accurate costs could be provided for the current Budget year and the two preceding years would always be limited because those years go beyond the most recent income tax statistics available at the time. That would be particularly so for the current Budget year. There may also be conceptual difficulties involved in identifying and classifying tax expenditures especially where a benchmark or normal taxation treatment form is not readily apparent or a choice is controversial. For example, some knotty conceptual issues attach to costings in such areas as depreciation. While much is being learned from overseas studies in this area the studies confirm the view that the definition, collection and determination of the cost of tax expenditures is not a straightforward matter. Recommendation 5 states: Individual taxation expenditure items be classified in functional groupings similar to the classification of direct outlays. Recommendation 6 states: The functional classification of taxation expenditures be cross-classified according to the departments responsible for the direct spending equivalents. The list attached to the Treasury submission to the Committee did classify many of the items by function. There would be problems in striving for as fine a functional classification as is provided for Budget outlays. Cross-classification by the department responsible for the direct spending equivalent would also pose considerable difficulties in some instances. Many taxation expenditures do not lend themselves to such a break-up. They are not all completely concessional in nature and it would prove to be very difficult to allocate items such as the investment allowance between various departments. In its public hearings, members of the Committee made the point that, where there were difficulties in providing precise estimates, a ball-park estimate was vastly better than no estimate. The Government agrees with that. However, to go further and attempt to provide detailed functional and other cross-classifications of such 'ball-park' figures may not be a useful exercise. That would be particularly so in the case of the items that I have referred to where there are conceptual as well as data problems. Recommendation 7 states: Taxation expenditure information be presented as a separate Budget Statement in the Budget Papers. I would see the choice between a separate Budget statement or, as at present, an appendix to the revenue statement as depending very largely on the length of the tax expenditure documentation. However, there is a more basic issue to be considered: Whether inclusion in the Budget documentation is the best way to do justice to detailed information on taxation expenditures. The estimates relating to taxation expenditures contained in recent Budget Papers have been based on taxation statistics which in many cases became available only shortly before the Budget. This has meant that the information has necessarily been completed each year under a great deal of pressure at a time when manpower resources are stretched, in both Treasury and the estimating area of the Taxation Office. For example, in the 1982-83 Budget Papers it was not practicable to up-date all the figures that had been prepared four to six months earlier for the items in the Treasury submission to the Committee. Further, only costs of those measures for which data were readily available were quantified. Also, statistics for partnerships and trusts do not become available until late in the calendar year. Although we shall have to feel our way on this matter, it may prove to be the case that publication in February or March would be the only effective way to provide the detail envisaged by the Committee. Recommendation 8 states: Where the proposed financial impact statement to be included in a Minister's second reading speech to a Bill relates to taxation expenditures, the Government incorporate an explanation as to why the taxation system is preferred to direct outlays for giving assistance. This recommendation is accepted. In conclusion, I can say that the Government considers that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure has performed a valuable public service in its examination of tax expenditures. The Government supports the broad thrust of the Committee's recommendations and intends to develop further the information published on taxation expenditures. Data and resource constraints will influence how far we can go, particularly in the short term because of the priority that the Government is giving to a comprehensive review of the tax system. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —by leave-The Opposition generally welcomes the statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) which is a further step along the path of providing more information to the Parliament and to the public about taxation expenditure. He has responded, on behalf of the Government, in a positive way to the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure chaired by the former member for Hume, Mr Lusher. It will be recalled that the process of providing more information on tax expenditures commenced, I think, in the 1981 Budget, and that process has continued in subsequent Budgets with more and more information being made available. It is clearly in the public interest that what amounts in many cases to expenditure through the taxation system and the conferring of benefits and privileges through the taxation system that might otherwise be conferred through the expenditure side of the Budget be fully detailed for public and parliamentary scrutiny. The only qualification I make is that we ought to recognise that there are two categories of tax expenditures. There are those that can in a quite bona fide manner be described as expenditures through the taxation system. Then there are those, such as the dependent spouse rebate, that cannot properly be regarded as an expenditure through the taxation system but rather are a recognition of the very simple fact that it costs more to support two people than it does one. Some of the ideologues in some of the more radical feminist groups in our community might be made a little more conscious of that. I find the proposition advanced by people such as Senator Ryan and a few others that the dependent spouse rebate should be means tested the equivalent of advocating that the $4,500 tax-free threshold should be means tested. I think that both propositions are equally absurd. I think that this simply draws attention to the fact that we ought not be too theoretically zealous in looking at this question of tax expenditures and that we ought to recognise that some of the technical tax expenditures in our system are not really disguised expenditures in the proper sense of the word but rather recognise a few fundamental realities such as the fairly obvious one that it costs more to support two people than one and that the spouse rebate is not some kind of middle class welfare rip-off, as it is described by some of the more radical feminist groups in our community. The Acting Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Tertiary Education Fees To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many persons willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees for post-secondary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of students. 2. any form of Stamp Duty or similar system of the 'user pays' principle in education not be introduced. 3. emphasis should be on increasing access to education by, among other things, increasing student financial assistance. 4. the visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs immediately clarify the government's attitude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cross and Mr Jull. 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 Commissioners decision to allow the de facto and homosexual partners of ABC staff to travel at public expense, and that the Government should introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes, (3) Protect Australians and those who enter into de jure (legal) marriages, and their families, from exploitation and the encroachment of immoral regulations and Acts into the traditional and Christian forms of life. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan. 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 Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government reject any attempt to re-introduce Tertiary Fees. by Mr Free. 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 opposition to the following matters: Any alteration to the Australian Flag Removal of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen when taking the oath of Australian Citizenship Any move to change Australia to a republic Removal of the Crown from Australian Passports Therefore we, the undersigned, do fervently request the Federal Government to cease any moves to bring about the abovementioned matters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable, the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 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 3 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 place in space. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 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 its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: Will ensure that the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole national flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until 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 Langmore. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Donald Cameron. Petitions received. 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 failure of the Prime Minister to confront Labor's factional interests over the vital question of tax reform. 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)(3.12) —Two issues will dominate political affairs in Australia during this Government's second and undoubtedly, final term. They are, firstly, national security and, secondly, the urgent need for the fundamental reform of a tax system which has become clearly unjust. We have recently seen in the conduct of foreign affairs the total failure of leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in confronting Australian Labor Party factions and factionalism, which is now institutionalised, causing through that failure an erosion of Australia's credibility among our friends and allies. This Prime Minister and his Government are following the same path of appeasement on tax reform. There is no argument about the need for reform. There is no argument that reform needs strong decisions. The present structure has become regressive and punitive to millions of taxpayers. It is, as all honourable members on this side of the House know, strangling incentive not only among individuals but also in every area of the economy. It therefore inhibits enterprise, reduces our competitiveness, costs jobs and severely restricts our great potential for growth. Mr Rocher —It creates massive uncertainty. Mr PEACOCK —And that uncertainty becomes worse and worse as this Prime Minister checks and rechecks counts in the Caucus rather than determining what is in the best interests of Australia. The factors that I mentioned earlier relating to tax are the reasons why the Opposition originally commended the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and offered some bipartisan support when they appeared to be committed to fundamental tax reform. There is no doubt that the present tax structure is negative and destructive. It is the more so because under this Labor Government the average Australian working men and women and the middle income earners are unquestionably suffering the most. Just consider some of the structural changes that have occurred in taxation over the years. The facts come from David Morgan, a well-known Treasury tax expert who heads the Government's tax summit task force. Income tax now makes up more than 50 per cent of all Federal Government revenue compared with 39 per cent 15 years ago. In 1978-79 the average taxpayer paid a marginal tax rate of 34 per cent and an average rate of 23 per cent. Today he pays a marginal rate of 46 per cent and an average rate of 25 per cent. This means that that part of his wages, with the Medicare levy added, is being taxed at 47c in the dollar. Make no mistake about it; during the election campaign, when we highlighted the need for tax reform, dozens and dozens increasing to hundreds of thousands of people listened not only to us but also to what the Government offered. We will come to what the Government offered-nothing but the bag of snakes with which it is wrestling at the moment because it had not thought through the consequences of going into a campaign without a policy on taxation as we had. The fact is that the average person is being squeezed more and more. Gone is the incentive to keep working overtime. It was an awareness of the kinds of penalties for hard work which lead the Opposition to include, for example, income splitting as part of its policies for tax reform in the last election. It is an awareness of the other penalties that the Government has in mind for hard work and thrift which has led us to oppose totally a capital gains tax. As we have said before, a capital gains tax is no different from the high marginal tax rates which punish average and middle income earners. A capital gains tax would discourage fruitful investment, rob small and family businesses of their hard-won rewards for years of work, drive small farmers off their properties and punish those millions of Australians who properly believe that they are entitled to a modestly comfortable retirement after a lifetime of effort and saving. The Treasurer well recalls-he has restated my own remarks time and again-that throughout the campaign I said that as certain as night follows day this Government, if returned, would introduce a capital gains tax. It is coming down the line like an express train ahead of the Australian community. The Government sought to deny it. The Treasurer explicitly stated that he had no plans for a capital gains tax. The only conclusion to draw from that is twofold: He either had no plans in the tax field, which is something he now resiles from, or he was misleading the Australian community. I will punt on the latter. I have indicated how clear it is that the tax burden is unequally and inequitably distributed. What is also clear is that cuts in government expenditure must run parallel with tax reform. That is not the case here. There has been no discussion other than a statement from the Treasurer relating to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure about cutting government expenditure. What we want is a commitment to government restraint in spending, which is the other side of tax reform. It has not been discussed by this Government, which means, of course, that the Prime Minister is going into his reform two-up game with a double-headed coin. Whichever side comes up, the taxpayer will still be the loser. In many ways tax reform is increasingly a case of the MX revisited. Once again, we have a Prime Minister losing his nerve and putting the national interest last. Once again, the numbers in Caucus, the appeasement of factional interests, are paramount. The result is a sorry litany of deception and indecision from the Prime Minister. When he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Prime Minister used the old technique of being a late entry into industrial disputes. He then claimed credit for their resolution, when in fact they were almost resolved before he intervened. Mr Rocher —Leads from the rear. Mr PEACOCK —He leads from the rear. Being a Prime Minister demands a degree of authority not shown by this man. As I said, he went into the last election campaign without a tax policy. He made policy on the run, as he did with the MX decision, and his only decision on tax reform came from a half-joking Perth radio announcer who gave the Prime Minister a way out by suggesting a tax summit. Like the streaker, he thought it was a good idea at the time. It is now haunting him as he grapples with this bag of snakes which eventually will not only strike him and his Government down but also, regrettably, strike at Australians in the meantime. It is clear that the Government is now going to put down a White Paper. During the election campaign the Prime Minister said: It would be quite inappropriate to pre-empt the consultative arrangements on the overall system that will proceed during 1985 by detailing a preferred Government position. That is a change again. We will soon know broadly where the Government stands because we will get this White Paper. It will contain mention of a capital gains tax and I am sure it will lead to some discussion-if the Left and the Centre Left have their way-on inheritance taxes, gift duties and death duties. After all, members of the Centre Left met at the Park Royal motel on a Friday and a Saturday a couple of weeks ago. I saw them trekking in like penguins, denying entry to anyone but me-denying entry to the Left and the Right. Do honourable members know where they met? They met in the Robert Menzies Room at the Park Royal motel. They laid down their prescription for tax reform which is now-- Mr Hayden —We are both embarrassed. There wasn't much choice. Mr PEACOCK —My God, Menzies would have had a clearer view of what to do with the recommendations of the Centre Left than this Prime Minister has. He would have stated in clear and unequivocal terms that he was leading a party, not of factions but a party which had a central purpose. He would have laid out a blueprint and a schedule for tax reform which the faction of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), the Left faction, and his opponent, the Right faction, will be seeking to mix up in the months ahead, but the mixture will fall on the Australian people. We are facing nothing but a litany of demands from various factions which are adding to the Prime Minister's agony and which will add to the taxpayers' agony down the line. Let me illustrate what is coming out from various elements of the Government. The House will recall that in the last couple of weeks the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has come out in total opposition to broadening the indirect tax base. Mr Howard —He is a noted economist. Mr PEACOCK —Indeed. Following him, the House will recall that the Prime Minister told the Caucus that Party debates had to take place behind closed doors. No one was to say anything. He said that on 19 March and on 20 March he went on a radio program and expressed doubts about the Government's ability to crack down on fringe benefits, describing it as a 'very difficult area'. That happened after the Treasurer had leaked details before he was able to go on a radio program himself. We have had the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) all hoeing in on this matter. We do not question the right of Ministers to comment on their portfolios. But in their factional brawling they expose the Prime Minister's lack of authority and create total confusion in the minds of the community. This community can justifiably demand that those honourable members opposite who were returned to government only a few months ago ought to know what they intend to do at least in the early days of their Administration. There has been total confusion and total deception. On the part of the Leader of one of the groups there has been absolute weakness-that is, in the Prime Minister. The backdowns are occurring time and again. The Prime Minister went to Canada as the physical example of what ought not to be done. I suppose he had a sign around the neck saying: 'Don't let this happen to you'. In Canada the Prime Minister ducked away further. It was a typical response from the current Prime Minister who declared: Democracy is not governments imposing views. That is interesting. He continued: You have to get a feel of what is acceptable-that is, unless you want to be engaged in the process of hari-kari. Actually, I am glad the Prime Minister mentioned hari-kari. The Prime Minister should remember that in hari-kari the dagger always enters from the left. So great is the confusion that the de facto controller of this Government-the Government calls him into the Cabinet room to determine the outline of Budgets; we will see him going in again in a couple of months-Mr Dolan, of the ACTU has now admitted that the tax summit: 'Could become a bit bloody useless'. Thus does the owner and the trainer given his lightweight jockey-the Prime Minister-instructions in the saddling paddock that the horse will run dead. This horse is being nobbled to impose a particular form of taxation on the Australian people-capital gains tax. The Government wants to find throughout that summit additional means of milking Australians further. The Government has squeezed them dry in the income tax field. It knows it cannot go further. There will be no real reductions in taxation because the Government is not addressing the matter of expenditure. but it is addressing additional ways of raising revenue while going on with its program as a redistributive party committed to funding ever more projects within the Australian community. There once was a Labor leader who put his country before his Party and his personal position. That was John Curtin who, according to his biographer, Lloyd Ross, said that he: . . . faced squarely his political difficulties and fought his permanent battles to adapt the aims of the Labor movement to the needs of the nation. It was another biographer, Norman Lee, who said of Curtin: The full measure of his-- that is, Curtin's-- achievement can be judged by the fact that he, and he alone, was primarily responsible for persuading the Australian Labor movement, freely and voluntarily, in the national interest to do something undreamed of in other years. In aiming for a fundamental shift to less reliance on income tax, the Prime Minister, as we have stated time and again, has the support of his Treasurer and, indeed, of the Opposition. I think he would have the support of the majority of the Australian people. But against him he has the Left, probably the Centre Left and probably the ACTU. Mr Gear —No. Mr PEACOCK —Who would know, though? The honourable member says 'no', but who would know from one day to the next? It must be music in the Treasurer's ears. The honourable member has not told him. I suspect that the only worry the Treasurer has about that is that the honourable member is sitting behind him, but he will be cheered by the news. In the following days we will know. The fact is that the majority of the community is being dictated to by major ALP and trade union factions at the moment. The Government knows that this nation needs fundamental reform of our income tax structure and greater reliance on the emphasis of incentive. We know the reform is crucial. The Government knows the reform is crucial. Sadly, Australia and ordinary Australians are the ones who will be the losers. In this debate the Government has shown no clarity and there has been no strength from the Prime Minister. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.27) -I was amused to read the terms of this matter of public importance because they are almost identical to a matter raised a week ago by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable Member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). He talked about: The damage already done to the cause of genuine tax reform by the factionalism within the Government The terms of today's matter of public importance are: The failure of the Prime Minister to confront Labor's factional interests over the vital question of tax reform. We can see the sort of snakey relationship that exists on the other side of the House between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and his Deputy. The Leader of the Opposition has come in to the House today to show us that he was not happy with the performance of the honourable member for Bennelong last week. He has had to do a re-run of a hackneyed proposition, in the first place, a week later. The Leader of the Opposition has to show that he can withstand the challenge by dealing with a complex issue himself. He has not made much of a fist of it, I might add. In other words, what we are really seeing on the other side of the House is the Deputy Leader talking about tax reform but the Leader of the Opposition saying: 'You won't have all this to yourself; now give me the words of that MPI'. He has changed a word or two here or there and has come into the House a week later to speak on the same subject. What is so pathetic about all this is: Fancy the Leader of the Opposition accusing the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of changing his position on anything, and questioning his bona fides, when the Leader of the Opposition was so embarrassingly nobbled by his Party and by his Deputy after he made a very clear and unequivocal statement on tax reform on the Sunday program three weeks ago. It is worth putting this on the parliamentary record. The Leader of the Opposition said: But the presumption we bring to bear is that the people, having voted on the first of December to elect the Government are entitled to have the Government's programs put down. The difficulty for a political party here is that once you open, and I'll be very frank, Pandora's box if you like, there is no certainty for the Government or the people. Now we may resolutely oppose elements of the Government's Budget and pledge ourselves to reform them on return but we've been defeated in the election, and that Government is entitled to get that Budget through despite our fundamental disagreement with elements of it. He was asked: Even if its got a capital gains tax in it? He replied 'Yes' and went on to say: If they include it within their Budget according to the principles that we've laid down at the present moment it could not be thrown out. That is where the Leader of the Opposition stood on the vital question of tax reform. He recognised that this Government had sought and won a mandate to reform the tax system. He recognised that this Government had resisted all the attempts by him and his Deputy in the election campaign to close off tax options, and he made a principled statement about it. In other words he said: 'It was not our program. We will pass it. If we seek to change it we will do it in office.' We find now that the Deputy Leader nobbled him when he was asked on the following day where he stood. First of all, we had the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) calling upon the coalition to block Supply. Then the Deputy Leader came in, and when asked whether he stood behind Mr Peacock's promise he said: Well Mr Peacock didn't say that, and I think there is a total misunderstanding on this. In other words he completely contradicted what his Leader had said. So his Leader's principled position was starting to be eroded. By the time the meeting of the snow bunnies had finished in Thredbo his Leader's position had been totally eroded. The Leader of the Opposition came in today and said that he was going to give us bipartisan support when he thought we were serious, but now we are not serious and he has withdrawn that bipartisan support. In other words, that is the pathetic apologia for his unprincipled backdown of two weeks ago. He has the hide to come in here and say: 'The Prime Minister has changed his position and he won't stand on this'. Where does the Opposition get off? Here is the most clear and unequivocal statement one could get, and the Leader of the Opposition is humiliated into backing down. The Deputy Leader is in this right up to his neck. He is in there saying that no government has dealt with a more reasonable and honest Opposition and that the Opposition is going to do the right thing on tax reform. What he is really saying is this: 'We will pass that part of the package we agree with, the part on indirect taxes, but we will not recognise it as a package. We will pass nothing else, and I will make sure that my Leader says we will pass nothing else. Even though my Leader's instincts are the right instincts to get real tax reform in this country, I will do my best to upset that tax reform and to derail that process'. That is where the Deputy Leader stands. There is no sincerity in that. He is really saying: 'I was powerless to get an indirect tax into the statute books when I was Treasurer and I think at some future time, when the coalition is back running this country, I would like to be presiding over a better tax system than the one I managed to foul up in the years I was Treasurer, and therefore we ought to support that. But we will not support anything else and we will obstruct everything else.' That is the Opposition's serious in-principle position. Today the Leader of the Opposition said that we have squeezed the lemon dry on income tax. We have been in office for two years. In one of those two years we gave massive tax cuts. Where have we squeezed the lemon dry? I will tell the House who squeezed the lemon dry in a decade of high inflation without indexation: The coalition, the Opposition parties in office. They promised tax indexation in 1977 because of the effect of inflation on the tax scales and the lifting of marginal tax rates by the compression in the scales. The Opposition did nothing about it. It is guilty of forcing Australians to the 46 per cent barrier at median incomes of about $19,500. That is the Opposition's legacy to this country. It should not come in here saying that we need a debate about public expenditures. It was the Opposition that left us with these huge deficits. I quote the words of the former Secretary to the Treasury: The rate of fiscal deterioration and fiscal imbalance in this country is unprecedented in the Western World after the Second World War. That is the legacy the Opposition left us. Yet it now says that the Government has squeezed the tax system and the taxpayers dry. The people who squeezed them were the members of the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. The Opposition talks about how the summit will have to focus on tax expenditures. We have committed ourselves to a trilogy of commitments on fiscal policy to which no other government has ever committed itself. The ninnies opposite may laugh, but basically the members of the Opposition have not got a serious thought in their heads about trying to run an economic policy. They are a joke to the business community, which thinks they are fools and incompetents. There is only one issue in tax reform: What tax system should there be for a given level of expenditure? The issue is not how big the expenditure ought to be or whether it is up or down, but what tax system there should be for a given level of expenditure. That is the question the summit will consider, and any of these red herrings about making it a summit on expenditures are nonsense. If the Opposition wants to play its silly game it can, but we will be playing the game that really matters, and that is delivering some basic reforms to this country in areas where they are needed. The Opposition talks about where it stands. Look at its record on taxation. It promised tax cuts in 1977. Its election advertisements said: 'Ring up and find out how much your tax cut is'. People rang up and found out, but the Opposition took it away five months later. When I quizzed the former Treasurer about this in the House he said: 'I did not give them. In other words, it wasn't my Budget, it was Phillip Lynch's Budget.' The fact that it was the same Government being re-elected to office did not occur to him at all. He was not interested in that. No, it was Sir Phillip Lynch's Budget, and therefore the former Treasurer could take away the tax cuts five months later. That is where this Opposition stood on that. Then it promised tax indexation. It introduced half indexation and then knocked that over. Then, with no mandate, it collected $3 billion from the crude oil levy. What did it do with it? Did it reduce direct taxation? No. I will tell the House what the then Government did with the $3 billion. It spent it. It did not restructure anything. Then it watched massive inflation, which it was unable to control, simply work its way through the tax scales, and it took all those inflated dollars, with its hands in people's pockets each week when they got their wage packets, and bought real resources for them and lifted the Commonwealth's outlays to record levels. Now the Opposition has the hide to come back and say that we have squeezed the lemon dry. The Opposition did not have a policy on tax reform. When the former Treasurer spoke about indirect taxes he was not talking about an indirect tax for tax cuts, he was talking about an indirect tax added on to taxation. It was an add-on. The Opposition knows full well that it could not consider a broadly based indirect tax because it could not get it discounted in the wage system. It could not approach the Australian Council of Trade Unions and say 'We want this discounted in the national wage case for tax reform' because it attacked the ACTU every week during its period of office. It has no respect for the ACTU. It treated it with contempt, and therefore to have introduced a broadly based indirect tax would have thrown the inflation rate beyond the 11 and 12 per cent it lived with. It was never a practical option. As an add-on it was never an option. The then Government never came with a tax package and said: 'We will look at indirect taxes, at tax cuts and at other parts of the system to make the system more equitable or more progressive'. All it ever tried to do was to have people on. Then it wants to say: 'We really believe in tax reform. We are the people who have a thought through position.' I will tell honourable members opposite the extent of their thought through position. The Leader of the Opposition said he wanted a consumption tax, while in the same election speech he said he would not have a tax on wine. This is the man who wants a consumption tax on everything, but oh no, he would not have a tax on wine. That is the sort of nonsense the Opposition comes up with. It does not have a thought through position on anything, and it never had one during its period in office. It bumbled on from year to year. The business community thinks it is a joke. Go and ask it! It thinks the Opposition is a joke. If the Opposition thinks it is going to kid anybody by this sort of attack, a ricocheting of last week's debate-which was nonsense anyway-about the Australian Labor Party's factionalism, I inform it that we are a party which has views. I know that is anathema over there. We make the views fit the policies. We make them work. What views does the Opposition have? All the views it ever has are to get into office. The Government is then run by the Public Service and members opposite sit here like ninnies on the front bench answering questions at Question Time. All they want to do is to put their backsides in the white cars and get the trips abroad. That is all they are interested in; that is all they are good for. They do not know anything about how to run the country. Of course, the other thing is that while they failed to implement tax reform, we had the huge rip-off by the tax avoidance industry which went unchecked under the former Government. Let me make this point: This Government has said that there are nine principles covering tax reform under this Government. They were outlined in the election campaign. I will not read them again. One of them is, of course, that there must be a substantial degree of consensus on the major policy questions. Those issues will be put to the taxation summit. When we emerge from the taxation summit, the Government will expect to have its package passed by this Parliament because it has a mandate. The Government lost seats in order to keep open those options. For seven weeks we withstood the mealy-mouthed attack by the Leader of the Opposition and his Deputy so as not to foreclose tax options. That cost us seats. Therefore, we have a mandate for the package which will finally emerge post-summit. I say to honourable members opposite: We will crush them if they stand against it; and so will the Australian public. Do not doubt our resolve in this matter. I say to all of the gigolos opposite: Do not doubt our resolve in this matter. I assure them that this country wants value from its public figures. It wants value from its government. It will not be suckered into having the kinds of policies which were implemented by the Opposition in its seven years in office. The Opposition had seven years of control of both houses of parliament and seven years of opportunity. In 1976, it was given the greatest ever mandate for change. It was absolutely squandered. The Australian public will not tolerate it any more from any government, let alone from the Opposition. This Government was quite open during the election campaign. We said: 'We want to reform the taxation system. We are not sure how that can best be done. We will go through a consultative formal process. We will emerge with a package and put it to the Parliament'. That was our policy. We secured control of the House of Representatives on the basis of that policy and that is our mandate. The discussions which are part and parcel of policy development in my Party are a healthy thing. They are not something to be attacked or sneered at. It is that basis of change which will be substantial, rewarding and long-standing. Members of the public are entitled to it. They voted for it and they will get it. No amount of mealy-mouthed attacks by the Leader of the Opposition will deter us. