Tuesday, 21 May 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of the Pacific Island branches of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association who are on a study tour of Australia. On behalf of the House, I extend to them a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister a question. I refer the honourable gentleman to his unequivocal view that a broadly based indirect tax is 'the only way' to construct a tax system which 'matches the criteria of economic efficiency, equity and relative simplicity'. Does the Prime Minister accept that unless such a broadly based indirect tax is introduced this Government will have failed to achieve its objective of long term tax reform? Mr HAWKE —I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for his question. I suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should look back to the beginning of what I have had to say on this matter. During the election campaign I outlined the nine principles which were subsequently endorsed by the Government. We adhere now, as we did then, to the correctness of those nine principles. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, if he read those nine principles, will recall that it was made clear that to have the best sort of reform of the tax system it would be necessary to have a system which would be acceptable to the people of Australia. Neither I, the Treasurer nor the Government have, at any stage, receded from that principle which is contained in the nine principles. Whatever government is in power, it will not make sense for this community if we have a tax system which is not respected by the community. I think the honourable gentleman and I would be at one on that. Within that framework we have, therefore, tried to set up within government and within the community the processes which will enable us to try to reach that point. Within that framework I have expressed the view-I do not resile from the view-that I believe that if we are to be able to have the best sort of reform we can, a system which will give a greater degree of choice to people in the community as to how they will spend their money, and a system which will have the lowest level of disincentive to people to give themselves the capacity to acquire further income and will also remove those elements of the tax system which have given extraordinary benefit to a privileged few, we will have to move in the direction to which I have referred, to which the Treasurer has referred and to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has alluded in his question to me. I have no reason at all to change from that view. What we have tried to do-I say this in complete sincerity to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because I know that over the years he, perhaps more than anyone else in the Opposition, has directed his mind to this question-is set up the apparatus, in the preparation of the White Paper and leading up to the summit, to enable us to expose to the people of Australia and their representatives the inadequacies of the present system and the way in which we can get to what I think is the preferred position. I do not walk away from that in any way, but I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that there are difficulties and complications in that, if we move in that way, there would be prima facie a regressive impact. Therefore, we have to see what things can be done to meet those sorts of problems. I say this directly to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: What we will be about in the White Paper is exposing the problems and exposing the various ways in which we can address these problems. There will be an exposition, I believe, that will show that the ultimate and ideal way, the preferred way, of getting there is the way I and the Treasurer have referred to, but we will not in any sense try to disguise the problems that are involved. We do not apologise for or disguise-and in a sense I do not think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is critical of this-the enormous amount of work that is involved in approaching this problem of tax reform. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I think with a great degree of integrity in his time in office, appreciated the problems and devoted a lot of work to them. We have done that. We are going a step further and trying to bring the community, through representative organisations, into an analysis of this with us. It is our hope that out of that process we will be able to reach the position which is adumbrated in the nine principles and that the community will come to accept and to understand that this sort of approach is the preferable one. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation from the Congress of Mexico led by Deputado Lugo Gil, Leader of the Majority in the Chamber of Deputies. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr ALLAN MORRIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. I refer to his statement today regarding the Oberon submarine replacement program. I ask the Minister whether the Government's decision indicates a change in direction between this Government and the previous Government. What are the implications of the decision for Australian industry? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. Today I announced that the next stage in the acquisition of six submarines for the Royal Australian Navy had been reached; that is, we are going to proceed with a project definition study. The two successful tenderers for the platform or hull of the boat are a German company, Ingenieurkontor Lubeck Howaldtswerke-Deutschewerft, and a Swedish company, Kockums, and for the combat system the successful tenderer is a conglomerate headed by Rockwell Collins and a Dutch system, Gypsy, produced by Hollandse Signaal Apparaken. The decision taken by the Government, which I think goes to the heart of the question asked by the honourable gentleman, is to seek tenders on the basis that all six submarines will be constructed in Australia. It was the judgment of our advisers, and our judgment, that the capabilities existed within Australian industry to make a very significant contribution to the project, including the assembly. Indeed, we are hoping that at least some 60 per cent of the $2.6 billion