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(3.42) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I remind the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that snow bunnies have a habit of coming in from the cold. They multiply and eventually take over. When they do, real value will be returned to government. We have a government which is increasingly in disarray. Factional infighting and developing leadership crises are all contributing to elector concern. Our longstanding friends and allies see a nation in turbulent seas, tossing and turning, taking on water and without direction as to the course to steer or the whereabouts of safe harbours. Taxation generally and taxation reform are a topic of major significance to all Australians, as we all, in one way or another, pay too much tax. The existing taxation system is unjust and grossly unfair. This has been a major theme of Opposition comments over the past two years. Interestingly, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) will head their much vaunted tax summit beginning on 1 July in an effort to reassure Australians that all is well and that, in the age of consensus, we are in good and safe hands. They will argue correctly that the income tax bill for ordinary salary and wage earners is much too high and that the position must be redressed. And redressed it will be, because it is certain that average Australians will no longer tolerate the levels of income tax with which they are presently confronted. There has been a striking increase in the marginal income tax rate for taxpayers on average weekly earnings and their average tax rates. For example, in 1954-55 the marginal tax rate for a full time adult male was 19 per cent. This rose steadily so that by 1969-70 the rate was 35 per cent on average weekly earnings of $4,051. Estimates for 1984-85 are for average weekly earnings of $22,285 with a marginal rate of 46 per cent. Over this 30-year period the marginal tax rate for full time males-very often the sole breadwinner in increasingly impoverished families-has more than doubled. Moreover, and perhaps more significantly, the average rate for this period rose from 10 per cent in 1954-55 to an estimated 25 per cent for this current financial year. This ever-growing income tax burden is even more dramatic when one considers that, in 1954-55, the taxpayer had to earn 18 times average weekly earnings before he was hit by the then top marginal tax rate of 66.7 per cent. Fourteen years later this figure had been halved so that, in 1968-69, people earning 8.6 times average weekly earnings found themselves in the top marginal tax rate. The screws tightened even further over later years. This year the top marginal tax rate applies to less than double average weekly earnings, so the Government gains little through the operation of the 60 per cent rate. Just as the size of government has increased over the past 30 years, so has its share of the value of economic activity. Associated with this has been the inevitable rise in the community's overall tax burden. This period has also seen a dramatic change in the composition of government revenue, with personal income taxpayers shouldering a growing proportion of the burden. Significantly, middle income earners have found increasingly that they shoulder a disproportionate share of this burden. The marked increase in the share of revenue provided by income tax is dramatic. Between 1954 and 1963, personal income tax usually fell as a proportion of total revenue. But then the rot set in so that, 10 years later, 43.1 per cent of revenue needs was met from income tax. In 1973-74, the rate jumped to 45.9 per cent. But the story does not stop there for, in the next year, an even more dramatic rise took place, to 50.4 per cent, due mainly to a wages explosion and double digit inflation under another big-spending expansionist government, hell bent on economic and political self-destruction. Today, two years into another big spending Labor government, the rate for 1984 is set to rise to 53 per cent. Over the 30 years being reviewed, the share of revenue provided by company tax, sales taxes, excise duties and Customs duties has fallen, although this has been partly offset by substantial increased revenue obtained through the crude oil levy introduced by the Fraser Government in 1975-76, which today provides approximately 6.4 per cent of government revenue-a fall of approximately one per cent over the past year. Commenting on these trends, a noted economist from the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University, Professor Michael Porter, said in January last: . . . between 1956-57 and 1981-82 the revenue collected from taxpayers with earnings in excess of twice average weekly earnings has dropped from 53 per cent to 16.5 per cent of total revenue from personal income tax. In other words, the growth of government over this period has been financed by placing an increasing proportion of the burden on those with earnings around the mean, with the higher fliers of our community bearing increasingly less of the burden. The growing push for a general indirect tax system is a direct result of this development. The Opposition realises that action must be taken to lift the yoke from middle income groups which, coincidentally, make up the bulk of the electorate. We propose to reduce the overall size of the tax take. After much reflection and lengthy research, the Opposition parties have developed a taxation policy designed to remove inequity and the intolerable burdens of the present. This new policy has clear directions and commitments and comprises four major elements. There will be no increase in the overall taxation burden and, over time, this will be reduced as a proportion of gross domestic product by a combination of lower spending and greater economic growth. The present heavy reliance on personal taxation as a source of revenue will be reduced by broadening the tax base to a greater reliance on indirect taxation. Families with children will receive priority for personal tax relief through income splitting and child care rebates. Tax relief will be extended to non-family taxpayers as budgetary circumstances allow. There will be no taxes on capital gains and assets and there will be no reintroduction of Federal death duties. The Hawke Government legislation taxing lump sum superannuation payments will be reversed. We see it as fundamentally important that the people of Australia know exactly where we stand on the issue of taxation. In contrast, the Hawke socialist Government has for the past two years muddied the water, dreamed up yet another summit and confused the population to the extent that its restlessness grows more voluble and persistent daily. The last thing we need now is a 'now you have it, now you have lost it' government hoodwinking people increasingly disenchanted with promises that reduce the burden of tax, on one hand, only to impose an iniquitous tax increase, on the other, such that their overall taxation commitment actually increases. The Prime Minister must reduce government spending. We do not need any platitudes or promises that cannot be met. What we want, what we demand, is positive action on behalf of all the oppressed taxpayers in the nation. We want this big spending Government-so big on expansion in the public sectors-to come to its senses and introduce an equitable, just and fair income tax policy so that growth, expansion, confidence and new entrepreneurial activity return to the market place and help position Australia to regain its economic health and further its destiny. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(3.52) —I do not know whether it was stupidity, naivete or just sheer gall which allowed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to detail here a list of deficiencies and inequities which have been allowed to develop in the Australian taxation system over in excess of 40 years since the last major change to the Australian tax system, uniform taxation, was introduced by a Labor government. That list which has been detailed by the Leader of the Opposition can be added to. In the time available to me I propose to do that. The Leader of the Opposition in his contribution to this matter of public importance debate has tried to blame the Hawke Labor Government, which has been in office for only two years of the last 40 years. The Leader of the Opposition said that, in addition to looking at the means by which we can reform the tax system, we should look at expenditure. I remind the House that two and a bit years after the Fraser Government came to office the Lynch razor gang did exactly that. It was going to find the areas in which major expenditure cuts could be made. It itemised a list of areas in which cuts could be made equal to $500m. The razor gang was going to cut $500m off the expenditure commitments of the then Government. In effect it cut off $170m. It identified $500m but cut $170m. That was after in excess of two years in government. We came to government first in March 1983. Two months after that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said in this chamber that the Hawke Government would make an effective attack on expenditures and that there would be some significant reduction in the expenditures which the Government had inherited. Honourable members should remember that the Opposition, when in government, cut $170m. We cut $1 billion two months after we came to office. That is $1,000m we were able to strip off the expenditures for which the previous Government had been responsible. Members of the Opposition talk in terms of inequities built into the taxation system and suggest that we should be doing something after two years in government. I remind honourable members opposite that 30 years ago, when the conservative parties began to monopolise the political scene in Australia, people paid the maximum rate of tax when their income reached the equivalent of $400,000 in today's terms. Now, however, taxpayers reach that maximum tax rate level when their incomes reach something less than $40,000-one-tenth of what it was 30 years ago. Therefore, honourable members opposite should not blame a government which has been in office for only two years. They should look to themselves. It has been suggested that one of the main reasons for the inequities which have become institutionalised and entrenched in the taxation system, so that people who should not be expected to carry the burden increasingly have been required and forced to take that burden, may have resulted from incompetence on the part of members of the Opposition when in government. Their incompetence is well understood, well known and well identified. It was not just a matter of incompetence, although certainly that was an element. A very significant element, the greatest element, was the malicious and deliberate intent on their part to shift the burden of taxation from those people who should have been carrying it to those people who were least able to carry it. I will give some examples. The Opposition criticised us in relation to tax reform. Let us look at the reforms which took place during the Fraser Government. I will not go back to 1949 when the Menzies Government first came in. Heaven forbid that I should do such a thing! If people are appalled by these facts, they would be more than appalled if I were to refer back to the situation in 1949 and detail the changes introduced into the tax system as a result of deliberate and malicious intent on the part of the present Opposition. Let us look at some of the things that have happened. First of all, when the Fraser Government came to office people on average weekly earnings were taxed at 36c in the dollar. When the Fraser Government left office those people on average weekly earnings were hitting a tax rate of 46c in the dollar. When the Fraser Government came to office in 1975 people had to earn three times average weekly earnings to reach the marginal tax rate of 60 per cent-60c in the dollar. When the Fraser Government left office people on only about twice average weekly earnings hit that maximum tax rate. During the period the Fraser Government was in office wage and salary incomes in Australia increased by 120 per cent. I ask honourable members to keep that figure of 120 per cent in mind. The PAYE tax, the contribution from wage and salary earners, increased by 168 per cent. During that seven years in office pay as you earn tax as a proportion of total tax increased from 42 per cent to 46 per cent. We can see where the burden was gradually being pushed. That was not a result of any lethargy, reluctance or incompetence on the part of members of the Fraser Government; it was deliberately designed and intended. The people in the community who have relegated that Government to opposition on two occasions knew exactly what was taking place. That 46 per cent marginal tax rate which we inherited the Treasurer has been able to reduce to 43 per cent. There have been just marginal adjustments up until the present, but they have been made because we have been concerned about the fundamental inequity of the taxation system which we inherited. If pay as you earn taxpayers had paid the same proportion of total taxes in 1982-83-the Fraser Government's last year-as they paid in 1975-76 -the first year of the Fraser Government-they would have paid over $1 billion less than they actually paid. That is the nature of the rip-offs that took place. Ordinary pay as you earn taxpayers in the last year of office of the previous Government paid proportionately in excess of $1 billion more than they paid in the first year of the previous Government's period of office. I believe that some members of the present Opposition when their Party was in government did not even know these things. Indeed, I believe that some Opposition back benchers, even now, would not know these details. They could not have expected that the Liberal-National Party Government, in which they had some confidence, would have been guilty of such a malicious and deliberate transfer of the burden of tax to those people who were not able to carry that burden. Furthermore, in its period of office the previous Government allowed the tax evasion and tax avoidance industry to reach a level where every year $7 billion was ripped off the national Treasury. That represented an additional charge to every family in Australia of $30 a week to make up for the shysters and sharks who were ripping off the national Treasury. The then Government had to be dragged screaming into this place to legislate against those arrangements-the artificial, contrived, blatant schemes which people were developing during those seven years with increasing relish and success. That happened until finally the total amount involved was some $7 billion. They are the sorts of things Labor has inherited. They are the types of challenges which the Hawke Government and the Treasurer have inherited. The Treasurer made it clear this morning that at the last election the Australian people elected us not only with absolute confidence as to our commitment and determination to do something about the tax structure, but also with absolute confidence in the competence of this Government to do so. That was clearly spelt out. That is the reason why Labor is in government and why the Opposition parties have been relegated to the other side of the House. Labor has made that commitment and we intend to honour it. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The discussion is concluded. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The 1984 Australian Labor Party policy speech by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) reaffirmed the Labor Party's policy of smashing the tax avoidance industry-a policy that was pursued throughout our previous term of government and a policy upon which this Government was re-elected. In his policy speech last year, the Prime Minister promised the Australian public that, once re-elected, the Government would reintroduce the twice-rejected bottom of the harbour legislation-legislation that will recoup hundreds of millions of dollars from those who have sought to escape their taxation responsibilities through participation in avoidance schemes produced by the tax avoidance industry. On 27 February 1985, when announcing the Government's legislation program for the current period of sittings, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) foreshadowed the reintroduction of Bills designed to give effect to this Government's successive election undertakings to recover personal tax avoided by former owners of companies that were the subject of bottom of the harbour schemes. This Bill is the first of the two bills to which my colleague was referring. Apart from some relatively minor corrections of a more or less technical nature, this Bill is identical with a Bill introduced into this House on Budget night 1983 and again on 2 May 1984. Honourable members may recall that on both occasions the Bill was passed by this House and rejected in another place. Although many honourable members will already be familiar with the important measures contained in this Bill, it is appropriate, as this is a new Parliament, that I should outline its contents once more. Measures to Recover Personal Tax By far the greater part of this Bill is related to amendments to give effect to our decision that the restitution expected of those persons who benefited from the sale of shares in companies that were stripped of pre-tax profits should not be limited to the tax that ought to have been paid by the companies concerned. Rather, those persons should also pay the tax that, as shareholders or other former owners, they escaped through receipt in a non-taxable capital form of after-tax profits that, if the companies had continued to operate as going concerns, would have been taxable as dividends in their hands. The recovery of personal tax will, however, be confined to the tax related to after-tax revenue profits of the stripped company for those years of income in respect of which primary company tax was evaded. In our view it is quite beyond argument that the revenue is just as entitled to have these tax losses made good as it is to have the lost company tax made good. This Bill will accordingly insert in the existing recoupment tax law rules to be applied to fix the liability of former owners of a stripped company for personal income tax on those profits on which primary company tax was evaded. Broadly, these rules will require a former owner of a stripped company to pay income tax on the basis that the company had paid a dividend to the former owner at the time of sale of the shares. The amount of this imputed dividend will be the same proportion of the company's after-tax taxable income for the year of income in respect of which primary company tax was evaded as the proportion of the sale consideration received by that owner. The amount of after-tax taxable income will be determined after allowance has been made for the unpaid ordinary company tax that is to be recouped under the existing legislation, as proposed to be amended. The Bill provides that a dividend will be deemed to have been paid in circumstances where the former owner of a company is liable to make good unpaid company tax on the company's taxable income, that is, where there is a liability for vendors' recoupment tax in relation to ordinary company tax or there would have been such a liability if any payments of such tax made after 25 July 1982 were disregarded. That date is, of course, the date on which the former Government announced its intention to legislate to recover unpaid company tax escaped through bottom of the harbour schemes. This qualification is necessary to ensure that the liability for escaped personal income tax will not be avoided simply by making a payment of the company tax in pursuance of the former Government's announcement or of the recoupment tax legislation enacted in 1982. The requirement that there exist or, but for payments of company tax, would exist a liability for vendor's recoupment tax means that, where the liability for that tax is or would be less than $100 and the Commissioner of Taxation exercises his power under the existing law not to pursue the liability, there will be no liability for the relatively small amounts of personal income tax that would otherwise be liable to be recouped. Where the former owner concerned is a natural person the imputed dividend is to be included in his or her assessable income. In the case of an entity not itself subject to income tax on the dividend by reason of its tax exempt status or, in certain cases, the inter-company dividend rebate, the imputed amount will of course be treated as tax-free income in the hands of that entity. Where a company, or a person as trustee of a trust, is allocated a dividend that is deemed to have been paid by a stripped company and the owners of that company, or the beneficiaries of that trust, are the same persons as the former owners of the stripped company at the date of its sale, the company or trustee will, in the first instance, be liable to pay dividend recoupment tax on the dividend at the maximum personal rate applicable to the year of income in which the sale of shares occurred. However, there is to be a right for former owners in this situation to elect to be taxed on amounts equal in total to the amount of the dividend deemed to have been received by the company or trust concerned. If this election is made, and the Commissioner is satisfied that the allocation of the deemed dividend among former owners is reasonable and that personal tax, if any, payable by the former owners will, subject to the hardship relief provisions of the income tax law, be paid by them, the interposed company or trust will be freed from its liability for dividend recoupment tax. In a similar fashion a stripped company will, where a liability for personal tax or dividend recoupment tax exists, be freed from its liability for the income tax year concerned for undistributed profits tax payable under Division 7, and the former owners will accordingly no longer be liable for vendors recoupment tax on an unpaid Division 7 liability for that year. A liability for personal tax or dividend recoupment tax will not exist in relation to the profits of a particular year of income where the only unpaid company tax for that year giving rise to a liability for vendors recoupment tax is a liability for undistributed profits tax under Division 7 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. As with the existing recoupment tax law it will be possible under the provisions being inserted by this Bill to trace from the primary level to the next level and, as necessary, successively to further levels where a company or trust has ceased to exist, has different shareholders or beneficiaries as a result of shares or beneficial interest having been sold, or is unlikely to be able to meet a liability for dividend recoupment tax on the dividend which is deemed to have been paid to it. The automatic tracing process applicable in this case will continue until a dividend is deemed to have been paid to a natural person, or tax-free entity referred to earlier, or to a company or trust that still exists if, in the latter situations the company or trust is one the ownership of which has not changed since the stripped company was sold and has the capacity to meet the dividend recoupment tax payable. A significant feature of the Bill is the provision of a time-to-pay facility in relation to the personal income tax and dividend recoupment tax liabilities which are to be imposed by this and an associated Bill. This provision is modelled on the existing facility, which is to be retained in a modified form, which permits former owners of companies who are liable to pay a share of unpaid company tax to meet that liability by instalments, typically over 12 months without late payment penalty being charged. Additionally, the present Bill also provides for dividend recoupment tax and related personal tax to be paid over 12 months without attracting additional tax for late payment. The modification of the existing facility I referred to a moment ago is to impose a strict limitation to 12 months as the period for which an arrangement to pay unpaid company tax may be made. Similarly, the proposed facility in relation to personal tax and dividend recoupment tax will require full payment to be made within a period of 12 months if the penalty-free concession is to be attracted. An application for time to pay personal income tax or dividend recoupment tax in respect of a share of a stripped company's profits will need to be made within 30 days after service of the notice of assessment relating to that liability. Pre and Post-Sale Avoidance Schemes The recoupment tax legislation contains a let-out provision that operates where the stripped company was the subject of an unsuccessful post-sale scheme to avoid tax. Under this escape clause there is no liability to recoupment tax liability on the people who benefited by non-payment of the company tax. This provision was inserted by the former Government for reasons which are best known to it. In our view it defies logic and it is our announced policy to abolish it. This will be done by this Bill. Consistent with the removal of the post-sale avoidance scheme provision, this Bill will also ensure that, in ascertaining the potential tax liability of a company for the purpose of determining whether the recoupment tax legislation applies in relation to it, any pre-sale scheme which is ultimately established to be ineffective of its tax avoidance purpose is to be disregarded. Other Changes There are several further amendments contained in the Bill designed to improve the administration of the legislation or to correct technical deficiencies. The Bill proposes to remove one of the pre-conditions to liability for recoupment tax-the requirement that the company was by a stripping scheme rendered unable to pay its tax, a requirement which was inserted by the previous Government, it seems for presentational purposes. The element that the requirement expresses is, in substance, present in all cases of pre-tax profit stripping to which the legislation applies and a specific reference to it is quite unnecessary. It is also proposed by this Bill to re-insert in the recoupment tax legislation a provision removed by the previous Government which authorised the Commissioner of Taxation to report to this Parliament the names of persons who fail to meet their liability for vendors or promoters recoupment tax. The Commissioner is already required to provide in his annual report to Parliament details of breaches or evasions of the taxation laws and it is consistent with that duty that he be authorised, where he considers it appropriate, to report details of failure to pay recoupment tax. A further change to the existing recoupment tax law proposed by this Bill will enable a former owner to whom a refund of company tax is made as a result of a successful objection or appeal against the company assessment to receive interest under the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act on the amount refunded. Finally, this Bill proposes amendments of an evidentiary provision in the existing legislation to overcome some technical deficiencies. The drafting of those amendments also has regard to the views expressed last year by the High Court in a case dealing with the constitutional validity of the recoupment tax legislation. The High Court held unanimously that the substantive provisions of the recoupment tax legislation are constitutionally valid, but in so doing expressed some views that the existing conclusive evidence provision might, at least in part, be invalid by rendering the tax uncontestable. The proposed amendment provides that a certificate by the Commissioner of Taxation specifying the amount of company tax remaining unpaid would be prima facie, rather than conclusive, evidence of this fact. This will ensure that recoupment tax is not an uncontestable levy and that the evidentiary provision is constitutionally valid in all respects. As is usual with amendments of the taxation laws, an explanatory memorandum giving technical details of the amendments contained in the Bill is being circulated to honourable members. By this Bill the Government proposes to strengthen and improve the legislation introduced by the Opposition parties when in government in 1982. Significantly, the measures contained in this Bill are estimated to yield $270m in revenue. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.16) -I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the second of the bottom of the harbour Bills to which the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) referred in his statement to this House on 27 February 1985. The measures contained in this Bill are identical with those contained in a Bill by a similar title that was introduced on two earlier occasions. On each occasion, the Bill was passed by this House but met the same fate as the associated Bills in another place. This Bill will formally impose a tax to be called dividend recoupment tax on the dividend amount determined in accordance with the rules being inserted in the recoupment tax legislation by the amending assessment Bill. The underlying purpose of the amendments is to recover personal income tax escaped by individual former owners of stripped companies. That will be done in a direct manner wherever possible. However, in cases where former owners held their shares through interposed companies or trusts, recovery may in certain circumstances be by way of imposing on one or more of the interposed companies or trusts a tax equivalent to the maximum personal rate of tax applying in the year of income in which the shares in the stripped company were sold. This Bill will impose that tax, and I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr West, and read a first time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for the restructuring of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, to put it on a more commercial footing and to allow it to participate more effectively in the international engineering market. The changes are extensive but simple and easy to understand. They are designed to allow operational flexibility to the Corporation in Australia and overseas, to improve the Corporation's competitive capacity in a wide range of engineering works, to maximise its flagship role, and to ensure it acts with commercial prudence. This Bill will replace the existing Act with a new Act. The key changes are to: Remove existing restrictions on the range of engineering activities open to the Corporation; include in the statement of functions a specific reference to the Government's intention that the Corporation shall, so far as is practicable, involve Australian organisations in the performance of overseas work, and promote overseas the interests of the Australian engineering industry; allow the Corporation, with ministerial approval, to form companies or other legal arrangements where this is necessary, to assist the progress of involving Australian engineering companies in joint ventures overseas and for other commercial purposes; replace the present 'corporation sole' by a five-member board of directors, to give the Corporation access to a range of management talent from the engineering, marketing, finance and trade union sectors; ensure that the Corporation acts in accordance with sound commercial principles; and update the financial provisions of the Act to accord with current Government policy regarding statutory authorities. The Corporation was established under the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970 to preserve and capitalise on the professional engineering expertise developed during construction of the Snowy Mountains scheme. It has provided a major source of engineering expertise to governments and industry in Australia. Just as importantly, the Corporation has played an increasing role in the provision of engineering design and construction management services in overseas markets. Initially it relied heavily on aid projects for involvement overseas on behalf of the Australian Government, but in recent years Australian aid projects have generally been allocated on a strictly commercial basis and the Corporation has had to operate in a difficult competitive environment. One result is that the Corporation has also been undertaking an increasing proportion of its work directly for international clients. Until 1983-84 the Corporation had an unbroken record of profitability, returning to government $3.3m and corporate tax of $10m. The Corporation developed an international reputation for the Australian engineering industry for the successful completion of some 1,100 projects in 35 countries, involving total consulting fees for the Corporation of over $200m. Its staff numbers grew from 192 in 1971 to a peak of more than 600 in 1983. In 1984, Engineering News Record, a major American publication, ranked the Corporation number 60 in the world's top 200 international design firms. Only two other Australian firms have ever appeared in these design listings. The Corporation's outstanding commercial export record over the 1970s and 1980s was marked by its receipt in 1984 of the Governor-General's Award for Export Excellence. Since its establishment, the Corporation has pursued a conscious policy of assisting the Australian engineering profession to obtain a foothold overseas, and well it might have. The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation inherited the great reputation and skills base created by the Snowy Mountains Authority upon its completion of the Snowy Mountains project-our greatest national engineering work to that time. It has provided proof that Australian skills are marketable in fiercely competitive foreign markets. Its reputation at home and abroad is now synonymous with engineering excellence. Like many private consulting engineering firms, the Corporation recently suffered from the decrease in available work in Australia and overseas. The world wide economic recession reduced aid flows from the oil exporting nations to Third World countries, and the debt problems of many developing countries led to reductions in overseas development programs. At the same time there was a sharp increase in competition from international engineering firms, who were faced with drastic downturns in activity in their traditional markets. Unlike private enterprise, the Corporation did not have the capacity to shed staff quickly, at minimal cost, to an appropriate level. In 1983-84, faced with a declining market, the first-ever operating loss, and severe cash pressures, the Corporation sought outside assistance to evaluate and review its operation. Following a review by management consultants, improved accounting, costing and management information systems were introduced. The Government announced in July 1984 its support for the continued operation of the Corporation, based in Cooma, together with the provision of a cash injection of up to $6m largely to fund a voluntary retrenchment program. This was to enable the Corporation to streamline its operations pending decisions on a longer term restructuring. Following this decision, the Corporation's staff was reduced from a peak of 623 in February 1983 to 387 in February 1985, and will be further reduced to an expected 360 by June 1985. This has been achieved through natural attrition and voluntary retrenchment. The Corporation retains an effective mix of professional skills which will enable it to take full advantage of emerging opportunities. Certain key appointments have also been made which will increase the Corporation's capacity to operate on a commercial basis. In particular, Mr J. L. Liebelt, a former Group Executive Director of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd has been appointed interim Chairman to advise on the restructuring process. The current Bill gives effect to the Government's decisions concerning the long term restructuring of the Corporation. The Government is determined that the Corporation shall once again become a commercially viable organisation capable of maintaining a competitive presence in international markets. The Bill provides that the Corporation shall act in accordance with sound commercial principles and aim to raise revenue sufficient to permit the payment each year to the Commonwealth of a reasonable return on capital, in addition to the payment of income tax. A five-person board, comprising a chairperson, the Managing Director and three other directors will be responsible for determining the policies of the Corporation and conducting its business. The Board will be required to inform the Minister of its policy decisions and provide the Minister with regular reports on its operations. I shall, of course, be able to direct the Corporation as to the exercise of its powers and the performance of its functions. Any such directions will be included in the Corporation's annual report to Parliament. It would not be the Government's intention to seek to intervene in the detailed activities of the Corporation, but rather to ensure its compliance with overall government policies and sound financial principles. In accordance with this greater commercial focus, the Government has removed the outdated restrictions which have hindered the Corporation from diversifying into new kinds of engineering activity. It is clear that in a rapidly changing international market-place, the Corporation needs to be able to move into areas of expanding business and provide a comprehensive range of advanced engineering services. At the same time, the Government has explicitly recognised the Corporation's outstanding international reputation, its unrivalled commitment to the export of engineering services, and its long history of involving other Australian organisations in its overseas endeavours. The Government has therefore decided to recognise formally the Corporation's role in promoting the overseas activities of the Australian engineering profession by including in its statement of functions a requirement that the Corporation shall endeavour to: Expand its activities and enhance its professional reputation overseas; so far as is practicable, involve Australian organisations in the performance of its functions overseas; and promote overseas the interests of the Australian engineering industry. In short, it will adopt a flag-carrier role for the Australian engineering industry in our part of the world. It will be up to the Corporation's board, which I shall be appointing as soon as possible following the passage of this Bill, to determine the policies to give effect to these functions and to decide how it will seek to involve Australian organisations in its overseas activities. On balance, private Australian engineering organisations are sure to benefit. They will experience stronger, but fair, competition in domestic markets from a revitalised Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. In overseas markets, however, the Corporation will be committed to work in partnership with other Australian interests. The steps that the Corporation has already taken to restructure its operations, contain costs and improve its management systems will mean a substantial improvement in the Corporation's financial position. The Corporation has advised me that following a projected net loss of some $3.5m in the current financial year, it will make every endeavour to break even in 1985-86. The Corporation will, nevertheless, be continuing to pursue cost cutting initiatives, including a consolidation of its operations at a single site at Back Creek, Cooma, and negotiations with staff associations and the Public Service Board to bring employment conditions more into line with the consulting engineering industry norm. The Corporation has informed me that it is also developing proposals for superannuation arrangements for new employees outside the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. I believe that the new Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act, and the installation of a board of directors, will ensure that the corporation continues to be a viable commercial engineering organisation of which Australia can be proud as it has been in the past. I commend the Bill to all parties in the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.33) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of a new telephone exchange building for Telecom Australia in Kent Street, Sydney. The proposed work involves construction of a major telephone exchange building in the central business district of Sydney near the approaches to Sydney Harbour Bridge. It will be an imposing but nevertheless functional building of 18 storeys, with three basements, and will provide for the needs of the Telecom networks into the next century. In a spirit of consultation, State and local authorities have been involved during the development of the design on environmental, siting, traffic and other important matters. Such a major building is a significant contribution to the building industry and can be expected to generate up to a peak of 300 jobs both directly and indirectly over its construction period. The proposal was originally planned to be referred to the Committee in the latter part of last year but this was not possible because of the dissolution of the House in October. Evidence prepared by Telecom and my Department and pre-reference briefing to the Committee at that time advised the estimated cost of $26.6m at July 1984 prices. The current estimate is $27.6m at January prices. I present plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.35) —Under the new procedures, we debate these matters in detail when the report of the Public Works Committee is made to the Parliament. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish the Committee well in its deliberations. We look forward to receiving its recommendations when it completes its inquiry. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.36) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of new Commonwealth Offices at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Mr Hodgman —Whose electorate is this one in? Mr WEST —The honourable member must admit that we are doing very well in respect of capital works. The proposed work involves construction of a multi-level office complex on a site within the airport boundary to accommodate essential on-airport Commonwealth functions associated with the operations of the international terminal building and cargo complexes. The Australian Customs Service, the Australian Federal Police and the departments of Foreign Affairs, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Defence and Local Government and Administrative Services will be located in the building. The proposal is designed to overcome the present unsatisfactory arrangements and to provide appropriate and adequate facilities for both staff and the public for many years to come. The proposed building is a cost-effective and functional design of reinforced concrete construction. External cladding will be highly resistant to corrosion and staining by the industrial fallout and salt laden air prevalent in the area. Staff associations and other concerned bodies have been fully consulted in the development of the proposal. The proposed work was referred to the Committee in September 1984, but the reference lapsed when the Committee was unable to complete its enquiries and table a report before the dissolution of the House in October 1984. The Government now wishes the proposal to be again referred for consideration and report. The provision of a single Commonwealth-owned building has economic as well as operational advantages. At the public hearing held last October, the Public Works Committee was advised of rental savings and the potential for revenue through release of valuable space in the international terminal. There will be advantages to the construction and associated industries through the generation of the equivalent of 90 full time jobs during the construction period of nearly two years. The estimated cost of the proposed work when previously referred to the Committee was $6.9m at May 1984 prices. The current cost, at February 1985 prices, is $7.6m. The increase is due solely to increases in the cost of labour and materials as measured by my Department's building price index. I present plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.39) —As shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, on behalf of the Opposition I indicate our support for this reference. As the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has pointed out, the Committee has already taken much of the evidence. We hope that the Committee will be able to facilitate the completion of its report fairly speedily. There is only one matter to which I want to refer simply by way of comparison-I note the presence in the chamber of two of our Queensland members, the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) and the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan)-and to jog the Minister's memory, as I promised I would. It is analogous to this motion and relates to the question of the Townsville Airport. I ask the Minister: Will he please apply the same diligence to the facilities so urgently required at Townsville Airport as he has applied to the provision of the facilities at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport in the electorate of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen)? Question resolved in the affirmative. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.43) —I move. That the Bill be now read a second time. I present Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1984-85 which, together with Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85, which I shall introduce shortly, comprises the Additional Estimates for 1984-85. In these Bills, Parliament is asked to appropriate moneys to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures additional to the appropriations made under Appropriation Acts (Nos 1 and 2) 1984-85. No additional provisions have been sought by the Presiding Officers by way of supplementation to the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1984. These additional appropriations are required to meet commitments that have been approved by the Government since the Budget, additional requirements of an ongoing nature and the reappropriation of certain amounts, unable to be effected under existing legal authorities, necessitated by the changes to administrative arrangements on 13 December 1984, and other transfers of departmental functions. Reappropriated amounts have been fully offset. The principal factors underlying the requirements are cost and price increases and exchange rate fluctuations since the Budget was prepared. Although the Budget figuring contained allowances for prospective wage and salary increases, those amounts were not then appropriated, and funds are now required to meet the costs of minor awards and determinations made since that time and to meet the cost of other factors affecting wages and salaries, such as staffing increases. No provision is made in these Bills in anticipation of a wage and salary increase that might arise out of the current national wage case hearings. Any such increase will be met under the separate appropriation provision in section 5 of the Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1984-85 The additional appropriations in the two additional Estimates Bills total $564.5m. Of this, $426m is sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3), and $138.5m in Appropriation Bill (No. 4). These amounts are offset in part by savings in the appropriations made by Appropriation Acts (Nos. 1 and 2) 1984-85 reflecting the Government's determined efforts to achieve savings in expenditure for ongoing programs wherever possible. These savings, amounting to $198m, are detailed under the relevant appropriation headings in the document, 'Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations', which has been distributed to honourable members. After allowing for prospective savings, the appropriations now sought represent a net income increase of $366.5m in expenditures financed from annual appropriations. As a proportion of total estimated outlays-encompassed both annual and standing appropriations-this increase amounts to 0.57 per cent. I note here that this proportion has fallen from 0.59 per cent in 1983-84, reflecting the Government's continued commitment to restraining growth in Commonwealth outlays. The Government's introduction of a more efficient method of budgeting for departmental administrative expenses has contributed significantly to a reduction in the amount of supplementation needed in this area. I refer in particular to the consolidation of administrative items and the associated cash limits introduced in the 1984-85 Budget. On the total outlays picture, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) recently announced that the mid-year review of Estimates indicated that the 1984-85 Budget outlays were broadly on track. This has been supported by actual progress to date as reported in the monthly statement of Commonwealth Government financial transactions. I now outline some of the main areas in respect of which the Government has found it necessary to seek additional provisions in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1984-85 to meet expenditure for the ordinary annual services of the Government. An estimated $42.3m is for wages and salaries, $33.7m being for non-defence and $8.6m for defence purposes, to meet increases in award rates, other wage and salary costs and a small increase of 0.4 per cent in Budget-approved average staffing levels. These provisions do not include the wage and salary components of additional funds being provided to certain statutory authorities funded under one-line appropriations. An amount of $10.9m is included under the Department of Communications for payment to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation for higher staff costs. The ABC is in the midst of a reorganisation to establish smaller, more manageable units. In the course of this reorganisation, there has been an increase in retirements and resignations leading to a significant increase in lump sum payments. There are also cost increases associated with the reorganisation of production and broadcast officers and in operational expenses. These increased requirements have been partially offset by savings on capital equipment. An amount of $236.5m is sought for the Department of Defence to meet the effect of the purchase of new equipment and stores of exchange rate fluctuations and variations in the pattern of payments provided for in the Budget. Part of this requirement relates to earlier than expected deliveries and increases in costs of replacement equipment. An amount of $14.6m is sought under the Department of Foreign Affairs for emergency humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. This is part of Australia's response to the tragic food crisis in Africa. Australian aid to Africa has totalled nearly $33m since mid last year. On a gross national product basis Australia is now the second highest contributor to emergency relief to Ethiopia and to Africa as a whole. The sum of $9m is included under the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services as a result of tender price rises for furniture removals and storage. This results from increases in the total cost to furniture removals, which were unforeseen at the time of preparation of the 1984-85 Budget. An increase of some $4.5m was required in 1983-84 for similar reasons. The bulk of furniture removals are undertaken by private contractors who tender competitively for the work in the usual way. The Minister for Finance will be taking up with the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services possible measures for containing cost increases in future years. The amount of $6.2m has been included under the Department of the Special Minister of State to cover the higher than expected costs associated with the conduct of the Federal election in December 1984. The amount of $8.4m is sought under the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism to enable Australia to participate in Expo '85, which is being held in Tsukuba, Japan. Participation is at the invitation of the Japanese Government. An additional $20.4m has been provided to the Department of Veterans' Affairs to enable the payment of funds to the Health Insurance Commission to meet treatment accounts for veterans. As there is intended to be a progressive transfer of this function to the Commission, the amount will be fully offset by savings under existing departmental appropriation items. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.51) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I present Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85 in which appropriations totalling $138.5m-additional to those made by Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1984-85-are sought for capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory and for other services. The proposed appropriations are needed to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures for which provision was not made in that Act. Almost half of the additional appropriations is sought to meet Medicare grants to the States; the remainder mostly reflects cost and price increases which have occurred since the time of the Budget and requirements which the Government has considered it appropriate to meet this financial year. Provision of 62.4m has been made under the Department of Health to meet an upward revision to grants payable to the States and the Northern Territory under formal agreements in respect of the Medicare public hospitals arrangements. Almost wholly accounting for this additional requirement is the continuing increase in the number of patients electing to be treated as public rather than private patients under Medicare. Other significant increases are as follows: $5.4m representing a Commonwealth contribution towards measures to combat the transmission of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome. This initiative includes Commonwealth funding of the cost of blood screening tests by the Red Cross blood transfusion service during 1984-85. A national referral centre for blood testing, funding for the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to produce AIDS screening tests, the establishment of an AIDS task force and funding for a national Press, radio and television campaign aimed at informing the public; $5.5m to be paid to New South Wales and Queensland under the rural adjustment scheme for assistance to the sugar industry; $6.2m to provide additional funds for housing loan commitments in the Australian Capital Territory; and $16m to be paid to the Australian National Railways Commission for the implementation of an early retirement scheme. The cost of the scheme is expected to be more than offset by savings in future years flowing from reduced manning levels. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Hurford, and read a first time. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(4.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the National Welfare Fund Act 1943. Welfare and social service payments presently met from a trust account ledger head called the National Welfare Fund will in future be met directly from standing appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the specific Acts authorising the particular payments. The National Welfare Fund was established as a trust account by the National Welfare Fund Act 1943 with amounts provided from general revenue, as a vehicle for making various welfare and social security payments. From 1945 funds to meet these payments were provided from social security levies specifically earmarked for this purpose. However, in 1952 the legislation governing the National Welfare Fund was amended to permit the National Welfare Fund to receive funds directly from the Consolidated Revenue Fund equal to whatever expenditure had to be met from the National Welfare Fund. The amounts provided for welfare and social services payments were thus no longer directly linked to levies. The National Welfare Fund effectively then became no more than a ledger head in the accounts through which payments were made. So, in other words, since 1952, expenditure on welfare, although made through this account, did not depend on it for funds. It was a policy decision of the government of the day which determined how much would be spent on welfare and has been so ever since. From 1976 there has been no continuing balance in the National Welfare Fund and payments from it have been matched simultaneously by payments into it from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The process of transferring funds into a special account which are simultaneously paid out of it has been time-consuming and wasteful of scarce resources. It has been criticised by the Auditor-General in his report for the year ended 30 June 1981 as a mechanism that served no useful function entailing significant and unnecessary accounting work. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations have been consulted and agree that the National Welfare Fund serves no useful purpose. The new accounting procedures are designed only to remove an inefficient and anachronistic process and are consistent with other initiatives by the Government to improve financial management in government. The change to the accounting procedures has no bearing on policy issues relating to welfare payments-that is the way in which recipients are paid-or the quantum of funds allocated by the Government to social welfare. I would like to stress this: These changes will have absolutely no effect on the amounts available to the Government for social security purposes. Other than the administrative savings which will result from the new procedures, this legislation has no financial impact. It is intended that clauses 1, 2 and 5 of this Bill, which provide the mechanisms for the continuing payments of welfare and social security benefits, come into operation on the day the Act receives royal assent. The remaining clauses of this Bill will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation, the tentative target being 1 July 1985. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(4.