worth of expenditure involved will be capable of being spent in Australia. The project will therefore be of very great significance not only to the defence forces but also to Australian industry. I think it is a decision which, from that point of view, will be strongly welcomed by Australian industry. It will not be just a question of Australian industry involvement in assembly line activities. There will also be opportunities for considerable high technology involvement in Australian industry associated with the development of the combat systems. I think it would be a very foolish alternative government that went into the next election on the basis effectively announced by the Opposition's spokesman on defence a couple of days ago that when we are through this process-- Mr Sinclair —Why won't you debate it in the House? Why are you running away from it? Mr BEAZLEY —You will get plenty of time over the next couple of years, Ian. When we are through this process, as we will be in 16 to 18 months time, the Opposition will be suggesting to the large number of Australian companies which will be anticipating a considerable amount of work in producing a very potent capability for the Australian defence forces that what we will then want to do is head off into the middle distance again with another review as to whether we want that capability. There is no question at all that the course which we are going down now, with the type of submarines that we are getting and with the companies with which we will be associated, will be particularly useful for our forces. Mr Sinclair —You are like the submarines-one of yesterday's men. Mr BEAZLEY —Nonsense. The proposition is put by the-- Mr Aldred —I raise a point of order. The purpose of Question Time is to seek information on specific matters. The Minister is making what is virtually a ministerial statement and avoiding debate on this issue. Mr SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr BEAZLEY —It is the view of the Navy, and it is also our view, that the type of submarine required for the strategic circumstances in which we operate is the type of submarine that we are going for-not the type that is being advocated by the Leader of the National Party of Australia, who, like most of his colleagues, historically has never desired anything so much as to be the defence minister of a super-power with the problems of a super-power as opposed to the problems that we confront in our own strategic requirement. That strategic requirement will be met by the types of submarines that we buy. To answer again the honourable member's question, I think it is a decision that will be welcomed by Australian industry. Those who would seek to reverse it a couple of years down the line will suffer a severe political penalty indeed. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to his remarks in his answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he referred to his long held views on tax reform. Bearing that in mind, I remind him of the expressed support to the Asprey Taxation Review Committee by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, when he was President, for family income splitting as a measure for taxation reform to be introduced. On the basis of that consistently held view that he was referring to in tax reform, will income splitting, for pay as you earn taxpayers be discussed in the Government's White Paper on taxation and will the Government express a position on income splitting in its White Paper? Mr HAWKE —Yes, the question of income splitting and the pros and cons of the arguments in regard to the matter will be fully canvassed in the White Paper. This is an issue in respect of which the Government will take full note of the views expressed at the summit and it will be taken into account by the Government in coming to a decision on the whole question of tax reform. Mr BLANCHARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister has said that he expects the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems to have widespread community acceptance. Can he indicate why he considers this will be the case? Mr WILLIS —In answer to the honourable member for Moore, may I say, firstly, that on reading the Hancock report my view was that it was a very thorough and comprehensive review of the industrial relations system in this country, one which not only analysed the present system thoroughly and made sensible recommendations for reform of it, but also considered all possible alternatives and very thoroughly and sensibly rejected those alternatives as not providing any sensible alternative approach to the present system. The report provided a very compelling set of reasons for sticking with the conciliation and arbitration system. My view of the likely reaction to that report has been confirmed by the reaction which we have seen in today's Press. That overall reaction has been very favourable indeed. The major employer organisations such as the Confederation of Australian Industry, the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia and the Master Builders Federation of Australia Inc. have all commended the report and said that it should considerably improve industrial relations. Most trade unions have also-- Mr Howard —The farmers do not like it. Mr WILLIS —Not all businesses have said that they like it but the major business organisations have said that they do. Most trade unions also have said that they find the report a very acceptable one. The reaction of the Press has been mixed, but there have been substantial elements of support for it particularly from the more sensible elements of the Press. In regard to the public at large, many public opinion polls over the years have asked the people of Australia whether they thought the conciliation and arbitration system was the most appropriate system for regulation of industrial relations in this country. Consistently those polls have shown that somewhere between 60 per cent to 80 per cent of the population have said that this is the most appropriate form of regulation of industrial relations. That would seem to remain the case. In regard to the Opposition I am not entirely surprised at the reaction from it. We have had a very confused reaction. The honourable member for Tangney, the Opposition spokesman on industrial