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill authorises the Commonwealth to enter into a 4.5-year agreement with each State and with the Northern Territory for the provision of financial assistance by the Commonwealth to a State or the Northern Territory to enable non-government organisations and local governments to provide a range of supported accommodation and related support services. These services will assist men, women, young people and their dependants who are either permanently homeless or temporarily homeless as a result of crisis and who need such support to move towards independent living where possible and appropriate. The joint Commonwealth-State program established by the Bill, which contains an agreement in the Schedule, will be called the supported accommodation assistance program. When this Government came to office in March 1983 homelessness was seen as a major priority for urgent attention. There were no clear cut policies or directions to remedy youth or older age homelessness, and there was no co-ordination of supported accommodation services for homeless women and their children. The supported accommodation assistance program arose from recommendations contained in a review of crisis and youth accommodation, on which a joint ministerial statement was presented to the House on 17 November 1983 by the previous Minister for Housing and Construction, the Hon. Chris Hurford, on behalf of himself, the then Minister for Social Security, Senator the Hon. Don Grimes, and the then Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator the Hon. Susan Ryan. In the joint ministerial statement, the major objectives of the Commonwealth's involvement in crisis accommodation programs were stated to be: To provide a range of services to meet the needs of the homeless, and those facing other crisis accommodation situations such as eviction or domestic violence. Arrangements need to be logical and practical to assist non-government sector involvement, to ensure needs are met in a cost effective way, and to help the co-ordination of Commonwealth and State action. This Bill is directed at achieving those objectives and will provide an important Federal Government contribution to the United Nations International Year of Shelter for the Homeless in 1987. The view of crisis and youth accommodation found that there were difficulties with administrative arrangements where some programs were administered and funded by the Commonwealth and others administered by and cost shared with the States. There was no overall planning, programs were unco-ordinated and were unnecessarily complex. This meant that needs were not being met. The review recommended that, following negotiations with States and consultations with women's and youth groups, Aboriginal organisations and service providers for other homeless people, all Commonwealth crisis accommodation programs should be brought together under a single Act of Parliament. The review recommended that this Act provide funding to the States and Territories, embody a five year Commonwealth-State agreement, and be accompanied by the establishment of Commonwealth-State co-ordinating committees which would also include representatives of relevant non-government organisations. Since the presentation of the joint ministerial statement the Government has been negotiating with State and Territory governments, service providers and appropriate non-government organisations and advisory bodies regarding the recommendations contained in the review. The views of these governments and organisations and the recommendations of the review have been taken into account in the formulation of the supported accommodation assistance program and incorporated in the Commonwealth-State agreement which forms a schedule to the Bill. The aims of the program are: Firstly, to provide improved and more equitable funding of approved services, to fund new services in areas of high need, and to move towards improved wages and conditions for workers; secondly, to move progressively during the program to improve the assessment of the need for services, and to distribute funds on the basis of improved assessment within each State and Territory; and thirdly, to facilitate the involvement of service providers in advising on program needs and priorities. The program will provide funds for recurrent and capital non-housing purposes to non-government organisations and local government authorities. Such bodies may provide assistance to those in need of supported accommodation in the short, medium or longer term. Supported accommodation includes services provided in refuges, hostels, half-way houses, and other related support services. Services funded under the program would preferably seek to encourage self-help on a non-institutionalised basis. The program is to be administered by the State and Northern Territory governments according to guidelines which will be jointly agreed by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers, and which will be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. The guidelines provide for services provider advice on program needs and priorities. The operation of the 4.5-year agreement in each State or the Northern Territory requires the formal consent of the appropriate State or Territory Minister. Financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory for the purposes of the program shall be by way of grants. These grants will be matched in part by contributions from each State and the Northern Territory across the program as a whole, according to a formula specified in the agreement and agreed between Ministers. States and the Northern Territory will be required, as a minimum, to maintain their 1983-84 efforts in respect of services covered by the sub-programs to which I will shortly refer. State and Territory matching funds will include moneys provided from their own resources committed and expended on programs conducted by the State or Territory, or by local governments and non-government organisations, that the Minister for Community Services considers provide services consistent with the guidelines for the programs. Many of these services are already funded by the States and the Northern Territory under their own programs. The program will incorporate projects currently funded under a number of Commonwealth, State and Territory programs. Under the program these projects will be funded under one of three sub-programs specified in the agreement: the youth supported accommodation sub-program, the women's emergency services sub-program or the general supported accommodation sub-program. The sub-program structure recognises the different needs addressed by services operating in these areas. The youth supported accommodation sub-program is designed to provide supported accommodation and related support services for young people aged 12 to 25 years and, where applicable, their dependants, who are homeless as a result of crisis and who need support to move towards more appropriate accommodation options, including independent living. It will incorporate all services funded in the past under the youth services scheme, which was a joint Commonwealth-State program first funded as a pilot scheme in 1979. The sub-program will also incorporate youth projects funded under the Commonwealth's homeless persons assistance program, as well as a number of State-funded youth programs. There is a dire need for improved facilities for homeless youth. In 1980-81, 15,000 young people requested help from refuges funded under the youth services scheme. More than half of these requests could not be met, yet a large majority of these young people also were unemployed. The demand for youth refuge accommodation has not decreased. The problem is compounded in that youth are often given a low priority for public housing in some States, are frequently excluded from private accommodation in favour of other clients, and have low incomes relative to rents in the private sector. The establishment of this sub-program is particularly significant at this time as 1985 is International Youth Year. In recognition of the needs of homeless youth, the Government has allocated $830,000 for new youth services under the supported accommodation assistance program in the current financial year and $1.66m in 1985-86, which is the full year effect of the 1984-85 allocation. The women's emergency services sub-program is designed to provide supported accommodation and related support services for women and women with dependent children escaping from intolerable domestic circumstances or other crisis situations who need support to move towards independent living where possible and appropriate. It will incorporate women's refuges funded under the women's emergency services program in 1983-84, payments to child care workers in women's refuges previously funded through the children's services program, and those women's refuges previously funded under the homeless persons assistance program whose services are consistent with the purposes of this sub-program. A number of State-funded women's refuge programs will also be incorporated. It is not the intention of the Government to restrict women to the women's emergency services sub-program. Women will have access to all three sub-programs, depending upon their needs. Women's refuges will benefit from the program because it rationalises and co-ordinates supported accommodation services for women including child care in women's refuges, has the capacity to meet the needs of a broad range of women in crisis, and enables women's refuges to focus on services assisting women escaping from domestic violence and intolerable domestic circumstances. The scope of the program has been extended to cover non-clinical community-based rape crisis centres and incest centres. It is recognised that women's refuges meet the needs of women in crisis situations generated by economic, social and physical circumstances which make their present living conditions intolerable, by providing non-institutionalised assistance for them and, where applicable, their dependent children. Women's refuges also assist residents to gain the knowledge and skills they require to manage their own lives within the wider community, through self-help and mutual support for them after they have left the refuge. Women's refuges also promote public awareness so that health, housing, welfare and legal services are designed to be more relevant to the needs of women. Both the Commonwealth and the States recognise the need for educational and preventive work on domestic violence as an important and legitimate function of women's refuges, and this work will be supported under the program. The third sub-program is the general supported accommodation sub-program. This sub-program is designed to provide supported accommodation and related support services for men, women and their dependants who are permanently homeless, or temporarily homeless as a result of crisis, and who need support to move towards independent living where possible and appropriate. Services which do not clearly fit within the youth or women's sub-programs or which need to cater for a variety of age groups or needs, could be funded under this sub-program. The program will not fund services which provide emergency housing but not supported accommodation. Housing authorities are to maintain their responsibilities for emergency and other related housing programs. The program will also not provide funds for services which provide accommodation as an aspect of or as an adjunct to their major focus, for example, services specialising in student housing, rehabilitation or psychiatric services where the provision of accommodation is dependent upon undergoing rehabilitation or psychiatric treatment, clinical health centres and migrant hostel accommodation. Services with the primary aim of catering for groups which are the particular responsibility of the Commonwealth or the States, such as state wards, are also excluded from the program. Under the program, the Government is providing for a considerable increase over the level of funds available in the past. This is evidence of the Government's firm commitment to expanding present services for women, youth and the permanently homeless, and to improving wages and conditions for workers in such services. For the period of six months from 1 January to 30 June 1985, estimated Commonwealth expenditure on the program is $11.719m. In 1985-86, the estimated minimum Commonwealth expenditure on the program is $27.242m. This will be increased as services under the homeless persons assistance program, initially excluded, are included in the program. The total Federal funding in 1985-86 is well in excess of 100 per cent higher than comparable funding provided for services for homeless people in 1983-84 under various programs, including the youth services scheme, the homeless persons assistance program, the women's emergency services program and grants provided to child care workers in womens' refuges. Actual Federal expenditure on programs and services for homeless people was $17.7m in 1983-84, and projected expenditure in 1984-85 and 1985-86 is $25.9m and $36.4m respectively. These amounts include actual or projected expenditure in the Australian Capital Territory. Funding provided for the program will not remain static. Provision has been made in the agreement to guarantee increases in the program's salaries component to reflect wages growth. The Bill guarantees minimum levels of Commonwealth financial assistance by providing for annual appropriations, after the first full financial year, related to the total moneys expended by the Commonwealth in respect of the prior financial year. Increases in operational costs and additional funds for new staff and services for the homeless will be considered in the annual Budget. Any additional program funds will be distributed on a per capita basis between the States, subject to minimum provisions to protect the smaller States. The Government and the States will be developing a needs-based system for funding over the life of the agreement. The increased Commonwealth effort in this area will be subject to matching requirements on the States. For the first time, Federal and State funding will be combined to ensure an 'adequate deal' for one of the most neglected groups in our society-the homeless. Capital housing funds for services funded under this program will be available under a complementary program within the 1984 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Under the crisis accommodation program, $12.6m has been provided to the States and the Northern Territory in 1984-85. The funds will be unmatched and represent an increase of approximately 30 per cent over capital funding provided under various programs in 1983-84. The two programs will be co-ordinated by one Commonwealth-State advisory committee in each State to ensure a true logical approach to the provision of supported accommodation services. The supported accommodation assistance program will build on existing State, Territory and Commonwealth programs for women, youth and other homeless people. It will enable governments to co-operate to provide for the range of needs of people who are permanently homeless, or temporarily homeless as a result of crisis, and who need support services, by improving the co-ordination, delivery and standard of service provision. Through this Bill, the Commonwealth is firmly committing itself to the funding of supported accommodation services. In accordance with the Government's platform, this new program will enable the provision of an appropriate mix of short and longer-term accommodation with related support services, and encourage self help. I thank the State and Territory Ministers for their co-operation, and extend my thanks to Commonwealth, State and Territory officers, in the formulation of the program provided for in the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1985 which is now before the House proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. The Bill contains four schedules and is necessary to enact tariff changes which have been introduced into the Parliament in the 1985 autumn sittings by Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 1-4 (1985). Honourable members will recall that details of the tariff changes contained in the Bill were outlined to the House at the time of introduction of those Customs Tariff Proposals. Certain of the amendments contained in the Bill arise from the Government's decisions on the Industries Assistance Commission's reports on: Certain Consumer Electronic Equipment and Components; and Separate Articles Direction No. 1 (1983). The Bill also contains amendments relating to: The decision taken by the Government in respect of the Steel Industry Authority's August 1984 report on cold rolled strip and sheet excluding tinplate; continuation of the textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy, including acceptance by the Government of recommendations made in the May 1984 report of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee; the introduction of a special concessional tariff item to enable removable of the 2 per cent revenue duty from imported goods used in the construction or modification of ships eligible for bounty; measures which the Government has decided to apply to specific aspects of the post-1984 arrangements for passenger motor vehicles; implementation of phasing duty arrangements under the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement; the updating of the names of certain countries specified in Schedule 1 to the Customs Tariff Act; and Further simplification of Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act. The purpose of the main provisions in the Bill is to effect changes to assist arrangements for certain industries. Any assessment of the financial impact of these arrangements must therefore anticipate the effect the tariff changes might have on the volume and origin of imports and, hence, on revenue collections. Having made this observation, it is estimated that the financial impact of these provisions will be as follows: (1) The removal of Separate Articles Direction No. 1 (1983) following the IAC's report on this matter is expected to have minimal financial impact. Indeed, the IAC noted that the Direction had declined in scope and usage and that its impact in assistance terms was small. (2) In respect of the changes relating to certain consumer electronic equipment and components, the assistance measures contained in the Bill are estimated to result in a $2m net gain to revenue in the first year of their operation. Mr John Brown —Good news. Mr BARRY JONES —The good news department. In subsequent years, however-here comes the bad news-when the longer term tariff rates come into effect, a net reduction to revenue of some $5.5m is anticipated. This reduction may be offset to some extent by increased levels of imports. (3) The removal of the 2 per cent or less duty on goods for use in the construction or modification of bountiable ships is estimated to reduce revenues by $700,000 a year. This concession removes a cost disadvantage for vessels constructed in Australia which was not borne by imported vessels; and (4) The impact of the Government's decision on certain steel will have little impact in this financial year. The decision could, however, result in additional revenue of up to $3m next financial year if there is no change to present import levels. In respect of the post-1984 arrangements for the passenger motor vehicle industry, a net gain to the revenue is likely, particularly in the short term. This gain cannot be quantified with any precision. In regard to the other provisions of the Bill it has also not been possible to quantify their financial impact with any degree of accuracy. There are no significant administrative costs associated with the Bill. A summary of amendment for each Schedule of the Bill has been prepared and copies are available from the Table Office. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Ruddock) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Debate resumed. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(5.23) —Prior to the break for lunch I was addressing my remarks to the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill. At that point I was trying to acquaint the House of my experiences as an immigration officer, further back than I care to remember. I was making the point that the laudable post-war migration program had achieved outstanding results insofar as both elements, the standing community of Australia and the newcomers, had blended quite exquisitely, it might be said, so that we profitted from the best each had to offer and some of the things that were perhaps better left aside were, in fact, left aside. As I previously pointed out this is relevant to the Institute of Multicultural Affairs because, while the concept of the Institute is quite laudable, it must remain at the mercy of those who are commissioned to implement its measures, and some risk attaches thereto. I must say, therefore, that I remain with my conviction that in the ultimate matters of the nature of which the Institute is required to address are better left free from any heavy-handed direction either to do or not to do, leaving people, as they have a habit of so doing, to resolve things for themselves. To do otherwise tends to emphasise the differences rather than to emphasise those things we have in common. I well recall an occasion back in those days I referred to when I had to visit Glen Davis shale oil plant where there were 130 ex-Royal Air Force Polish airmen. I had to conduct examinations in respect of their applications for naturalisation. Back in those dark days, if you like, of the 1940s I must admit to being awed at their exotic names. I virtually recoiled from the Stanislaw Pryciernykis. The thought with me at the time was how unfortunate it was to have a name like that in a country such as this. I doubt whether they would have made the fourth grade of the local football team because the name would have been an insurmountable hurdle. However, by the ordinary effluxion of events they are now in our teams, they are our champions, our schoolboy heroes, and are lauded now as Australians. We are proud of them. They come from all walks of life. We see people with similar names, sometimes adapted, achieving, notwithstanding that which 40 years ago would have been a substantial impediment. We got to know each other. We took things for granted. If I recoiled at the name Stanislaw Pryciernyki honourable members can imagine how I felt when I had to send an invitation to, I think it was, a Greek Archbishop in Sydney at the time named Theodylactus Papathanopopolous. I wondered what was happening to this country. But everything has been all right, putting aside the fact that that particular Theodylactus I am talking about was an archbishop. There would of course be many others. Of course these people in their fish shops and businesses would now be called Ted Pappas, but I venture to say that we would not find a prouder Australian than Ted Pappas, Theodylactus renewed. This is the very point I am making. We do not need-- Mr Ruddock —He is no longer in the fish shop; he has cornered the whole market. Mr MILLAR —Quite clearly. The Australian today is a different Australian from the Australian of 1940. It is the very nature of human beings to assimilate. I made the point before that, whilst the very word 'assimilation' has offensive connotations to some with a zealous approach to these matters, it was a joint assimilation; we both assimilated one with the other. The simple fact of the matter is that, if we emphasise the differences in multiculturalism and lay emphasis on our ethnic differences, in many respects we will compound problems which exist now. Let us not lose sight of the fact that unhappily amongst some ethnic groups there is at the best an antipathy and, in some instances, a more unfortunate relationship. Therefore, we should not be concentrating on maintaining the differences. We should be moving into the new Australia with a new type of Australian, which will bring to this country the best of all worlds. Whilst I acknowledge, as does the Opposition, that the introduction of this Bill is well within the parameters and that the Government is entitled so to legislate, we will continue to make our comments as we have done but not seek to impede the Bill's passage through the House. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(5.27) —Unlike some honourable members opposite who spoke in the debate on the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill earlier today, I was delighted to see this Bill introduced as I believe it represents a clear intention on behalf of the Government to expand the objects and functions of the Institute of Multicultural Affairs to address current Government policy objectives on multicultural and community relations issues. My electorate of Macarthur has a great number of residents of diverse cultural and ethnic background who seek the means to participate effectively in Australian society to achieve their own potential. Wollongong in fact has in excess of 74 different nationalities represented within its boundaries. The attraction of Illawarra, with its heavy industrial and coal mining base, has led to massive numbers of migrants from every point of the compass seeking integration into Australian society and the local work force. Migration patterns of the past which embraced an influx of new residents from Britain and Europe, have in recent times seen increasing numbers come from South American and Asia in recognition of the commitment of this Government to a migration policy based on equity and social justice. To meet the needs of these people of diverse ethnic or cultural background or immigrant origin, a number of facilities have emerged throughout my electorate and in the Illawarra in general. Of major significance was the establishment of the Centre for Multi-cultural Studies at the University of Wollongong. This Centre has been concerned with action research on matters affecting ethnic minorities, although it does offer some post-graduate teaching. It has four permanent research staff funded by the university who in turn arrange for funding for specific research projects. A number of studies have already been undertaken and published by the Centre which accord with the objects of this Bill. For example, the Centre has the objective of: Promoting a just and equitable society that: (1) accepts people irrespective of their ethnic or cultural background or immigrant origin and (2) affords members of the different cultural groups and ethnic communities in Australia the effective opportunity to participate in Australian society and to achieve their own potential. This has been clearly promoted by the Centre. Studies such as 'Racism in schools' funded by the Human Rights Commission, 'Migrants and industrial democracy' funded by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, 'Language learning needs of migrants in the workforce' funded by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and the production of curriculum materials for social literacy for non-English speakers stand testimony to the commitment of this Government to provide the resource base for organisations such as the Centre for Multicultural Studies. Given the wide range of projects undertaken by the Centre and their obvious application to other areas of Australia, the co-ordination of projects approved by funding bodies would be desirable in order to prevent duplication of research. Clause 4 of this Bill allows for this to occur. The co-ordination and dissemination of completed research material as advocated in paragraph (b) would help ensure the effective use of resources and maximise the diversity of research undertaken. I believe university departments, such as that at Wollongong, are the ones best equipped to handle this research. A further function of the Institute, as proposed by proposed new paragraph (e) of clause 4, deals with the use of ethnic community organisations of their right to make representations on particular issues and, if necessary, to provide guidance in the making of such representations. Again, ample evidence as to how such an objective might be attained exists within the Illawarra-Macarthur region. I refer to the ethnic liaison project run under the auspices of the South Coast Labor Council. The ethnic liaison project, with a staff of seven, was established in June 1984 for one year through a community employment program grant. The project has mostly been concerned with assisting ethnic workers with problems in the work place, ranging from conditions and pay rates to compensation claims. In the past year staff of the project dealt with several people employed as contract cleaners, for example. Although the project set out to address compensation and other problems on behalf of the workers, it was quickly discovered that most of these workers were receiving below award wages. A subsequent campaign conducted by the project resulted in improved pay for many of these workers. A problem of a similar nature was addressed concerning outworkers for clothing companies. This problem was alluded to this morning by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). While workers were being paid by the piece-one case that came to attention for this group involved an hour's work for one piece of clothing for the princely sum of 70c-they were denied any leave provisions. A second campaign facilitated the implementation of an award structure to cover this group. Those people were in trouble because of problems of communication, not knowing their rights and difficulties in communicating in English. The main task facing the project has been the informing of ethnic workers of their rights and entitlements in the work place and helping them to see solicitors, doctors and unions where necessary. The present staff includes workers of Spanish, Vietnamese and Turkish backgrounds. I believe that continued funding for projects such as this is essential. This project demonstrates the close relationship which exists within industrial areas of Australia between workers of ethnic backgrounds, the trade union movement and the Government on proposals such as those which are facilitated by this Bill. A further example of the relevance of this Bill in providing equal opportunity for ethnic groups is given by the operation of the adult migrant education service, which is a specialist agency of the Ministry of Education in New South Wales. Its operation is funded by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs as part of the Australia-wide adult migrant education program. The service provides courses and programs of English language learning for migrants and refugees in the initial settlement stage, and later to meet individual language learning needs. In the Illawarra region the service operates from a number of locations, including the Port Kembla works of Australian Iron and Steel. That area of operation serves to typify how the union movement, the industry and other organisations can work for the benefit of ethnic groups within Australia. The service, in conjunction with the training department of Australian Iron and Steel, has conducted English classes for migrant workers at the Port Kembla plant since 1974. In August 1975 the first courses in full company time commenced. That is an example of commitment by an organisation to improving the life of its workers. In 1983 it was decided to reassess the migrant education program operational at AIS in the light of circumstances being experienced throughout the plant. To AIS's credit, it was resolved to implement new programs which would enable tuition offered in the plant to continue. Under these new arrangements three areas of language tuition are available. The first involves traditional classes which operate during day shift and give workers about 80 hours of tuition free in company time. The second area refers to the industrial tutoring service, under which workers are taught in small groups on the shop floor in the students' work environment. So they are learning, they are also on the shop floor and are not losing time. The third program is operated by the Department of Industrial Relations certificate course. The aim is to prepare employees to sit for external examinations administered by the Department as proof of competency in areas including crane driving, crane chasing and forklift driving. The benefits of the program are great. They include a reduction in accident rates through a better understanding of work directives, safety notices and so on, and resolution of minor grievances through discussion and negotiation. A wider pool of employees are given the opportunity to train for and use new technology. Finally, I welcome the proposed amendments relating to the membership of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Council. This matter was also mentioned earlier. The AIMA must not be perpetuated as a recruiting station for the ethnic elite and the Liberal Party of Australia. The interests of all ethnic and cultural groups must be enhanced and protected, and I believe this can be achieved through this Bill. The people of the Illawarra-Macarthur region have a special interest in this Bill because of their high migrant population, their excellent record in research on problems confronting ethnic groups as conducted by Wollongong University's Centre for Multicultural Studies, and their excellent record of community action through agencies such as the Illawarra Migrant Resource Centre and the ethnic liaison project. A restructured Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs could effectively co-ordinate the work of these groups and allow such regional activities to flourish. I support this Bill unequivocally. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(5.38) —To discuss the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill one has to be clear of what one thinks about multiculturalism. The problem is that there are two incompatible kinds of multiculturalism. We can call one liberal multiculturalism, which puts a high value on social diversity and on each person reaching out to people of different traditions. It is simply a development of liberalism and gives it a sort of cosmopolitan tone. The American multiculturalist writer, Michael Novak, put it well in his 1982 address under the auspices of the Institute. I hope it is not out of order if I say that I was pleased to be able to republish this lecture in the magazine Quadrant in May 1983. I quote from page 36 of that issue, where Michael Novak gives expression to liberal multiculturalism. He said: The world has always been multicultural. Today, however, many millions experience the tides and currents of more than one culture in their daily lives. Multiculturalism becomes, to some extent, internalised in almost all of us. I call this internalisation the new ethnicity. He goes on to say: In order to understand others, one learns that it is not necessary for them to become 'like us'. Each of us can reach out to others as we expect them to reach out to us. This is the cardinal rule of the new ethnicity. In that same lecture Michael Novac stressed that liberal multiculturalism respects not just diversity or difference but the traditions of various communities. On page 37 of the same article he said: . . . the true liberal society today is likely to be multicultural in fact (in the composition of its population) and cosmopolitan in ideal. . . . It will consciously promote those forms of strong social life-in families, churches, neighbourhoods, unions, corporations, linguistic groups, and groups of shared cultural memory-which alone produce strong individuals. For strong individuals do not spring like Venus from the sea. They are generated out of much long suffering from social traditions made strong, subtle, complex and wise through the bitter experiences of the ages. To destroy cultural traditions would be to destroy the roots of social wisdom. It would be to sentence every fresh generation to beginning tabula rasa, having learned nothing from the blood and sweat of previous generations. It would deracinate the newborn. It would introduce the principle of barbarism into the heart of civilised societies. For civilisation itself is nothing if not historical, carrying forward the accumulated wisdom of the past, conveying this wisdom expeditiously through family, religious and social liturgies, rituals, symbols, proverbs, teachings, and practices learned down the ages. That is what I have been calling liberal multiculturalism, but there is another multiculturalism that is quite different and I think we call it radical multiculturalism. These days it increasingly has the platforms. Radical multiculturalism calls for a new start, for the radical reconstruction of our bad society. It denies the values of Australian traditions and institutions. Its emphasis is on the basic structural political and economic changes which it believes are needed and which would only be symbolised by Australia becoming a republic and changing its national flag. For them Australian history really only began in the early 1970s, and earlier Australian history is that of an intolerant, racist, almost totalitarian society which should be described in its true colours. So Australian history will have to be rewritten to bring all that out, and all the things that Australians value will be denigrated. There will be no place in new history for Australian achievement and enterprise, for the past successful assimilation of migrants to which the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) referred. There will be no room for the Anzac story, the British heritage, the rule of law, our freedoms, our high standard of living, our work ethic, the constitutional monarchy, Westminster parliaments and so on. All those achievements belong to the past, which should be wiped clean for the start which began some 15 years ago. In brief, there is-I am picking my words carefully-to be a sort of multicultural fascist new order. One should not underestimate the intolerance involved. Woe betide him who steps out of line, as the Blainey case testifies. I have no wish to defend Professor Blainey's views in full. I think his book has many flaws, especially his treatment of the Vietnamese, whose struggle to come here and to settle here is a story commanding tremendous admiration. Nevertheless, his critique of the radical multiculturalist philosphy is one that everyone can read with profit. But whatever criticisms his book All for Australia may deserve, who can justify the book coming out in a few days, written by a number of academics who resent Blainey's daring to be critical of their views, and who are now taking revenge on him by attempting to destroy his reputation on every aspect so that every book or article that he has ever written will now be shown to be bad or unworthy? That vendetta seems to be a symbol of radical multiculturalism as distinct from the liberal multiculturalism which I was endorsing at the beginning of my remarks. In the light of my description of the two kinds of multiculturalism, I turn to the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs and the Bill before us. I will not call it AIMA. I do not like all these awful acronyms. This field is full of them. There are acronyms such as SINUS, MUTS and GASP and many other sorts of unattractive acronyms. So I will refer to the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. The Institute grew out of the recommendations in the May 1978 report of the Galbally Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services to Migrants which was liberal in its inspiration with a great emphasis on self-help on the part of the ethnic communities instead of reliance on government help and on new class bureaucrats and consultants. Among the recommendations in the Galbally report was the establishment of the Australian Institute and, in due course, the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act 1979 was passed. The Institute had an outstanding Council chaired by Mr Galbally with members such as Professor Zubrzyski and Michael Diamond and it had an outstanding director in Petro Georgiou. In a little more than three years it achieved a great deal as an advisor to government. Giving advice to government was its principal function. Amongst its achievements were: The funding of ethnic schools; a major increase in the teaching of English as a second language; amending all discriminatory legislation; extending multicultural broadcasts; and the expansion of government bilingual staff. In that short period it consulted hundreds of organisations and involved scores of academics and consultants in its work. It had the satisfaction of seeing not only the former government but also the present Government accepting the vast bulk of its recommendations. Since it was liberal and advisory in its emphasis and emphasised self-help and self-reliance rather than reliance on government, the new class radical minders, consultants and bureaucrats were enraged. They thought they saw the opportunity with the change of government to go back on the idea of self-help and restore the idea of reliance on government. Unfortunately, the Government set up the ridiculous Cass Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. This Committee seems to have seen as its task the doing of a job on the Fraser Government creation, the Australian Institute. What a job it did! It was comparable to the job that the group of academics to whom I referred are proposing to do on Professor Blainey in their new book. Four people were selected to serve on the committee, all of whom were well known critics of the Australian Institute. So there was no possibility of their approaching the review in a calm, objective and balanced way. They found, as they were expected to find, given their attitudes, that the Australian Institute had very little if anything to be said in its favour. They found that it was unrepresentative; that it was ineffective; that it was incompetent; that it was centralised; that it chose the wrong consultants; that it was secretive; that some of its actions were ethically dubious, that it was politically partisan; that it marginalised women; that it constrained debate; that it had too low a profile; that it was insensitive to the disadvantaged; that it was aloof; that it had an outmoded structure; and that it brought Michael Novak, whom I quoted earlier, to Australia. That, of course, was unforgivable since he is a supporter of the Reagan Administration. Having found all these flaws and few, if any, redeeming features, the Committee recommended that the Institute be abolished and that a new commission be established in its place. The trouble is that the Cass Committee could not get anything right. Despite the fact that it had a secretariat of 16 people, 10 researchers and 2 consultants-28 people in all, all of them, in one degree or another, experts-it could hardly get anything right. For example, whether we are talking about small things or big things, the Committee stated that a report on the disabled cost $18,000 when it cost $1,800. It stated as a criticism that the Institute's newsletters cost $15 to produce when they cost $2.25. It said it produced few reports when it produced 62. It said its library was not open to the public or available under inter-library loan when it was open to the public and its publications available under inter-library loan. It said that it had to accept the fact that its advice had been accepted generally. It said that its advice was accepted because they did what they were told. Taking the evaluation of post-arrival programs and services as an example-I think that is called EPPS in acronym language-they ignored the fact that this could not have been simply what the former Government wanted done because 90 per cent of this many recommendations had been accepted by the new government. It said that Professor Kaplan should have been kept busier during his sponsored trip to Australia when in fact he never came to Australia. He was used as a consultant while resident in the United States. That is the sort of mistake of which there are hundreds in this report. It compared the Institute unfavourably, in terms of cost and productivity, with the Institute of Family Studies and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, ignoring the fact that those other bodies are research bodies first and last whereas the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs is primarily an advisory body and the research is subordinate to the recommendations it prepares. I leave aside the weaknesses of the methodology of the report, or the conclusions it reached at odds with the evidence it produced, or its use of an extraordinary range of unnamed individuals to establish what a poor body the Institute is. In the response of the Council of the Institute to the Cass report-I stress that this carries the signature of Frank Galbally, Michael Diamond and Jerzy Zubrzycki amongst others, and all the members of the Council-they said: Stripped of its errors, unsubstantiated allegations, invalid comparisons, assertions made in ignorance of the facts or upon a selective interpretation of the evidence and a disregard of the Act, very little remains of the report's critique of the Institute. The Report has created an extraordinary caricature of the Institute and all those associated with it, a portrait which bears no resemblance to reality. Anybody reading both the report and the response could only agree with that. For all these reasons the Government could not accept the report or its recommendations, so it established a further inquiry under Dr Rivett, which in due course recommended a new commission to replace the Institute, a parliamentary standing committee and a Council to be elected, in large part, by eight electorates using proportional representation, with other members of the Council to be nominated. It is a report that honourable members will have read but, while it lacks the venom of the Cass report, it also recommends changes on much the same lines as the Cass report, which amount to the transformation of the Australian Institute for very doubtful improvement. Nevertheless, the Government had these reports. It had a determination to change. It had inherited a body that was acknowledged to be doing good work, so what was it to do? It could not accept the Cass report. It could not accept that the established Institute was doing good work, so it found a middle ground that would appear to make changes but do little that was really progressive. A good deal of what it proposes will weaken the Australian Institute so that it cannot continue to do the good work it used to do. The advisory role under this Bill is changed from being one of two functions to being one of seven, thereby downgrading the advisory role, which was so important and has really been responsible for the good work of the Institute. The real emphasis now is on community education. The Government will lose the benefit of a serious advisory body outside the departmental bureaucracy. I assume that a number of new class ethnic minders will be appointed to the new Council, but it seems that their role will be limited to giving public speeches and addresses to seminars while the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs does the real work, unaided by an advisory institute with influence on many departments. It is a dog's breakfast. One can only express relief that the Government has not accepted the idea of a parliamentary standing committee, which could so easily become a platform for multiculturalist demagogues, or the idea of multicultural constituencies electing members of Council, with all that would be involved with those elections. I do not want to bind the shadow Minister to this, but my own view, which I notice fits in with what the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) was saying, is that after all the demagoguery, rhetoric, speeches and reports, and the vast expansion of the multiculturalist industry, it is time for a period of what in a different context in America Senator Moynihan called benign neglect-to let the natural liberal instincts of the Australian people find the new multicultural balance we need. We can manage without the hectoring lectures, without the rewriting of Australian history, without the rubbishing of Australia's institutions and the Australian history which has created the social climate and the institutions that make Australia attractive to migrants. We can do without the interference of the Human Rights Commission. We can do without an Australian Bicentennial Authority that eliminates everything of value in Australian history. We can do without unending lectures and seminars from the newly reconstituted Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. If the Government will not accept the idea of benign neglect, and I have no doubt that it will not accept it, the idea of reliance on the good sense of the Australian people and of migrants, the next thing would be to maintain the sort of Australian Institute that did such good work from 1980 to 1983, so much practical, useful non-demagogic work. But, of course, it is now being reconstituted. It seems to me that in this measure the Government is going to get the worst of both worlds. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(5.58) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill 1985. I am absolutely appalled at the comments we have just heard from the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman). They show a deplorable lack of knowledge of the opinions of the ethnic communities of this country. If he were to go around the ethnic communities in this country, as I have, talking to them about the Cass report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs and about the implications contained in that report he would know that the criticisms contained in the report of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs were well justified. In supporting this Bill I remind the House that one of the very great achievements of the post-war years by governments from both sides of politics has been the planned migration program. I do not think there is any doubt that both sides would agree that immigration has made a great contribution to our nation's development in economic, social and cultural terms. Australia is a multicultural society and I consider it to be a better country as a result. Hearing the remarks of the honourable member for Wentworth, I must confess that it seems to be very much in his mind that, lurking in the shadows yet always seeking banner headlines, are those who wish to recreate in Australia a racially selective immigration policy. Although the impetus for establishing an Institute of Multicultural Affairs came from the Galbally report, of the Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services to migrants, it should be noted that there are two earlier reports which addressed the need for a body such as AIMA. These are the Migrant Task Force report in 1974 and the Lippmann final report of 1975. In Hansard of 8 November 1979, on pages 2820 and 2821, the then Shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Moss Cass, spoke to the Bill to establish AIMA as follows: As conceptualised by the Galbally report, the proposed Institute of Multicultural Affairs was welcomed by the Opposition in 1978 as a multipurpose resource centre serving the needs of a polyethnic society. As we saw it, the Institute would document the phenomenon of immigration to our country, trace and comment on the growth of ethnic communities, sponsor cross-cultural awareness, help preserve the heritage of our ethno-cultural society, promote mutual tolerance and esteem between all groups and investigate cross-cultural experiences, lifestyles and needs. In other words, whilst its main activities were to sponsor research, disseminate information and educate the community, the Institute was not envisaged by us as an academic institution in an ivory tower far removed from everyday problems studying the arts and crafts of our various communities as a sort of public relations exercise. That was the hope in 1978. Unfortunately, the Institute failed to fulfil those hopes expressed by Moss Cass. The previous Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West), was very much aware of the large amount of concern and protest in ethnic communities about AIMA's role and function. He set up a committee of review under the chairmanship of Moss Cass including Eva Cox, a former Director of the New South Wales Council of Social Service, Professor Laki Jayasuriya of the University of Western Australia and a member of the Commonwealth Government Immigration Advisory Council from 1972-1975, and Mr Alan Matheson, Ethnic Liaison Officer with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Chairman of the Australian Council of Churches Commission on Community Relations. I mention these names because the honourable member for Wentworth took pains to castigate them and indicated that in some way they were defective in the task they performed. These persons were very concerned about the issues of multiculturalism. I think it is a poor show for the honourable member to indicate that in some way they approached their task in a very biased way. The primary task of the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs was to examine the effectiveness and the efficiency of AIMA as an institution in meeting its statutory objects and functions. It is also interesting to note that the Committee in going about its task experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining access to material held or controlled by AIMA. In its report to the Minister the Committee indicated that the letter of the law was observed but not the spirit. The Committee records quibbling about dates and the meaning of requests and procedures which delayed and disrupted the data gathering of the Committee. It is worth reminding the House of the conclusions of the Committee in its report to the Minister. In chapter VII under the heading 'Conclusions' at page 65 of the report, the Committee stated: We have examined the various constituencies which could have claims on AIMA's resources. Our conclusions are that most of these, in fact the most disadvantaged of them, have derived little or no benefit from AIMA's activities. The report goes on to say: The efficiency of AIMA compares very unfavourably with other similar institutes on a variety of criteria such as cost, range of publications, volume of effort (conferences and seminars) and impact on the community. A careful perusal of all AIMA publications reveals a remarkable lack of information or stimuli to discussion and an equal lack of planning in the small quantity of work produced. I might add that when the Committee talked about variety of criteria in its report it compared AIMA'S performance with that of similar bodies and found it very much wanting. The report goes on: AIMA's record in promoting harmonious community relations, one of the principal objects of its charter, is non-existent, despite evidence of increasing prejudice and discrimination in Australian society. This is not altogether surprising (but deplorable nonetheless) in view of the distance which the Institute placed between itself and its constituent publics and the rarefied atmosphere in which it operated. No progress appears to have been made in establishing a repository of ethnic heritage (a function specified in the AIMA Act). Further it said: Much of AIMA's lack of effectiveness in achieving its goals has been due to its management style. In this regard, it stands uniquely apart from all other similar institutes. Its restrictive channels of communication and lack of openness to the community were not conducive to popular participation; indeed a marked unwillingness to enter into dialogue with the Institute's various publics has been a feature. AIMA has arrogated to itself, without any form of consultation, decisions on its priorities for action and it has made an arbitrary determination of its operational goals-heavily focused on research activities related to advice to government-as evident in the allocation of its resources which are out of tune with community needs. The Committee concluded with the following words: We therefore conclude that AIMA has been neither effective nor efficient in fulfilling its charter, which was to address itself to the central issues of multiculturalism in Australia. It is in the light of these criticisms that the Bill before the House was drafted. It is intended to give AIMA a more effective role which, in the recognition of the multicultural nature of Australian society, will provide positive encouragement of improved community relations by expanding the objects and functions of AIMA. Proposed new paragraph (d) of section 5 of the principal Act is worthy of note in that it provides the following as an object of the Institute: to promote a just and equitable society that- (i) accepts people irrespective of their particular ethnic or cultural background . . . or immigrant origin; and (ii) affords the members of the different cultural groups and ethnic communities in Australia the effective opportunity to participate in Australian society and to achieve their own potential. I hope that honourable members on both sides of the House regard that objective as worthy. It is interesting to observe that this object is similar to the Committee's recommendation on objects. The Committee in paragraph 3.1 on page 2 of the report made the following recommendation in respect of objects: (a) To promote equity and access for those whom society disadvantages because of their ethnic or cultural differences; And going on to (d): to promote, within a just and cohesive society, the full and equal participation by all residents of Australia, of whatever cultural or ethnic background. The Bill also proposes to increase the membership of the AIMA Council from nine to 12 members, to broaden community participation on the Council and to facilitate the ongoing inclusion of an Aboriginal. This again is in line with meeting some of the criticisms of the former Council by the Committee of Review. The Committee received numerous submissions complaining that the former Council was neither representative of the ethnic communities nor aware of or in touch with the real problems and issues confronting multiculturalism in modern society. Finally, the major issue confronting our multicultural society today is that of racism. There has been a marked increase in the incidence of public expressions of prejudice and racism in the past decade. Honourable members on both sides of the House have a moral obligation to do what they can to eliminate this prejudice and racism. In terms of the future I quote again from the report of the Committee of Review. On page 74, under the heading 'Multiculturalism and Social Change', it states: The vital question for the future is whether the philosophy of multiculturalism, as it has evolved in the late 1970s- note, the late 1970s, the period during which the Fraser Government as well as the Whitlam Government was in power in this country- primarily directed towards developing a sense of ethnic and cultural identity, can provide the logical and relevant basis for attacking ethnically based structural inequalities. We believe not. If multiculturalism is not fashioned in the future as an effective vehicle for social change, especially change in the life circumstances and life chances of migrant and ethnic minorities, it will remain an impotent, ineffective and irrelevant ideology of migrant settlement. It would fail to rectify social inequalities, to the detriment not only of migrant groups but of Australian society as a whole. I support the Bill. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.13) —On 8 December 1983 the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs presented in this Parliament the report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Due, it was said, to the fact that some parts of that report contained defamatory material, the report was not made available to me, as shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs at that time, or to the Opposition prior to it being tabled in the House. As Hansard for the House of Representatives of 8 December 1983 will confirm, I made statements to which I wish to refer at the commencement of my remarks. As recorded on page 3504 I said: The Minister has said that AIMA was not effective, that it was not efficient, and that it was, to quote his own words back to him, 'a costly failure'. The Opposition warns the Minister that it does not take his allegations lightly. On page 3505 I am shown as having gone on to say: I want to inform the Minister and the people of Australia, through this Parliament, that we do not take the Minister's allegations lightly. The Opposition is not satisfied that there has been a fair trial of AIMA. We will call upon the Government, and the Minister in particular, to put up hard evidence to substantiate his allegations. This matter will be fully debated when the Federal Parliament resumes next year. We put the Minister on clear notice that he will have to prove in this Parliament to the satisfaction of the people of Australia the truth of what he said. He will have to satisfy the people of Australia that he is not engaged in a witch hunt. He will have to satisfy the people of Australia that he will not undo what we did simply because it was a Fraser Government initiative. Lastly, he will have to prove that he is not deliberately setting about the politicisation of ethnic affairs in this country. I concluded in these terms: I have to conclude my remarks now because of the time constraint but, if the Minister fails to come up with the hard proof to justify the allegations he has made, I believe that he and his Government will be rightly and properly criticised for an action which in the ultimate may well appear to be based more on political motivations than anything else. I do not claim to have a magic ball with which to predict the future, but, in reading those words spoken on 8 December 1983 and in looking at the position as we find it today, I have to ask: Where is the hard proof? Where is the evidence to justify those very harsh remarks made by the then Minister and by the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, the report of that Committee of Review having been tabled in this Parliament on 8 December 1983? What happened then is interesting history. I think the Minister, to give him credit, recognised that he had on his hands a report which simply could not stand up. So the Minister no doubt after consultation with his colleagues, decided that he would get a review of that report. In the meantime the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, feeling bitterly wounded by the unjust treatment it had received, prepared, very quickly, I might say, a response to the report-I will be referring to that in a moment-and subsequently in April 1984 came forward with a report under the heading 'Looking Forward: a Report on Consultations concerning the Recommendations of the Committee of Review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs'. The debate promised in 1983 did not eventuate for one reason or another until October 1984. As my colleague the new and excellent shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who is present in the chamber, will confirm, I did not participate in that debate due, unfortunately, to the fact that I had incurred the wrath of Mr Speaker and was at that time under suspension from this chamber. Therefore, this is my first opportunity to contribute to the debate since 8 December 1983. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —You will go carefully tonight, then. Mr HODGMAN —I will go very carefully tonight, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will not canvass the circumstances in which I received the punishment handed out to me on the last occasion. Mr Holding —I would not if I were you. Mr HODGMAN —No, it is not a matter one can relitigate, is it? I had a fairly good understanding of a final judgment in a court of law but I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is nothing at all compared with a final judgment in this House. There is no appeal, no bail, no anything. I have the opportunity, therefore, to re-enter the debate as the former shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I will from time to time-not in anyway to cut across the excellent work of the present shadow Minister-enter immigration debates to put the record straight where I believe it should be put straight. I say quite bluntly and unequivocally that I believe that the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs suffered a grievous injustice at the hands of the Committee of Review. I adopt the remarks of the honourable member for Dundas when he pointed out-as did other honourable members, including the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman)-not only that the findings of the Committee of Review are demonstrably erroneous, but also that the elements of venom and, I have to say, political bipartisanship crept in. I believe that when good and decent Australians have been defamed, and unjustly reviled it is the duty of those who believe in justice and believe in individual rights to put the record straight in this place, and if necessary outside it. I speak, without any requests from them, on behalf of such distinguished Australians as Dr Kenneth Rivett, Mr Petro Georgiou, the former Director, and members of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs at the time of the inquiry-Mr Frank Galbally; Mr Michael Diamond, MBE; Mr Herman Huyer; Yolanda Klempfner; George Lapaine, MBE; Helen Lesnewski; Bill McKinnon, CBE, who is of course also the permanent head of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; and Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki, CBE. I turn to what I see as the most regrettable aspects of this very unfortunate interlude in the history of Australia and its people. I have to say that I believe that the Committee of Review of AIMA, which was headed by Dr Moss Cass, demonstrably comprised persons who, as the honourable member for Wentworth has pointed out, were already on record, first, as to their political views and persuasions and, secondly, as to their attitudes towards AIMA. It was a hung jury and no fair trial could ever have occurred. It was a partisan effort conducted by people who, as I have said, were on the public record as being critical of the Institute. I have to say again, without making the point too strongly, that there was strong representation of those who represent the extreme Left of Australian politics. I want to refer to the response of the Institute and, in particular, to the passages which appear on page 2 of that response. Under the heading: 'The Co-operation of the Institute', the response stated: In its remarks on the work of the Review the Committee claims that there was a lack of co-operation by the Institute. The facts do not bear out this claim. The Institute welcomed an impartial review. On 15 April the Chairman wrote to the Minister stating 'I am aware of the Government's commitment to review the Institute and welcome it . . . I have no doubt that an independent and impartial review will clearly indicate that the Institute is a highly effective organisation'. However, the individuals subsequently appointed to undertake the Review had publicly criticised the Institute. On 25 July the Chairman of the Institute-- Mr Galbally-- accordingly advised the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of his grave concerns that 'it would seem highly unlikely that the Committee could undertake its task in a fair and impartial manner, and that its objectivity could most certainly be questioned'. What was the Government's response to that? There was no response. It let the matter proceed. I turn to the passages on pages 9 and 10 of the response, dealing with the functions of the Institute, which state: 'Structure, Management, and Functions' provides an overview of a number of matters. Its conclusion is categorical. 'This examination of the structure, management and operational style of the Institute has revealed much to criticise. In fact it is extremely difficult to make any positive comments particularly in the areas of management and operational style'. That was the allegation. What were the facts? As the response states: These findings are said by the Report to be based in part on the 'Internal observation of a Review Committee staff member' . . . whose role was to conduct a management review of the Institute. The results of the staff members' management review are contained in the unattributed report entitled 'A Management Overview of AIMA' published in Volume II. It contains a number of highly positive comments which have failed to find their way into the Report. 