relations, said that he found parts of the report exciting because it could lead to a strong decentralised stream in Australia's industrial relations. The shadow shadow spokesman for industrial relations, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who seems determined to make the life of the shadow Minister as uncomfortable as he made it for the previous shadow Minister, said that he found the report deeply disappointing because it would make Australia's rigid, inflexible and centralised system even more rigid, inflexible and centralised. We have had two reactions from the Opposition. One spokesman has said that it will make for a more decentralised system and the other spokesman has said that it will make for a more centralised system. We have total confusion. It is a case of 'You pays your money and you takes your choice', as to what their reactions are. The Opposition's confusion in this area is not surprising because, as it has no clear view of this report, it has no clear view of industrial relations. The confusion of honourable members opposite in regard to their policy reflects the confusion of their advisers-advisers who were given every opportunity in this report to persuade members of the Committee that there was a viable alternative to the centralised system. One of the basic findings of this report is that those who propound alternatives or criticise the present system were not able to come up with any workable alternative. The Opposition's confusion in this area reflects the fact that its advisers are unable to come up with any workable system. The Opposition remains totally disorganised and discredited in the area of industrial relations, as it was in government when industrial relations was one if its greatest areas of weakness. Mr SHACK —I ask a question of the Minister for Industrial Relations concerning the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. How does the Government plan to give practical legislative effect to recommendations 92 and 93 of the Hancock report which recommend that the proposed Australian Industrial Relations Commission give prime consideration to the public interest and the economic and employment consequences of its decisions? How, for example, would the Government foresee the proposed new Commission handling the question of discounting in light of its obligation to make the public interest and the economic and employment consequences of its decisions prime considerations? In light of this part of the Hancock Committee's recommendations, will the Minister be taking steps to ensure that the existing Commission begins to operate with those considerations to the fore? Mr WILLIS —Of course, the Government's consideration of detailed recommendations in the report is something which will take place over time, but as a matter of priority. In respect of the particular recommendation to which the honourable member refers, it is of course the case at present that the Commission is required to have regard to the public interest and particularly to the economic impact of its decisions. I believe that is a matter to which it gives strong consideration. If the recommendations propose some minor change in that direction we will give some consideration to that. It is certainly my strong view-I believe it is the view of the Government-that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in making the decisions it has made in respect of wage indexation has been very concerned with the economic impact of its decisions and very concerned to ensure that those decisions were made in the context of reducing inflation and increasing the level of employment. Of course it has been eminently successful in so doing. Since wage indexation came in we have had a dramatic reduction in the level of inflation, a dramatic increase in the level of employment, and a reduction in the level of unemployment. I believe that the Commission has been very responsible in having regard to the economic impact of its decisions, and those decisions have been shown by their impact on the economy to have been very sensible ones. This has all been associated with a considerable reduction in the level of industrial disputation. We have already indicated that the way in which the price effects of devaluation have been taken into account is a matter which can be dealt with in at least two ways under the indexation system. The Government is considering the most appropriate way in which to approach that matter. Whichever way the Government approaches it, it will ensure that it does so in a way that has regard to the need for the wages system to adjust to the reality of the devaluation, which is that real incomes have been reduced and that that must be reflected in the real incomes of wage earners, which must be lowered to a level less than they would otherwise have been without devaluation. That has been our clear policy and it remains the case. The exact way in which we do that will be worked out in the near future. Mr LEE —Has the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs seen a report in today's Sydney Morning Herald which claims that thousands of illegal immigrants are being allowed to change their status to that of permanent residents? Firstly, what is the Minister's response to this report? Secondly, can the Minister assure the House that those people wishing to migrate to Australia who abide by his Department's procedures and who wait their turn for their applications to be processed will not be unfairly disadvantaged? Mr HURFORD —I can tell the honourable member for Dobell that I have seen that report in the Sydney Morning Herald. It has obviously been written by somebody who-I say this kindly-has not been properly briefed on immigration matters, immigration law and policy processes. The journalist concerned has been given-I will use polite language-a less than adequate steer into the nature of a submission that has been leaked to him by some pimp in the system. He has given the journalist an inadequate steer so perhaps I should not be so unkind as to call him a pimp. Let me make this initial point. Technically, it is not possible for illegals to change their status to that of permanent residents. So all the talk in the report about 6,000 illegals changing status this year, with a possible 8,000 or 12,000 next year, is just