'As a general comment, internal operating and administrative procedures seem to be particularly effective and efficient. That is a pretty severe rebuttal of the finding of the Committee of Review of AIMA. The response goes on to state: Considering that the Institute commenced operations with no staff and no procedures in 1980, the establishment of comprehensive and tight administrative procedures is a significant achievement.' That is what the management experts said. They complimented AIMA, yet the Committee of Review castigated AIMA. The response further states: 'The use of this technology has meant high productivity and high quality output from administrative staff while maximising resources devoted to operational functions'. That does not seem to me to constitute criticism of management and operational staff. The response goes on further to state: 'Leaving aside questions of methodology, quality and relevance in relation to these projects (issues covered elsewhere in this Report), the planning, organisation, control and co-ordination necessary to achieve these results within the allotted period time is impressive. Yet the Institute was condemned as being inefficient. What sort of justice is this? The response goes on to state: These results indicate that the Institute is capable of organising and concentrating its resources to achieve a result and, in particular, to meet project deadlines'. That is a pretty damning rebuttal of the allegations and the findings of Dr Cass's Committee of Review of AIMA. Finally, the response stated: There are other factors which, while not strictly measures of efficiency or productivity, do give a observer some indication of the standard of the Institute's internal management and Administration systems. For example, consultative staff appear to be maticulously (sic) briefed, Council is well serviced, information is obviously carefully recorded on (sic) the standard of presentation material by the Institute is high. That is the finding of the management expert. But the finding of the Committee of the Review of AIMA was that the Institute was inefficient. The statement by the Minister was that it had been 'a costly and inefficient operation'. These statements have continued even until today when there was the attack in this Parliament by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) on Petro Georgiou. I wish the honourable member for Calwell were present to hear what I am about to say. Let us give this attack the lie. Let us knock it dead. I am going to remind the honourable member for Calwell-if he kept in touch with ethnic communities he would know this-that on 13 September 1979 in this Parliament a media release from the Australian Greek Welfare Society was read into the Hansard of the Parliament. It said something about Mr Georgiou which I would like to read into the Hansard today. The media release stated: Secondly, as to the question of Mr Georgiou himself we do not believe or accept that he will engender political partisanship or political control into the area of ethnic television. To our knowledge Mr Georgiou has a competent understanding of the nature and problems of ethnic communities in Australian society and we believe that by virtue of academic background and involvement on the Prime Minister's staff in recent years he has gained sensitivity and understanding with respect to problems of public administration. We anticipate that Mr Georgiou will make significant contributions to the work of the Ethnic Television Review Panel to which he is Secretary. That was what Mr Georgiou's community, the Greek community, said about him. That was a Press release from the Australian Greek Welfare Society. It came from the city of Melbourne. I would like to know on what basis. Mr Ruddock —Didn't the member say that he was an ethnic unknown? Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member has taken the words out of my mouth. I would like to know on what basis the honourable member for Calwell said that Petro Georgiou was an ethnic unknown. I suggest, having had the closet contact with the Greek community not just in Tasmania but in many other parts of Australia over many years, that the name Petro Georgiou as a Greek Australian has been honoured and revered, throughout all parts of this country for at least a decade, to my knowledge. I just do not know how the honourable member for Calwell can call him an ethnic unknown. The plain fact is that this was a politically motivated review. The plain fact is that it was a Fraser Government initiative in the first place. The plain fact is that the review of the review comes closer to recognising the truth of the situation than the original Committee of Review report. With all due respect to the previous speaker, I find it hard to find one person who has come forward and praised the Cass report. The honourable member for Wentworth said in a very erudite and eloquent manner some of the things I was going to say, and I do not need to go over them in detail. I do have the opportunity, in the last two minutes available to me, to say that I feel strongly, as he and I think a lot of Australians do, that it would be a tragedy if we were to see a continuation of the politicisation of multiculturalism in this country, which unfortunately commenced, I believe, with the directive from Canberra to get AIMA, to bring down the chopper on AIMA. Heaven knows why the Australian Labour Party, comprising as it does the Hawke socialist Government, decided to take a stock whip to Frank Galbally. I thought the Minister at the table, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), would confirm that the Galbally family is a very fine Australian family with the double traditions of the Collingwood Football Club and the Australian Labor Party. For some reason that did not save Mr Frank Galbally. Mr Coleman —Persona non grata with the Left. Mr HODGMAN —Oh, well. The fact is that when the Labor Party decides to get somebody it does it pretty swiftly and brutally. It seems to me that it does it even more viciously when it is one of its own. It is a good example of dog eat dog. History is the great vindicator, and history will vindicate the fact that AIMA was an exciting and dynamic initiative of the Fraser Government. It did an extremely good job in an extremely short time. It was set upon for political reasons by a government which frankly wished to politicise multiculturalism. I think the ultimate is that Australia is the poorer for what has occurred over the last 20 months. That is now behind us and the future lies ahead. I believe we should all work for a united Australian family. I do not believe in a politicised multicultural industry and I do not believe the majority of Australians including the Minister, would want ever to see that happen. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(6.38) —As is the normal courtesy, I thank all honourable members who took part in this debate on the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Amendment Bill. I am under instructions to keep my remarks rather short, but I hope I will have time to say a few things. I want to say, firstly, how happy I am to be the Minister in charge of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. I am very hopeful that under my stewardship and, of course, the stewardship of the Government, which will continue for the next ten or fifteen years, we will be able to make a great contribution in this land of many cultures through the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Secondly, I was somewhat disappointed at the political element that intruded into this debate, which was characterised by the very wording of the second reading amendment from the Opposition, but I will not spend my time looking backwards. I think the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock), who led for the Opposition, was more than adequately answered by the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). I believe we should not be frightened in any way by reviews. We have had a couple of reviews now into AIMA. I repeat that I belong to the school that is looking forward, not backwards. The third thing I want to say is that there is no way that any objective person could suggest that AIMA cannot do a better job in lifting the awareness of AIMA in the minds of all Australians. It is hardly known. It is known to certain ethnic community leaders, but it has not done a job of selling itself and what it has to offer to the Australian community generally. Mr Coleman —Its job is to advise the Government, or has been. Mr HURFORD —One of its jobs is to advise the Government, but I have to tell the honourable member that from what I have been able to establish about the last two years there has been almost no contact between AIMA and the Government. Certainly the secretary to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs sits on the Board of AIMA, but attending monthly board meetings is hardly a way of one man being able to have great influence over the body. The two-way communication has not been there. That is one of the points I want to make because I hope that, arising from the new beginning represented in the Bill before the House at present, there will be a very much greater increase in co-operation and liaison, not only between the Department and AIMA-I will come to that in a moment-but also between AIMA and a lot of other bodies. It is important that there should be a lift in the pride of the Australian community generally in our multicultural society. I happen to dislike that particular word. I call it more often a land of many cultures, which it is. Our growing and developing Australian culture comes not just from the dominant Anglo-Celtic culture, not just from distances and climate, but also to such a large extent from the cultures of the people who have come here from 140 nations. Until the mid-1970s we were hardly aware of that. It was sad to find that people saw us just in terms of that dominant Anglo-Celtic culture. It is pleasing to meet so many people of Moslem, Lebanese, Greek or Italian background, young people who have been through their schooling in the last few years and who have said just what a change has taken place in the last 10 years. They were at school in the early 1970s and were ashamed of their accents, they were ashamed that their parents did not speak English. There has been a wonderful alteration to that in this Australian society. Everybody, from whichever of those 140 nations they have come, can now have a pride in his or her own culture, and that has come from the greater awareness of multiculturalism. I am not prepared to accept the thesis of the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) that this should not be shouted from the rooftops. I think it is something of which we can all be proud. I really hope that the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs will do just that job, not in an abrasive way but in a quiet, persuasive way. I do not believe it is the job of Government departments or even of us in this Parliament to do it too often. I think it is much better that it should be done by a body such as AIMA. I am hopeful that some of the thrusts of the future will include a removal of any political taint there may have been of one sort or another in the past. That comment does not apply only to one side; I am not suggesting that it does. I am hoping there will be that greater liaison I have talked about and that co-operation I seek between AIMA and my Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. A start has been made. I am very happy to tell the House that at a meeting of ethnic affairs Ministers that will take place in Adelaide on Friday I will have as part of my team the Acting Director of AIMA. This is the first time of which I am aware that that sort of thing has happened. Incidentally, I am so pleased that the honourable member for Dundas, the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, accepted my invitation to attend last Friday my first meeting, and his, of the National Population Council. I mention it in this context because I believe that he and I probably both agree that it would be appropriate on future occasions for the Director of AIMA to be present at that meeting and to listen to the sorts of discussions that take place on the settlement and other immigration issues of this land of many cultures. I want that greater liaison also with AIMA and the State ethnic affairs departments commissions, where they exist. They do not exist in every State. I want co-operation between AIMA and the Human Rights Commission and also the Aboriginal community bodies. Also, much more focus and much more public visibility are needed to do the things which government departments cannot do and, indeed, in many case, should not do. The next point I make is that we need a body of this nature to achieve certain objectives. I would like briefly to go through them. In regard to multicultural issues, there is the community appreciation of and adaption to Australia's cultural diversity that I have talked about. But there is also the need for a respect for the rights of migrants to remain free, to retain and express their ethnic identity, subject, of course, to the provisions of Australian law and without sacrificing their right of equal access to all community resources and government programs. There is the need for the development and maintenance of Australia as a society in which all groups have the same rights, responsibilities and opportunities and share a common identity as Australians. When it comes to community relations issues, there is the need for maintenance of a social environment which accepts racial and cultural diversity and the contribution of the migration program to Australia's national development. I do not want to forget, too, encouragement for the integration of immigrants and their dependants into Australian society and the elimination of racism, discrimination and prejudice against racial and ethnic minorities in Australia. Lastly, there is in my view a need for the changes in direction which are contained in this Bill. The Opposition testifies to its acceptance of those changes by agreeing not to oppose the Bill. I am grateful for that support. But the fact is that these changes have come about because of the two inquiries that have taken place. Unfortunately, although a lot of the time taken up by Opposition speakers has been spent in trying to denigrate the quality of those inquiries, they cannot get away from the fact that those inquiries have now come up with a Bill which they, too, are supporting. I point out that the Opposition has measured the value of that review mainly against the extent of the legislative change contained in this Bill. That is rather short sighted. I remind honourable members that the review was of the operation and administration of AIMA, too, and not just of the Act. Therefore, there is the fact that the need for and value of the review should be measured against other criteria, and those criteria were expressed in my second reading speech. I have gone through the issues and I want the House to know that I believe that those reviews have had a very beneficial effect on administration and not just on the change of the law. Again, I thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate. I believe that we will now see a new beginning. I make no denigrating comments about the past. I believe that a lot of good, valuable work has been done. But I think a lot more can be done in the future. I look forward to having bipartisan support for the sorts of things that the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs will do. Of course, I reject the Opposition's amendment. It refers to the political nature of the reviews. I end on this note: It is rather funny that one can accept that somebody from a Liberal Prime Minister's staff is appointed Director of the AIMA, then leaves and returns to the staff of the Liberal Leader of the Opposition. There can be nothing more political than that. Yet we are accused of being political. Let us forget about the past and about those sorts of facts. Let us forget about the charges made by the Opposition. Let us all get behind the AIMA so that it does a thoroughly good job for the community from now on. I support the Bill and hope that the House also will support it. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Debate resumed from 26 March, on motion by Mr Kerin: That the Bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Hunt had moved by way of amendment: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that other factors such as heavily increased export inspection charges are adversely affecting competitiveness on vital export markets'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Legislation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(6.46) —Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that the purpose of the Bills before us today is to replace the Australian Meat Research Committee with an incorporated body, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. Honourable members would be aware that in May last year the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill was passed by this House. I believe the passage of that piece of legislation-a Bill that was generally supported by all sections of the red meat industry-was a great step forward in the history of the red meat industry in Australia. The fact that the Opposition moved only one fairly substantial amendment would also suggest that the legislation had considerable support from both sides of this chamber. In the course of the debate in May last year, I made this point: . . . there is a great deal of uncertainty and a great lack of direction in the industry at present. That is why these Bills that are before the House this morning represent an attempt to alter the makeup and structure of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation and represent a long overdue recognition that the Australian industry is in a dire position. I think the significance of that statement has not changed a great deal in the short time since that Bill was passed by this House. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) pointed to the constraints under which the Australian Meat Research Committee operates. During his second reading speech on 20 March, he pointed out: For example, the Meat Research Committee is unable to enter contracts or manage its own funds. To initiate, or even slightly modify, one of its research projects requires specific ministerial authorisations. Incorporation is considered the most practical way of facilitating a more effective and efficient funding of meat research and development. It eliminates the need for outside intervention in the day to day administration of these activities and provides a more flexible and commercially appropriate organisational structure. I suggest that the key words in the Minister's speech relate to effectiveness and efficiency in the approach to meat research and development, and flexibility and accountability in a commercial world that operates in a very dynamic manner. One of the significant points in the last couple of years of the Hawke Government is that the Minister for Primary Industry has recognised the dynamics of the commercial world in which we operate. Some amendments have been made by way of various Bills that have given flexibility to corporations, and not only to the Meat and Livestock Corporation. I remember taking part in a debate in this chamber last year on an amendment to the Wool Industry Act which gave the Australian Wool Corporation a great deal of flexibility in the commercial world in which we live. Of course, accountability is to the industry, which provides at least 50 per cent of the funds through the annual general meeting of the Corporation. A corporate strategy is also envisaged with a requirement of a five year research and development plan as well as the annual operational budget. I suggest that that is very important in an industry such as the red meat industry which has in fact faced some very difficult times over the past ten years and certainly many years prior to that. Of course, the whole industry has been beset with problems relating to the drought in recent years and to difficulties in marketing. Some of the changes proposed in this amending Bill will certainly ease the situation in respect of marketing. The Corporation has a degree of flexibility in financial matters. It can select its own banker and is subject to ministerial approval to borrow on the capital market. During the debate last year on the livestock legislation which the Bills before us tonight seek to amend, I stressed the need for a very close emphasis on marketing arrangements in the activities of the Corporation. I made the point that producers do not necessarily make the best marketing people. I noticed that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) touched on this subject during his remarks last night and stressed the need, as he saw it, for people involved as producers to be represented on the Corporation. I certainly do not quibble with that particular assessment. However, I do say that producers should do what producers are best at doing; that is, producing a quality product where there is a demand in the domestic and international markets. The marketing people are the ones who should do a lot of the hard sell activity that is so necessary if we are to achieve a great deal of success in the marketing of red meat. I put it to honourable members, with the greatest respect to the red meat producers of this country, that all lamb or other red meat producers do not necessarily make the best marketing people. Certainly there are people in the industry who have great expertise in that area, but that is not to suggest that every red meat producer in this country is a good marketer. Another point mentioned by the honourable member for Gwydir during his remarks last night was that the dynamic world in which we are living suggests that a great number of changes are taking place in people's tastes in the consumption of red meats. For example, the 1983-84 annual report of the Sheep Meat Council of Australia stated: The Australian family is also changing. In many cases both parents work outside the home, biting into the time available for food preparation. While some cuts of lamb lend themselves to rapid cooking, the more expensive roasting cuts have suffered. I think that is certainly a recognition in relation to marketing and meat research, that within Australia, and indeed other parts of the world, significant changes are taking place within society generally. For example, in 1971 the Australian consumption of lamb was 24 kilograms a head and the consumption of mutton was 20 kilograms a head. However, in 1982, 11 years later, lamb consumption was 16.6 kilograms a head and the consumption of mutton only four kilograms a head. I suggest that those facts certainly represent great challenges to marketing people throughout the world and certainly represent challenges to the new body, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, and, in particular, the body that will take over the meat research committee, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. I also make a couple of comments on the amendment moved by the honourable member for Gwydir last night. It was suggested that, while the Opposition was not going to oppose this Bill, it expressed some reservations that other factors 'such as heavily increased export charges are adversely affecting competitiveness on vital export markets'. I acknowledge the fact that the Opposition is prepared to support the Bill before the House, but to some extent honourable members are being somewhat petty in their criticisms by picking on one isolated aspect which they see as a problem in the rural sector. I point out also that the Government's decision initially to move towards a greater level of producers' commitments in terms of the recovery of export inspection charges was also the coalition policy. In fact, the Opposition had a policy of moving towards 50 per cent recoupment. By the time we came to power in March 1983 that level of recoupment of export inspection charges was down to about 20 per cent. I guess it clearly comes down to a question of who is going to pay the cost. In reality, someone will have to pay. The question that I put during numerous debates in this House was whether it should be the responsibility of the Australian taxpayer to pick up the total cost of export inspection charges. I suggest that the Opposition's policy in government of moving towards sharing-no-one is suggesting that the producers should pay the whole lot-the cost of export charges was a reasonable sort of action. I must admit I was also somewhat surprised when the honourable member for Gwydir in the debate last night lost sight of the subject of the debate to some extent when he suggested that there had been some great problems with support by the Australian Labor Party for rural and provincial Australia. In the course of the debate last night the honourable member for Gwydir commented: The electoral backlash suffered by the Labor Party in rural areas of Australia last December-the honourable member for Calare lost a lot of support out there- In fact, that was a rather offhand remark which suggested that the honourable member for Gwydir had not really done his homework. At that point I interjected to suggest that, far from having a loss of support of rural people in my area, there was actually a swing of 1.4 per cent to the Australian Labor Party in Calare. I suggest to the honourable member for Gwydir that, if he cared to examine the record of many other sitting Government members throughout rural and provincial Australia, he would find that that also was the case. I mention my good friend and colleague the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), the chairman of the new primary industry and rural and provincial affairs committee, who received a significant swing of support and is now in one of the very safe Australian Labor Party seats. He certainly represents non-metropolitan Australia, a rural electorate. Similar levels of support were enjoyed by my colleagues in north Queensland and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). This support suggested that the honourable member for Gwydir certainly made in the debate an offhand remark which really cannot be substantiated by the facts. Returning to the Bill before us tonight, I go back to the central point of my initial comments when I said that aspects of our society are changing. There are changing levels of meat consumption and changing attitudes to the preparation of food. I also indicated in my comments last year on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bills that it surprised me that, while we have McDonalds and Kentucky fried chicken and the numerous Chinese takeaways which have developed over the last few years as part of a very important fast food industry in Australia, there is no real Australian equivalent offering Australian red meat producers, particularly lamb producers, a market for portion-controlled, fresh and pre-cooked forms of meat that recognise the dynamic nature of Australian eating habits today. I indicated at that time some developments that were taking place in New South Wales, one of which was occurring near Bathurst, a centre within my electorate where a businessman, a retired marketing person, Mr Ted Jones, had got together a plan that he referred to as the 'Jumbuck' approach to the marketing of red meat, in particular the marketing of lamb in Australia. The 'Jumbuck' process involved the boning of the carcass, tenderising the meat and re-structuring the meat into the required forms. The method used by Mr Jones and his colleague who came from Murwillumbah, Mr Royce Gibson, not only regulated the fat, bone and gristle content but guaranteed consistency, something long missing from the meat industry. So one had tenderised steaks, low fat bone-free roast, meat croquettes and finger chips and many other products that were being produced in a form that I would suggest recognises the fact that the Australian family is changing and that there are changing approaches to the marketing of red meats in Australia. The figures I quoted earlier suggesting a severe downturn in lamb consumption in Australia point to a need to examine issues of this sort if we are to come to grips with some of the problems in the red meat industry. Prior to the resumption of the Parliament this year, I was privileged to participate in a study tour of Japan. In the course of some of the discussions that were held with people involved in agricultural aspects of the Japanese economy, it became clear to me and no doubt to other members of the delegation that Australia will probably have real problems in the future in trying to maintain its percentage share of the Japanese beef market. While the tonnage of beef is increasing, it must be borne in mind that the actual percentage share is declining. We are all well aware no doubt of the severe pressures on the Japanese principally from the Americans when it comes to solving their balance of trade problems. After all, Australia is one of the few countries which have a positive balance of payments relationship with Japan. It also became clear to me that important initiatives were being pursued in Japan by our representatives there from the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. I spent an interesting morning with that representative. We visited a major department store in one of the Tokyo suburbs. That store, with its other chain stores throughout Japan, probably had the equivalent of the population of places like Sydney and Melbourne passing through its doors each day. An important link was being developed between the Corporation and that particular store to try to promote Australian lamb in a new and different way. Only last year the Corporation held a series of promotional demonstrations showing different ways in which Australian lamb could be cooked to try to suit the particular demands of Japanese society. The approach adopted by the Corporation even got to the stage where it produced specialised booklets illustrating new and different cuts of lamb suitable for Japanese tastes in an effort to encourage the Japanese to use more lamb. I believe there is probably a great future for Australia in Japan in respect of lamb products. We do not have in Japan the quota problems we have with beef. I suggest, in light of some of my limited experience of what is done by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation in Japan, that there are great opportunities for Australia in the Japanese market. This will not happen overnight and perhaps will not happen in two years time or five years time. We know that the way in which the Japanese think about their approach to their trading relationships will not change overnight. But I suggest that if we develop a positive way of marketing lamb in Japan there is a great future for us in that country. I am optimistic. I am not suggesting that such an approach will solve all our problems; nonetheless we can be quite encouraged by some of those developments. I congratulate the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and its representatives in Japan. I pay particular tribute to the new Chairman of the Corporation, Mr Dick Austen. I know Mr Austen personally. He came to that job having had valuable experience in the coal industry. If ever there was an industry that needed a positive approach to marketing in Australia, it was the coal industry. Leading the Corporation is a champion when it comes to an approach to marketing. In conclusion, I would add that these amendments demonstrate the flexibility of the Minister for Primary Industry in recognising the dynamics of the Australian industry. I have already made the point that it is no wonder our Minister is regarded as Australia's most competent Minister for Primary Industry for many years. My views have not changed. I commend the Minister on his latest initiative. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Moncrieff I would inform her that, if her time runs out before her speech is finished, she will have leave to continue her remarks when the Bill next comes before the House. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(7.06) —I thank you for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the outset I take issue with a couple of comments made a few minutes ago by the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons). He said that the Opposition was 'being petty' in its criticism of the Hawke Government's application of the export inspection charge and its effect on the meat industry. The export inspection charge brought in by the Hawke Government is not petty but is a matter of major importance to the meat industry. It certainly has been the Opposition's policy that there should be this type of contribution. However, that policy was not implemented when we were in government because of difficulties in the meat industry. Mr Simmons —Just before the election. Mrs SULLIVAN —All right, just before an election. This Government did it just after an election. Try increasing it just before the next election and we will see what happens to the 1.4 per cent swing to the Australian Labor Party in Calare. The Hawke Government was not prepared to recognise the difficulties of the meat industry when it brought in the export inspection charge. Typically with Labor governments, regardless of the Paeans of praise one hears from Labor members for their own Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), the welfare of rural industries is not high on the agenda. Day after day in this place there are indications from Government members of what they think of the rightful place of the rural producer. Mr Andrew —What about the dairy farmers? Mrs SULLIVAN —I am reminded, if I needed any reminding, of what is happening in relation to the dairy farmers. The dairy farmers in the electorate of Moncrieff remind me vigorously of what the Government is doing to dairy farmers. Mr Beddall —Tell us what Russ Hinze thinks about it? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on the Government benches will cease interjecting. Mrs SULLIVAN —I am flattered, Madam Deputy Speaker, that they care enough to respond. I say finally to the honourable member for Calare, when he gets to read my speech tomorrow, that there was a 2 per cent swing against the Labor Party in my electorate of Moncrieff, and without doubt there is a rising tide of apprehension about this Government in the rural community. I would reflect that the Minister for Agriculture in a previous Labor Government, Senator Ken Wriedt, was also very highly regarded in the rural community. I was one who held him in high personal esteem. However, there is no overcoming what Ministers have to do. The high personal regard for Senator Wriedt was quite separate from how rural producers felt about the Whitlam Government. Honourable members who pin their hopes on the popularity of the present Minister, whom they keep boosting, might be in for a rude shock in the future. I come to the substance of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Bill, which proposes to abolish the Australian Meat Research Committee and to bring its functions, plus some others, under the aegis of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation in the form of an Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. I associate myself totally with the statements made last night in debate on this Bill by the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). I will not recanvass all the rural industry issues that he raised. However, I associate myself with his words. I wish to raise a couple of aspects additional to those of the honourable member for Gwydir which are relevant to this Bill. I believe they are also important to meat producers and should be highlighted in the context of this Bill. I wish to give a few warnings about several specific points. There are some positives in this Bill but there are also some negatives. I believe that the negatives could be substantial if the meat producers are not vigilant in their cause since research in the meat industry will proceed under the provisions of this new arrangement. One of the things the Bill does is to broaden the objectives of the Corporation as against those of the previous AMRC, which was constituted under the Meat Research Act. Section 6 of that Act outlines the functions of the AMRC. I have consulted and scrutinised recent AMRC reports. A number of things could be said about them. I merely say that for the people who care about meat research they are valuable documents. In one sense, they are valuable because they are full reports, in terms of the details that they give. In another sense, they are valuable because even a perusal of the topics of research carried out under the AMRC gives an indication of the number of problems that were being researched in the meat and livestock industry. They might extend the appreciation of some of the honourable members opposite to find out just what sorts of problems farmers and meat producers are coping with. This Bill broadens the research charter for the meat industry, and that is to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the previous research charter was fairly broad. It required that the AMRC Research Account be expended for the purpose of encouraging the export from Australia of meat and other products, of the slaughter of cattle, sheep and lambs and of encouraging the raising of cattle, sheep and lambs in the territories forming part of the Commonwealth by means of, amongst other things, scientific, economic or technical research. Those requirements can be interpreted very broadly and indeed they were interpreted very broadly by the AMRC. So no magic wand is being waved as a consequence of the new provisions, objects and functions of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation. However, the Bill does spell out the research possibilities. The Bill also takes a couple of important new steps which the Opposition welcomes. It introduces the notion of accountability to the people who provide funds, that is the producers. It also enables the Corporation to do certain things that the AMRC could not do. Most importantly, it enables it to enter into commercial arrangements with commercial enterprises and with individuals, and to make money from research carried out under its aegis. The Opposition has no quarrel with any of those proposals. We hope that those sorts of reforms will lead to very positive progress in the meat industry. The sentiment has also been expressed-one would hope that it will be the case-that future research will also look at issues related to marketing, and that not all research will be confined to what sorts of grass would best feed cattle, what breeds of cattle do best in which climatic areas, and so on. A great deal of work has already been done in these areas. Tribute ought to be paid to both the AMRC and, I believe, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for their achievements in those areas. As I said a few minutes ago, the Bill has a number of positives and they are the aspects I have just covered. I have mentioned the issue of accountability. When I get the opportunity to continue my speech when debate on this Bill is resumed, the debate being about to terminate for the evening, I intend to say more about that accountability. I prefer not to spend 30 seconds on the subject this evening and only give brief mention of it. I shall return to the positive aspects of the provision for accountability. I will also outline how I believe the meat and livestock industry has in some ways been sold a bit of a pup by this 'Bob Hawke from the bush', whom the honourable member for Calare was talking about just a few minutes ago. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(7.15) —I wish to draw the attention of the House to what I believe is an unusual but important alliance and agreement in principle that exists between that sometime doyen of left wing Labor politics, the current Minister for Education in the Wran Labor Government in New South Wales, and that long-time defender of free enterprise and the rights of the individual, the most successful Premier and Premier of the most stable government in Australia, the Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen. I am sure that honourable members of this House recognise that both the New South Wales Government and the Queensland Government are currently involved in disputes with trade unions. The New South Wales Minister for Education is locked in mortal combat with the New South Wales Teachers Federation. The dispute revolves around whether the policies of the New South Wales Government will prevail over the policies of the Teachers Federation. We have the Teachers Federation maintaining an industrial campaign of rolling strikes over the issue of whether the New South Wales Government has the right to transfer an employee of that Government from one school to another school. It is a question of the right of the Government to decide the policy of the Department of Education over and above the rights of the trade union movement to enforce the views and policies of its members and a union itself on that Government. In Queensland we have a dispute between the Electrical Trades Union and the State Government over the rights of that Government to shop around and get a better deal for the electricity consumers of Queensland. The ETU maintains that the Government has no right to enforce its policy, the policy of a duly elected government, with a mandate, based firmly on free enterprise principles and the rights of the individual. The ETU maintains that its policy of requiring staff labour rather than contract employees should be the policy of the Queensland Government notwithstanding that the ETU policy has not been tested at any ballot box and that the ETU has no mandate. I think that a very important alliance exists between these two otherwise quite different and divergent governments. It is symptomatic of the fact that governments throughout Australia will find, as the Government here in Canberra undoubtedly will find, that they will come into conflict with trade union principles which do not necessarily equate with the principles of the Australian Labor Party. It concerns me that both of these disputes involve public sector unions which, notwithstanding their special responsibilities because of their prerogative and place in our community, either in representing protected statutory monopolies or performing essential services, abuse their powers and privileges. Yet they portray any requirement on the part of government that they maintain some semblance of responsibility and conformity to legally enforceable standards as union bashing. I believe that in years to come it will be recognised that the two disputes currently being considered and fought by those two State governments involve an important principle of government in Australia, that is, whether a government with a mandate and duly elected by the democratic process has a right to enforce its policies over the wills and prerogatives of a trade union movement. I wish to quote an important point from an editorial which appeared recently in the New Statesman, which, as I am sure honourable members know, is a magazine committed to socialist views. The article stated in part: Unions are in the business of creating and maintaining pay differentials. They are about keeping certain people in certain jobs and others out; about negotiating for conflicting interests, not solving conflict within the working class. . . . . As such, they may favour redistribution of wealth and power. They are not antipathetic to the principle of common ownership. But they are not sympathetic to the principle of equality. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(7.19) —Last night while I was sitting in my room, my ears pricked up as they always do when the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) rises to his feet. While it has always been my view that sport certainly was not the most important aspect covered within the parliamentary process, last night, after listening to yet another serve of monstrous parochialism from the honourable member for Groom and some more paranoiac claims, I found myself bound to comment tonight. In his speech he praised the prowess of Queensland sportspeople, and in fact he mentioned Wally Lewis, Andrew Slack, Grant Kenny and Allan Border. As many of us understand, all of those are outstanding sportspeople, and I would be happy to support him if he left it at that. Indeed, he is right. They are outstanding performers. Unfortunately, he has some of his facts wrong because Allan Border was born and bred in New South Wales and started his career there. He moved to Queensland a few years ago. It is a fact that he was not nurtured and developed in Queensland. Indeed, this is one of Queensland's problems. They are not developing talent in cricket. They have gone close to success in the last decade but, if we look at the team and its make-up, we find that Chappell, Thomson, Phillips and now Border, the very best of their players, have all been imports. I suppose in the future they will be claiming as Queenslanders Majid Khan, Vivian Richards and Alvin Kallicharan, all of whom have played for Queensland in the last decade. It is a recurring theme in Queensland. Just as the Queensland economy is in a shambles, unemployment is at devastating levels, and fiscal mismanagement is legendary, so they cannot get their neurones to intersect when it comes to developing cricketers. Indeed, they continue to deceive themselves in that area. Of course, that is not the point I wish to make tonight. I have risen to my feet because of the speech last night by the honourable member for Groom, who said: It was not until the selectors and the Australian Cricket Board finally did away with its prejudices and realised that Queensland does produce champions that it sacked a Western Australian and appointed Allan Border captain of the Australian cricket team and we started to win. There are three things I should like to point out about the statement. The first point is that Kim Hughes has no opportunity to defend himself in this place and, indeed, I believe that he has been impugned by the honourable member in that statement. Hughes has a unique and outstanding cricket talent. He has been subjected to many vitriolic attacks in the media, and I believe that this criticism is undeserved. Hughes has played in 70 Test matches for Australia and, if the figures can be believed, he is the tenth highest Test scorer for Australia of all time. He has scored nine centuries and over that time he has been a proven match winner. Indeed, if we look at his performances in the Jubilee test or the tour of India in 1979, they were outstanding. The second point I make is that the honourable member suggested Hughes was sacked. Perhaps he knows something that none of us is aware of, but certainly my understanding of the situation is that Hughes stood down. If the honourable member has more information perhaps he should come clean. If he is privy to special facts, the media would love to know about them, but certainly he seems to have been inaccurate in his covering of the matter. The third matter is that the honourable member said that after Hughes stood down the team started to win. I point out that in the 11 matches against the West Indies following the removal of Hughes, Australia was victorious on only one occasion. Certainly if we look at the record when Hughes was captain it would compare very favourably. It needs to be said that the record of the team reflects the ability of the team rather than the leadership. I am sure that all Australians hope for better performances. If these failures cause reflection and self-analysis, perhaps there will be an improvement in the team's performance. I endorse the honourable member's comments about Queensland and New South Wales sportsmen. Some of them are indeed outstanding. It is very unfortunate that he chose to reflect disparagingly on Hughes, an outstanding player and former captain. I have no doubt that next year Hughes will score his tenth and further centuries for Australia and will continue to represent this country in the way he has in the past. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(7.24) — Because of time restrictions I intend to speak on two separate nights about the activities of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member is not assured of the call. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Tonight will be about the persecution and prosecution of a former constituent of mine. On the next occasion I intend to speak about the survey being conducted on the transport industry. At the beginning of this month a 62-year-old diabetic who lives in the Brisbane suburb of Balmoral was pushed through the court by the Bureau because he refused to be part of a government survey that was to drag out every month over a period of eight months. The man was fined $100 and ordered to pay almost another $100 in court costs, as well as incurring in excess of $200 in costs for his own legal representation. What is this country coming to when big brother feels so secure that he can ram through the courts an ordinary citizen who simply says no to something like this? The magistrate must have felt anguish as he imposed the no-alternative fine. The magistrate, in an understanding way, observed that my former constituent probably found the survey 'a confounded nuisance'. In years gone by I have campaigned vigorously for changes to be made in the approach of the Bureau. Thanks to the backing provided by the Law Reform Commission and Mr Justice Kirby, several pleasing changes have come about. However, my inquiries reveal that across Australia there are about a dozen others on the verge of being dragged before the courts for non-compliance with the door-knock of big brother. I have been told repeatedly in the past by the statistician's office that it relies on the good will of people to complete surveys successfully. I give notice now that if big brother is going to push people through courts, I will do everything in my power to ensure that the store of good will in the community is evaporated more quickly than the night drops of dew on a hot day. I cannot understand for the life of me why the statistician cannot let some people go when it is obvious that, even if the person feeling intense ill will reluctantly completes the survey, the individual is likely to bomb the results with incorrect information. I am informed that when this game of Russian roulette is played and people are chosen for sampling, never is a survey completed without some people being dropped off by reason of infirmity and so on. Why not just forget about those who feel as strongly as did my former constituent? A handful of excused people will not affect a 2,000-person survey one iota. In this case the statistician may not have known that he was dealing with a very sick diabetic, but what kind of mentality exists in the Bureau when it thinks that the only way to get a reliable result is to insist that 2,000 out of the 2,000 chosen must answer the survey? It is little wonder that some people feel resentment towards the Bureau and are prepared to accept any punishment rather than comply. The household survey of the Bureau contains about 100 pages and 466 questions, many of which have to be answered-I underline the word 'have'-as well as the individual having to keep a diary and record the details of every cent spent over a period of two weeks. It is fair to observe that not only has big brother become a persecutor and a prosecutor, he has also gone overboard in his quest for information. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(7.28) —I bring to the attention of the House the insensitivity of the Queensland National Party Government to the people in the suburb of Inala in my electorate. Inala is a satellite suburb of mainly Housing Commission homes. It is separated physically and geographically from the suburbs of Brisbane. It has a population of around 30,000, which means it approximates the size of Mt Isa and Mackay. Unemployment is very high in the area. The medical centre operated by the State Government services the suburb but closes at 5 p.m. The only level of transport available is a privately run bus service which services the suburb, with very few services at night. Prior to the election the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) met with the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Alderman Roy Harvey, and allocated $7m for a Brisbane City Council express bus service to reach Inala residents. That decision was welcomed by all residents of Inala. It meant that many of Inala's unemployed had for the first time a means of reaching the city in time for job interviews, or that at least they had the same opportunities for job hunting as other people in Brisbane. It meant that housewives would no longer be virtual prisoners but would have ready access to shops in the city. For those with relatives and children who were ill it meant that hospital facilities were very close by. It also meant that relatives had some hope of visiting their loved ones in hospitals. At present the taxi fare to the nearest hospital to the suburb of Inala is some $15. To the outrage of many residents in Inala, the Queensland National Party Government, spearheaded by that ever politically flexible Minister for Transport, Mr Don 'Shady' Lane, announced that the State Government would not allow the City Council bus service to operate to Inala. This is once again a kick in the teeth for Inala residents from the State Government. However, Mr Lane has proceeded to cloak this action in respectability. He proceeded to undertake a survey of Inala residents. The survey was undertaken without any great public announcement and, therefore, few people even knew that a survey was being undertaken. The person conducting the survey was located in a poorly positioned office which was also unknown to the residents of Inala. However, the greatest contrivance was the questionnaire itself. I have been reliably informed that the questions were slanted to achieve the result which showed people were not interested in the bus service. The real facts are that the National Party is not interested in providing adequate transport for the Inala people. It proposes to force people to use an inefficient train service that has given very poor service to that suburb for many years. A privately run bus service operates shuttling people from the suburb of Inala to the railway station. Unfortunately, that service does not operate at night. The Federal Government demonstrated that it had a commitment to the residents of Inala, that it wished to provide them a service equal to that received by all other residents of Brisbane. Unfortunately, the National Party State Government, for its own reasons, was not prepared to operate on this basis. Honourable members in this place should condemn this action and the insensitivity of the Queensland National Party Government which has shown that it is prepared to crucify a section of one small community who are least able to defend themselves. As I said before, the level of unemployment is very high in this suburb. Without adequate public transport the people have no opportunity to reach positions which may be available to them. I am hopeful that the Queensland Minister for Transport will now reconsider this decision as $7m is still available from the Commonwealth Government to provide this very needy bus service. If that is not done, the Queensland National Party Government will once again stand condemned for its lack of sensitivity to people in greatest need. I hope that this action is taken shortly. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(7.33) —The House's attention should be drawn to the hyper-regulation of the Australian economy and businesses of various governments and their labyrinthine bureaucracies. This hyper-regulation attacks incentives, reduces profits, diminishes exports and causes a significant loss of jobs. By way of example, Mr Speaker, allow me to test your credulity with the following example of regulation mania. A few years ago one of Australia's largest jam makers, following market research, decided to manufacture a high quality jam product for the local and overseas markets. The product was to contain 65 per cent fruit and very low sugar levels-a healthy, nourishing jam to meet demand at the quality and health conscious end of the market. The problem was, however, that the Victorian Government told the company that under no circumstances could it call the product a jam. It did so because the jam did not contain 45 per cent sugar. There is a law, you see, Mr Speaker, declaring that a product is not jam if it does not contain 45 per cent sugar. You and I, Mr Speaker, might think it was jam; the House might think it was jam; the public might think it was jam; but an Act of Parliament said that it was not jam. Therefore, it was not jam and most certainly was not to be called jam. This law, the anti-jam law, had been introduced years before to protect the sugar industry. So the company said to the Victorian Government: 'But it does not make sense not to have a good product like this competing with non-jam products'. The Victorian Government said: 'Of course we agree, but we cannot repeal this anti-jam law without discussing the matter with other State governments which have in force similar Acts relating to the percentage of sugar in jam'. So the company said to the Victorian Government: 'Then how long will it take you to persuade other State governments to change their Acts?'. The company was told: 'Well we would need a conference'-honourable members opposite know about conferences-then we would have to go away and consult, then we would have another conference and we could probably get this matter resolved in a couple of years'. Needless to say, the company threw up its hands in exasperation, decided to drop the whole idea and forget the jam product which was not jam. Who were the losers out of this extraordinary exercise? The company loses, the Australian consumer loses, the fruit industry loses and, even more absurdly, the sugar industry loses because the jam, which was not jam, was going to use some sugar, but of course the jam was never produced. Australian governments' mania for regulation of industry had once again triumphed over common sense. Mr Speaker, this unbelievable situation is an example of the constraints placed on industry by the 50,000 new Acts and regulations put into effect by Australian governments over the last 20 years. Complying with those statutes and regulations uses the productive time of a vast army of public officials, private citizens and company executives; and Australian companies now spend 10 per cent of their net income complying with this ridiculous range of regulations. The result is a loss of exports, loss of jobs, loss of incentives and costs to the community of billions of dollars a year. 'Deregulate' is right. It is now time to turn the tide against this roaring regulation. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(7.37) —Although I did not intend to speak on the matter raised by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), I cannot help responding briefly to what he just said. I agree completely that over the last 20 years governments have had a predilection to protection, regulation and propping up, resulting in the strangulation of the Australian economy. Which governments have done this? We all know which governments have been in power for the last 20 years and have had the opportunity to do something about this problem. In the Federal sphere it was Liberal-National Party governments. In Victoria-and I agree that the Victorian Labor Government inherited a regulatory mess-it was Liberal governments starting with Bolte and ending with Thompson which must take the responsibility. I agree completely that deregulation is called for. Since the Hawke Government and the Cain Government came to power there has been a sensible approach to industry and to deregulation. All of the nonsense and garbage that members of the coalition parties built up over the years have been chucked out. I am going to watch with interest the performance of honourable members opposite over the next three years. Every time we introduce a Bill into this House which seeks to deregulate in one form or another-and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) brought one in the other day-the blokes opposite will be up opposing such measures again and again. It will be interesting to watch. I predict that the speech of the honourable member for Deakin will be read back to him time and again. Mr Speaker, I am sorry that I got sidetracked because that is not the subject on which I wanted to speak. I hope that this will not happen to me very often. I want to say a few words about a matter which is of considerable concern to me; that is, the operation and the implementation of the assets test. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is in the House tonight because I know that he, too, is sensitive to this matter and has the same convictions that I do about the operation of the test. I agree completely that the test has been an overwhelming success. The reason it has been an overwhelming success is not just that it has uncovered situations where people have quite deliberately placed large amounts of capital resources into such a form that they can deliberately deny themselves income in order to qualify for a pension and, if one wants to use the term, 'sponged on the community'. That is the sort of thing that the assets test has uncovered and that is what it is basically addressing in our community. It has done one other very important thing. It is not just a question of the money that has been saved. It has, once and for all, set out for the community a guideline for future planning, a guideline upon which people can base their future expectations. Within two years of taking government we on this side of the House have been prepared to bite the bullet and to take the hard decisions and give people leadership in this area. This Government not only has compassion on its side but is also prepared to take decisions, to put things into effect and then to look at those decisions further and, where a case exists, fine-tune the administrative arrangements. I am aware that, as we have heard-the Government is very responsive to this-we are looking at and reviewing some situations to improve the circumstances of those very few people in the community who may need to have their circumstances examined more closely. We will be doing that because we are a government of compassion. We are prepared to take decisions and be responsible to the community. We will not ignore the mess which we inherited and which we continually have to fix up. I remind honourable members that $9 billion was the deficit inherited by this Government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(7.42) —Australia must speak out against continuing Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. The silence of the Hawke socialist Government is an absolute disgrace. Last year I visited Afghanistan refugee camps in Badabhair, Pakistan, where I collated evidence of Soviet war crimes against the people of Afghanistan which I am satisfied are at least the equal of the worst nazi atrocities of World War II. The question has to be asked: When will this Moscow oriented Hawke socialist Government raise its voice in protest against Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan? The Soviet Union is the dirtiest, most cruel and most cowardly fighter in the world today. I saw with my own eyes the results of Soviet atrocities and I was both shocked and sickened. Soviet atrocities against the people of Afghanistan are war crimes-let there be no mistake about that-of immense proportions involving the use of illegal chemical warfare, village massacres of innocent civilians, particularly children, the use of internationally banned dum-dum ammunition and vicious Soviet booby traps being deployed against the Afghan population. In the Afghan refugee camp hospital in Peshawar, I saw a small Afghan boy aged about nine years who had been blown up by a Soviet booby trap in his village. Both his legs had been amputated. I also at that time spoke personally with two doctors who had actually seen and treated within the last week victims of illegal Soviet chemical warfare. The doctors told me that the victims had atrociously blistered, discoloured and ulcerated skin. The doctors had no doubt that these vile and gruesome injuries were the direct result of Soviet chemical warfare. It is significant that recent reports from Thailand confirm the use of chemical warfare there by Soviet armed Vietnamese troops who have crossed the border into Thailand in recent weeks. Wherever the Soviet Union is engaged in military activity, whether it be in Afghanistan or Indo-China, there are authenticated reports of the use of internationally banned chemical warfare. When will Australia summon up some moral courage and protest against these outrages? Despite the atrocities being perpetrated against them, the mujihadeen are thrashing the Soviet troops on the ground. Soviet soldiers are becoming increasingly demoralised, Soviet commanders are resorting to dirty warfare as they face failure after failure in their attempts to subdue the Afghan freedom fighters and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics soldiers have had their tour of duty cut from one year to 180 days because they cannot cope emotionally with what they are being forced to do. Mr Speaker, you are a medical man. At the refugee hospital I actually saw X-rays of an Afghan civilian whose body had been riddled with shrapnel from dum-dum bullets used by Soviet troops who had attacked his village. In the most cowardly manner, Soviet troops usually attack Afghan villages when they know that the men-folk will be away. In short, they attack unarmed women, children and grandparents. The procedure of execution is to take the males into the village square, where they are shot, and to herd the females into a building. The Soviet troops do not use bullets on them, they use a hand grenade. I would like to hear a few Australian feminists say something about that. Another example of Soviet cowardice which I saw with my own eyes is the use of high level bombers against villagers. The Soviet forces first send in reconnaissance planes at low level. They drop a coloured toxic dye on villages to mark them and then the bombers come in at high level, out of range of the poorly equipped freedom fighters. These innocent villagers simply have no means of retaliating against this high level, heavy density saturation bombing. When will Australia utter one word of protest against these atrocities? I am satisfied that the Soviet Union has bitten off more than it can chew in Afghanistan. The Afghan freedom fighters will win. They will drive the Soviet out of their country, no matter how long it takes. Those responsible for Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan must be apprehended and must be tried for their war crimes. The people of Afghanistan will never give up their struggle. They will never forget what the Soviet butchers have done to them and their country. I am proud that Australia has been providing aid to Afghan refugees. There ought to be military aid, and the sooner the better. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(7.47) —Yesterday in my electorate there was a very significant and innovative event. A West Heidelberg community youth support scheme group known as PUSH-Project for Unemployed Self Help-held the first Unemployed Olympics. More than 350 unemployed people came to West Heidelberg to take part. Groups of young unemployed people came from all over Melbourne. They came from other CYSS groups in my area-from one which you will be aware of, Mr Speaker, the Bundoora CYSS group, and the Heidelberg CYSS group. They joined with PUSH in bringing the Unemployed Olympics to Melbourne. Other Melbourne CYSS groups included in the Olympics were from Eltham, Box Hill, Sunshine, Broadmeadows, Glenroy and Lilydale. They travelled from country areas as well-Terang, Corio, Winchelsea, Geelong, Hamilton, Albury-Wodonga and Bairnsdale. Overall about 25 CYSS groups took part. What was the Unemployed Olympics? It was a one day event held at the site of the old olympic village and training track in West Heidelberg. From what I am told, West Heidelberg is considered by many to be at about the bottom of the ladder of high society, but I can assure all honourable members that it is at the top of the social ladder when it comes to community care, awareness and human vitality. It is a great community and the spirit of the first Unemployed Olympics yesterday certainly showed that to be the case. Perhaps it did not have the cultural precision of the Moscow Olympics, perhaps it did not have the Hollywood razzamatazz of the Los Angeles Olympics, but it set new records, new directions and new hopes for many young people. There were track and field events, running, jumping, javelin, shotput, discus, basketball and table-tennis events. There were 350 young unemployed Australians who had come together to achieve something for themselves and to take part in a spirit as great as any in the World Olympics. There were those with ability who had trained and worked for weeks; there were those without any great athletic ability who did their very best and just took part; there were intellectually and physically disabled young unemployed people who gave their best efforts in their events. Many young unemployed people from my area from all over Victoria found on that day that they had something that perhaps they never knew they had before. Many regained something called 'achievement and self-esteem' that unemployment had eroded in them. All the place-getters received their gold, silver or bronze medallions; others received certificates of achievement. One young girl, who has never known what it is like to get a pay packet for her work, won a couple of medals. This young girl, who had never won anything in her life, won and achieved something on this day. From the day she was born, she was on the back-mark in a cruel and miserable handicap in the human race. Her achievement, her pride and her family's pride in her achievements that day were certainly equal to the value of an Olympic gold and an Olympic record. The first Unemployed Olympics did not happen by chance; it was the magnificent idea of the very innovative West Heidelberg PUSH group. I pay a public and national tribute tonight to the efforts of all young unemployed people who struggle against the odds which most of us, most likely and luckily, will never know; to the youth workers of Australia who struggle with the problems of our economic and social free marketeers; to those who care and work in our community in general. I wish to pay a particular tribute to Mr Mathew Gould, Jim Pasanis, Miriam Smiley, Bob Ware and all the people at the West Heidelberg PUSH; to the great people in the West Heidelberg Community Centre such as Bernie Geary; to the local organisations in my electorate of Jagajaga such as the Ivanhoe Harriers, the Heidelberg Little Athletics Club and to the people who gave tremendous backup expertise and support for these olympics; to the people in my community such as Spence Williams, Margaret Brown and many others; to a good friend, Tony Sheehen, the former State member for Ivanhoe, who organised the money to support the event through the Victorian International Youth Year Committee; and, finally, to the young unemployed people who took part and who need the jobs that have been lost by decades of short-sighted, laissez-faire conservative industrial policies in this country. As far as I am concerned, the first unemployed olympics has exhibited what real guts and determination are all about. Each participant, winner or loser, has set new standards of records and achieved personal satisfaction and pride. That is something that Alan Bond's sports money could never buy us and, with respect, something that our own super-athletes' abilities will never achieve. Well done West Heidelberg CYSS. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(7.51) —Earlier in the adjournment debate I was most interested to listen to a speech by our colleague the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth). I say to him that it is good to see that he, like others, joins in debates other than those on matters of great interest and talks about things like sport. We realise that Australian people are very attracted to sport and we are one of the great sporting nations. I say to my colleague, with a deep sense of understanding, that maybe he has not been here quite long enough really to know, appreciate and understand the great traditions of this Parliament based on the Westminster system. I say to him that in all my years in this place I have engaged in some healthy debate and crossfire of interjections. But never once have I failed to have good manners and simple courtesy, or to advise the person with whom I was going to engage in quite frank and vigorous debate that it was my intention so to do. I suggest to the honourable member that, in order to ensure that we have a continuation of those great traditions, it would be appropriate, if he intends to raise matters concerning statements of a colleague-a man or woman elected to the Parliament, like he is-just to advise the colleague very courteously that he is going to do that. I have advised the honourable gentleman that I was going to reply to him in this debate. I hope that in future he does understand that this place, notwithstanding the frankness and toughness of debate, is, in most instances, a place of dignity, courtesy and good manners. I want to take issue with my colleague. I understand that he indicated that Allan Border was a New South Welshman. I give the honourable member 100 per cent for accuracy. I indicate that one of the words I used-my words are recorded on page 957 of Hansard-was 'produce'. Produce does not only mean State or origin of birth. A person, largely unknown and unsung, might go to someone for training. Because of the natural attributes he has, one can mould and chisel into shape those natural attributes and produce, for example, a great cricketer. One can improve his talents and produce someone who is good. I would have thought that the captain of the Australian hockey side would have known that when one is selecting teams one has to talk about talent and form at the time. Because of my great love of accuracy and research I just happened to have in my room a couple of newspaper clippings which are relevant to this matter. One clipping is of an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on Thursday, 21 March. It states: The former long-serving captain . . . has had a humiliating season . . . Hughes's omission. . . is not entirely surprising after his succession of failures for Australia . . . I note the words 'succession of failures'. He managed only seven runs in his last seven innings for Australia and, in 10 innings during the summer, only twice bettered the score of four. He managed only 215 runs from 10 completed innings in the Caribbean last year. His form has not been good enough to ensure that he is part and parcel of the Australian team. I indicate that it is terribly important-- Mr O'Keefe —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I understood that this was an adjournment debate, not a sports commentary. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr McVEIGH —I make the point made by one of the articles I have in front of me, which is that one of the reasons Hughes is no longer captain of the Australian team may be that he cried. We have seen other leaders of Australia cry. One has to be tough. The simple fact is that the man is not competent to be a member of the Australian team. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(7.57) —I rise to talk about a matter of very great importance and pride to my electorate. However, I depart from the text for one moment to say that I think the honourable member for Darling Downs just knocked the bails off his own wicket. Mr SPEAKER —Order! In this Parliament he is the honourable member for Groom. The honourable member is talking about him in another life. Mr PUNCH —I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, I had not realised that. Mr McVeigh —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for your correction-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will come to his point of order. Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, will you ensure that Hansard correctly records my electorate? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr PUNCH —I assure you, Mr Speaker, that my comment was not meant as some sort of under-arm bowl at the honourable member. I can see why one mob of constituents may seek to have him changed. The Illawarra Catholic Club, which is in the neighbouring electorate of St George but which draws a wide membership from my electorate, is a club of which people in the St George region of Sydney are extremely proud. The reason we are proud of that club is, of course, manifold. In particular, I raise the point tonight that for the second year in succession the Illawarra Catholic Club has won the Daily Telegraph community service award for clubs. We are extremely proud of that. Under the stewardship of the President of the Club, Mr Pat Mullane, the Senior Vice-President, Mr Bernie Harley, the Secretary-Manager, Mr Frank Ryan, and the Board, the club has achieved this status, as I say, for two years in a row. It is by no accident that the club has done so. I say that most seriously. This club does a very great service for the local community. I call on other clubs in Sydney to emulate the Illawarra Catholic Club and at least compete with it for this award next year and, in so doing, do the community a great service. One service provided by the club, which is so important to the local residents, particularly those on lower incomes, such as pensioners, is the provision of cheap meals. I mention in particular the $1 luncheon, which is a great success and which feeds many people in the St George region, that is, in the St George and Barton Federal electorates. It even feeds some people from the Banks electorate. It is a very important and practical service of christian charity. The club is instrumental in the development of young people in our region of Sydney through sports activities. The girls have the most successful netball club in the St George area-indeed, one of the most successful netball clubs in Australia. The club does an excellent job with the girls. In the area of boys sport, the club has cricket and football. It has turned out some tremendous footballers over the years. The club's indoor facilities are second to none in the St George area, possibly with the single exception of the St George Leagues Club. It is no accident-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Scholes —Mr Speaker, I will hold the House for only one minute. On behalf of the Government and, I think, the members of the Government Party, I want to dissociate us from the attack in the House on Kim Hughes. I think it was unwarranted and should not have been made. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister should have asked for the debate to be extended. The House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. House adjourned at 8 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Braithwaite to move- That this House- (1) calls for the review of the spouse tax rebate in the context of taxation equity towards the single income family; (2) condemns the Minister for Education for incorrectly suggesting that the spouse tax rebate was an instrument of wealth redistribution, and (3) urges the Government not to be swayed by the socialist left faction of the Labor Party but to continue the dependent spouse taxation rebate at a level which offsets the taxation inequity to the single income family. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 27 March 1985: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals for collection of information-1985- No. 2-Household energy survey, 1985-86. No. 3-New topics to be included in the population survey, May 1985. Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for disclosure of list of names and addresses-1985-No. 2-Agricultural establishments for Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the date on which sections of the following Act shall come into operation-Customs and Excise Amendment Act 1982-sub-sections 69 (1), (2) and (3) and sub-section 70 (4)-1 April 1985. Public Service Act-Determinations-1985-Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 26) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: Since the inauguration of Adelaide International Airport, what have been the-(a) arrival and (b) departure figures of-(i) Australian national and (ii) others using the facility. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Passenger movement figures supplied by scheduled international air carriers for Adelaide International Airport are: Inbound Outbound November 1982-June 1983 22,372 24,367 July 1983-June 1984 44,357 44,167 July 1984-December 1984 27,635 23,569 My Department does not have any passenger nationality details. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs provided the following information November 1982 July 1983 to to June 1983 June 1984 Inbound Total permanent 2,498 3,250 Long term residents 504 900 Long term visitors 312 390 Short term residents 12,591 26,500 Short term visitors 8,940 15,900 24,845 *46,900 Outbound Former settlers 508 640 Other residents 161 280 Long term residents 622 1,040 Long term visitors 190 330 Short term residents 16,681 29,900 Short term visitors 8,033 14,600 Totals 26,195 *46,800 *Approximately. (Question No. 49) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) How many supermarkets in Canberra are linked with the Shop-Rite Chain. (2) What evidence is he able to give of the recent growth in the Shop-Rite chain in Canberra. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. There are 25 Shop-Rite stores in the Australian Capital Territory. 2. Three years ago there were 21 Shop-Rite stores in the ACT with a total retail floorspace of approximately 8,000 square metres. There are now 25 Shop-Rite stores with a total retail floorspace of about 11,000 square metres. The Shop-Rite group is understood to be the largest independent retail grocery group outside Sydney and to have a total employment of 600 persons in the ACT. (Question No. 87) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) To which countries has Australia sold defence equipment since 1964-65. (2) What was the value, in constant dollars, of these sales, by country, in each year since 1964-65. Mr Beazley —The interim answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The answer to the honourable member's question will be delayed while further research is carried out. In the interim, information available on the overseas sales for the government sector establishments since 1968 is shown in the following table. The figures are in 'then year' dollars and cover a wide range of items. There is no single index suitable for their adjustment to constant dollar amounts. EXPORT FROM GOVERNMENT FACTORIES SINCE 1968AX8958.01/V2 IN 'THEN YEAR' DOLLARS Country 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Bahrain 2,283 5,000 . . . . 2,114 6,040 . . . . Bahamas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barbados . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,680 . . Belize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,375 Bermuda . . . . . . 1,653 . . . . . . 185 Botswana . . . . 5,842 . . . . . . . . . . Brazil . . . . . . . . 8,360,156 410,046 4,843,982 2,551,550 Britain 36,800 . . 8,077 192,174 206,365 585,985 177,075 134,338 B. Honduras 6,050 13,915 5,865 7,750 8,903 . . . . . . Brunei 35,523 41,759 23,938 43,753 5,071 50,597 25,152 59,572 Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,492 Canada . . . . . . . . . . 26,893 35 Ceylon . . . . . . . . 23,448 . . . . . . Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dubai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,532 Fiji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gambia . . . . . . . . 31,358 . . . . . . Ghana . . 652 33,853 . . . . . . 326 14,560 Guyana . . 62,020 7,802 10,397 13,586 . . 15,075 32,150 Hong Kong . . . . 381 306 857 675 1,008 3,779 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jamaica 1,262 1,368 84,319 8,305 12,381 1,384 7,003 266,728 Kenya 8,286 25,369 81,924 111,272 41,891 23,657 18,230 14,238 Malaysia 62,126 1,004,821 1,427,992 34,615 175,187 19,216 106 110,574 Malawi 194 1,779 3,024 135 . . . . . . . . Malta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mauritius . . 1,695 33,059 7,130 18,805 410 18,002 4,846 PNG 70 3,219 . . . . . . . . . . . . Nigeria . . . . . . . . 34,400 . . . . . . NZ 61,100 158,870 1,075,503 96,004 36,663 72,836 124,832 383,425 Oman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,950 Seychelles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore . . 133,000 266,760 95,000 8,712 . . 1,103 8,058 Solomon Is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sri Lanka . . . . . . . . . . 725 . . . . St Vincent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tanzania . . . . 31,994 . . . . . . . . . . Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tonga (Trinidad and Tobago) 2,420 . . 19,380 . . . . . . 19,512 2,059 UAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uganda . . 3,025 . . . . . . . . . . . . USA 600 3,705,000 . . . . . . 271 . . 18,447 West Samoa . . 35,500 . . . . . . . . . . . . Zambia . . . . . . . . 46,445 . . . . . . Total 216,714 5,196,992 3,109,713 608,494 9,026,342 1,199,095 5,259,121 3,677,858 Country 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Bahrain . . 6,915 . . . . . . 4,400 . . . . . . Bahamas . . . . . . 30,882 . . 62,400 . . . . . . Barbados . . 5,490 1,670 78,416 . . 162,750 127,183 . . . . Belize . . 16,250 4,500 17,300 . . . . . . . . . . Bermuda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Botswana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brazil 28,055 70 125,404 13,722 33,181 6,000 4,101,847 . . . . Britain 126,593 313,071 198,296 613,970 8,135,496 685,540 1,819,968 7,619 1,517,350 B. Honduras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brunei 57,574 11,232 18,045 22,613 107,046 21,673 16,419 . . . . Burma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canada . . . . . . 216,300 2,243 . . 84,021 329,812 . . Ceylon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denmark . . . . 380 . . . . . . . . . . . . Dubai . . . . 760 . . . . . . . . . . . . Fiji . . 6,638 299,953 196,005 10,693 107,550 70,853 64,356 111,928 Gambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guyana 14,776 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hong Kong 509 . . . . . . 2,839 12,903 67,122 41,990 14,045 India 650,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jamaica 28,521 1,047 37,560 122,598 . . . . 142,822 487,539 Kenya . . . . 1,845 21,029 1,270 . . . . . . . . Malaysia 20,250 292,653 . . 2,329,181 1,176,055 . . 631,078 . . . . Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Malta . . 5,720 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mauritius 2,051 . . 15,724 1,054 5,044 4,238 . . 7,079 . . PNG . . . . 151,509 69,542 . . 7,019 . . 9,090 . . Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . 90,000 . . . . . . NZ 4,428 160,837 88,657 1,459,376 989,152 3,983,609 845,203 360,411 149,614 Oman . . 7,848 3,165 7,935 35,251 . . . . . . . . Seychelles 34,655 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Singapore 6,955 415 1,145 3,518 2,830 . . 100,026 284,700 . . Solomon Is . . 10,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sri Lanka . . . . 24,310 1,779 . . . . . . 3,990 2,445 St Vincent . . . . . . 9,834 . . . . . . . . . . Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,151 . . Tonga (Trinidad and Tobago) . . 313,071 187,600 . . 233,763 155,670 48,460 . . 990 UAE 44,214 3,056 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . USA . . 2,693 3,005,000 2,624,096 985,096 1,327,870 42 1,039 1,829,477 West Samoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zambia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total 1,018,581 1,157,006 4,165,523 7,839,150 11,719,959 6,481,622 8,055,044 1,613,776 3,629,440 (Question No. 89) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) Has his Department taken over the function of assistance to private businesses from the former Department of Defence Support. (2) Can he give an assurance that the real levels of assistance provided will not diminish as a consequence of the abolition of the Department of Defence Support. (3) Further to his predecessor's answer to Question No. 812 (Hansard, 4 September 1984, page 490), what are the details of any variation (a) already introduced or (b) under consideration, from the details provided at that time. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Assistance will continue to be provided at appropriate levels under the revised Departmental arrangements. Funds appropriated for this purpose will continue to be determined in the annual budgetary process. (3) (a) The only variation introduced that affects the information contained in the answer to Question No. 812 (Hansard, 4 September 1984) is a change of Departmental title from the 'Department of Defence Support' to the 'Department of Defence'. (b) Variations under consideration relate to organisation changes consequent upon the absorption into the Department of Defence of activities previously undertaken by the Department of Defence Support. These may lead to some changes in Departmental procedures for dealing with the programs outlined in the answer to Question No. 812. They will not lead to major changes in the programs themselves. Changes to the structure of the Defence Department consequent upon the absorption of the Department of Defence Support should be finalised in the near future. (Question No. 92) Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: What additional revenue will the Government raise through the increase in fuel prices announced by the Minister on 18 February 1985. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: On 18 February 1985 I announced that the Import Parity Price for Bass Strait crude oil would increase from $231.43 per kilolitre to $241.90 per kilolitre, effective on and from 1 March 1985. This change will result in an increase in excise receipts from crude oil in 1984-85 of about $50m. (Question No. 93) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) What quantity of (a) rice, (b) sugar, (c) dried vine fruits, (d) cheese and (e) dairy products other than cheese was imported into Australia in each of the years 1979-80 to 1983-84. (2) What was the value in $A of each of these import categories. (3) Which countries were the principal suppliers of each import and what percentage of the total value did each provide. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is presented in the following tables: AUSTRALIAN IMPORTS-MAJOR SOURCES OF SELECTED COMMODITIES, 1979-80-1983-84 Per cent AICC* Quantity Value of total Description/country (tonnes) ($A'000) value 1979-80 024 Cheese and Curd Total 11,981 27,922 100.0 of which New Zealand 4,230 6,683 23.6 Netherlands 903 2,287 8.2 Denmark 1,502 4,627 16.6 Germany, FR 658 1,849 6.6 Norway 1,069 2,388 8.6 Italy 722 2,502 9.0 Greece 516 1,667 6.0 France 307 1,140 4.1 UK 215 616 2.2 Bulgaria 507 1,238 4.4 Sweden 166 376 1.3 Romania 470 1,035 3.7 022, 023 Other Dairy Products Total 3 503 5,048 100.0 of which New Zealand 2,696 3,992 79.0 USA 557 806 15.9 042 Rice Total 857 549 100.0 of which Thailand 239 108 19.7 USA 200 127 23.1 Pakistan 235 229 41.7 India 41 15 2.7 Italy 21 13 2.4 China, PR 46 16 2.9 057, 52 Dried Grapes Total 0.4 1 100.0 of which Greece . . . . . . USA . . . . . . Turkey . . . . . . 061, 10, 20 Sugar (Raw and Refined) Total 14 16 100.0 of which China, PR 10 6 37.5 France . . . . . . Germany, FR . . . . . . Hong Kong . . . . . . UK 2 7 43.8 USA . . . . . . 1980-81 024 Cheese and Curd Total 13,294 31,964 100.0 of which New Zealand 4,919 8,114 25.6 Netherlands 1,033 2,810 8.9 Denmark 1,506 4,524 14.3 Germany, FR 843 2,295 7.2 Norway 803 1,793 5.7 Italy 905 2,990 9.4 Greece 769 2,411 7.6 France 425 1,542 4.9 UK 180 596 1.9 Bulgaria 886 2,257 7.1 Sweden 194 456 1.4 Romania 386 801 2.5 022, 023 Other Dairy Products Total 5,804 7,539 100.0 of which New Zealand 4,946 6,725 89.0 USA 766 741 9.8 042 Rice Total 1,334 837 100.0 of which Thailand 226 100 11.9 USA 499 322 38.5 Pakistan 444 298 35.6 India 5 3 0.4 Italy 76 54 6.5 China, PR 34 13 1.6 057, 52 Dried Grapes Total 0.8 4 100.0 of which Greece . . . . . . USA . . . . . . Turkey . . . . . . 061, 10, 20 Sugar (Raw and Refined) Total 32 43 100.0 of which China, PR 28 27 62.8 France . . . . . . Germany, FR . . . . . . Hong Kong 1 1 2.3 UK 2 4 9.3 USA . . 1 2.3 1981-82 024 Cheese and Curd Total 16,888 40,782 100.0 of which New Zealand 5,382 10,331 25.3 Netherlands 1,803 4,214 10.3 Denmark 2,033 5,588 13.7 Germany, FR 1,649 4,173 10.2 Norway 1,553 3,317 8.1 Italy 884 3,116 7.6 Greece 755 2,565 6.3 France 603 1,930 4.7 UK 299 792 1.9 Bulgaria 640 1,765 4.3 Sweden 264 512 1.3 Romania 323 802 2.0 022, 023 Other Dairy Products Total 2,454 4,804 100.0 of which New Zealand 1,467 3,415 70.5 USA 987 1,387 28.6 042 Rice Total 1,794 1,071 100.0 of which Thailand 575 291 27.2 USA 375 256 23.9 Pakistan 444 308 28.8 India 27 19 1.8 Italy 19 21 2.0 China, PR 225 112 10.5 057, 52 Dried Grapes Total 0.2 1 100.0 of which Greece . . . . . . USA . . . . . . Turkey . . . . . . 061, 10, 20 Sugar (Raw and Refined) Total 69 83 100.0 of which China, PR 60 67 80.7 France . . . . . . Germany, FR . . . . . . Hong Kong 1 1 1.2 UK 1 4 4.8 USA 5 10 12.0 1982-83 024 Cheese and Curd Total 19,740 53,966 100.0 of which New Zealand 6,409 13,692 25.4 Netherlands 2,714 6,763 12.5 Denmark 2,066 6,470 12.0 Germany, FR 1,780 5,364 9.9 Norway 1,286 2,984 5.5 Italy 946 4,245 7.9 Greece 1,212 4,505 8.3 France 755 2,894 5.4 UK 553 1,422 2.6 Bulgaria 611 1,890 3.5 Sweden 348 719 1.3 Romania 300 927 1.7 022, 023 Other Dairy Products Total 2,432 4,697 100.0 of which New Zealand 1,563 3,097 65.6 USA 864 1,557 33.0 042 Rice Total 3,814 2,207 100.0 of which Thailand 2,220 1,131 51.2 USA 514 377 17.1 Pakistan 474 352 15.9 India 34 33 1.5 Italy 80 98 4.4 China, PR 57 31 1.4 057, 52 Dried Grapes Total 221 270 100.0 of which Greece 210 223 82.6 USA 11 47 17.4 Turkey . . . . . . 061, 10, 20 Sugar (Raw and Refined) Total 33 41 100.0 of which China, PR 14 11 26.8 France . . . . . . Germany, FR . . . . . . Hong Kong 7 5 12.2 UK 1 3 7.3 USA 10 20 48.8 1983-84 024 Cheese and Curd Total 22,312 62,496 100.0 of which New Zealand 5,735 13,399 21.4 Netherlands 3,068 8,567 13.7 Denmark 2,589 8,280 13.2 Germany, FR 2,121 6,237 10.0 Norway 1,869 4,600 7.4 Italy 1,008 4,408 7.1 Greece 1,202 4,201 6.7 France 938 3,554 5.7 UK 1,238 2,523 4.0 Bulgaria 654 2,152 3.4 Sweden 558 1,138 1.8 Romania 275 770 1.2 022, 023 Other Dairy Products Total 2,349 5,389 100.0 of which New Zealand 1,453 3,751 69.2 USA 880 1,611 29.7 042 Rice Total 6,576 3,458 100.0 of which Thailand 4,940 2,199 63.6 USA 890 697 20.2 Pakistan 434 317 9.2 India 92 83 2.4 Italy 68 58 1.7 China, PR 108 50 1.4 057, 52 Dried Grapes Total 2,473 2,495 100.0 of which Greece 2,017 2,050 82.2 USA 333 338 13.5 Turkey 122 106 4.2 061, 10, 20 Sugar (Raw and Refined) Total 32 30 100.0 of which China, PR 28 24 80.0 France . . 1 3.3 Germany, FR 1 1 3.3 Hong Kong 3 3 10.0 UK . . 1 3.3 USA . . 1 3.3 * Australian Import Commodity Classification . . Denotes nil or rounded to zero. Source: Compiled from information supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. (Question No. 126) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: (1) For what reason is the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) government-funded. (2) How much has the ACF received in each of the years 1980 to 1984. (3) Has his attention been drawn to the ACF Newsletter Vol. 16, No. 10 of November 1984; if so, has he noted that ACF participated in the election campaign supporting the Australian Democrats and the Nuclear Disarmament Party. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The primary purpose of the Commonwealth program of grants to voluntary conservation organisations is to assist national and peak voluntary conservation organisations in the States to meet their administrative costs. To be eligible for assistance an organisation must have the protection and enhancement of the environment as its primary objective. It must be a properly constituted, non-profit organisation with audited accounts and membership open to any interested person and it must represent a significantly large geographical area. The Government recognises the important role of such organisations in bringing environmental issues to public attention and looks to these organisations to contribute in positive ways to the identification of practical means of harmonising conservation and development. The grant to the ACF reflects its importance among voluntary conservation organisations. (2) The ACF has received the following grants from the annual appropriations for conservation organisations: 1979-80-$100,000; 1980-81-$75,000; 1981-82-$75,000; 1982-83-$77,000; 1983-84-$120,000; 1984-85-$140,000. (3) Yes; yes. (Question No. 197) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 20 March 1985: (1) What is the method of funding the newsletter issued by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Building Research entitled Rebuild. (2) Is it a fact that issue No. 6, Volume 9, of December 1984, is largely devoted to self-praise and an attack on the Government's budget decision in relation to the CSIRO. (3) What is the estimated cost of publishing and distributing this issue of Rebuild. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The publication Rebuild, produced by the CSIRO Division of Building Research, is funded from the Division's Appropriation Funds. (2) Rebuild has the largest circulation of any publication in Australia concerned with the building and construction industry. Approximately 12,000 copies are distributed and this demonstrates the importance the Division gives to communicating with industry and the community. It is circulated to all individuals and companies with interests in the industry, and in addition a copy is sent to all Federal and State Parliamentarians. Its purpose is to keep the industry informed of what the Division of Building Research is doing and, equally importantly, of what it is not doing. The article referred to is one of a total of ten that appeared in the No. 6 Volume 9 issue of December 1984. The particular article referred to attempts to set out in factual terms what the effect on the Division's program has been of continued reductions in funding in real terms over the last decade. Likewise, the second part of the article sets out a number of estimated cost benefits of the Division's work since the Division was established. The purpose of the article is to generate a sense of need within the industry for a greater financial contribution from industry to support the work of the Division. (3) The cost of publishing and distributing this issue of Rebuild was approximately $5,000.