sheer nonsense. However, for the most part people who do change status are those who are here legitimately as visitors. In so many instances they have a legitimate case. For a start they may marry an Australian, or a refugee may come here as a visitor but is able to prove, through the processes of the Determination of Refugee Status Committee that he is a refugee. The vast majority of those who are changing status are, of course, people who are doing so legitimately. Technically, some have overstayed, but they are given an extension to their temporary entry permit in order to be able to put in an application for change of status. All of that having been said, the point needs to be emphasised that not all cases are cut and dried. We need to check out the genuineness of relationships. It is something that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs would rather not have to do, but if we are going to make sure that people are legitimate that has to be done. We need to go through the DORS Committee process in order to make sure that people are genuinely refugees. I have noted a tendency for some parliamentarians-indeed, they are reflecting a view in the public which I believe needs to be sorted out-to be sympathetic to change of status. They say: 'The people are here. Why don't we let them change status?'. I believe that it has been my personal duty to point out that every time there is a change of status, it is at the cost of somebody who is legitimately queued up overseas. In order to make the most of my point, I believe-and this is a personal view at this stage but I am going to put it to my colleagues-that we ought each year be looking at the total settler program, which would include the numbers who are changing status or whom we believe will do so. If I could use an illustration, if we believe that because of unemployment questions and other factors we should have-and this is a hypothetical figure-95,000 settlers in this country and if we then decide that 15,000 of them are change of status, that leaves 80,000, of course, for the immigration program. If we targeted only 5,000 for change of status that would allow us 90,000 for the immigration program. That is why it is true that I have put on public record my view that we should be looking at it in the total and not be looking at the part separately. Mr Speaker, if I could just-- Mr Sinclair —Make a statement if you want to. Do not abuse Question Time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the right honourable member ceased interjecting, the Minister would be able to conclude. Mr HURFORD —Exactly. If this fraud would belt up we would all get a lot more chance to say what we want. You are nothing but a fraud and it is time you belted up. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Sinclair —Make a statement. What are you running away from? Why can't you treat this place properly? Mr HURFORD —You are a fraud. Belt up. It is time you sat down. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Is the Leader of the National Party raising a point of order? Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I ask that the honourable gentleman withdraw that impertinent remark. Mr SPEAKER —I ask the Minister to withdraw the remark. Mr HURFORD —I withdraw. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister withdrew. The Minister should return to and conclude his answer. Mr Peacock —Not more pages. This is getting farcical. There is page after page there. Mr HURFORD —You belt up too. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: This is the second time at Question Time today that we have had matters that are more properly matters for ministerial statement responded to at Question Time. The Minister should now draw his remarks to a close in accordance with our Standing Orders. Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I can do without assistance, thank you. The Leader of the National Party knows the Standing Orders with regard to answers. I call the Minister, in conclusion, I trust. Mr HURFORD —As you said, Mr Speaker, if he would belt up it would give me a chance to complete my answer. Anyway, Mr Speaker, I will wind up in deference to you. I have made the point about what is a change of status and who are illegals. At the same time there is a campaign that I am proud to be part of against illegal migration to this country. I am grateful for the work done by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure and others to make sure that the costs of illegal migration are known to this community. Mr SHACK —I ask the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations a question. I refer him to a further key area of industrial relations and that is the use of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act. Is it the case that the Hancock Committee of Review into the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems was unable to make a recommendation on this matter because there were two conflicting views within the Committee? In the light of the Committee's failure to endorse the Government's proposed repeal of section 45D, will the Government now withdraw from its commitment to repeal the section, and further, will it now commit itself to using the section on future occasions when unions adopt the illegitimate and undemocratic tactic of secondary boycotts? Mr WILLIS —Firstly, let me make the point that, of the 148 recommendations that were made, there were only two points on which there was no agreement in the Committee-one was on the area of trade practices and the other was on conscientious objection. I think it is an extremely important and valuable part of this report that such a wide array of recommendations could be agreed upon by a tripartite committee. In respect of the particular question asked by the honourable member for Tangney let me say that the Government's view in respect of the use of the Trade Practices Act remains as it was before; that we do not see the use of the Trade Practices Act as being at all of assistance in improving industrial relations. I believe that there is no evidence to show that it would be. The proposals which we put forward last year which would have meant that there would have been a greater use of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is trying to settle the primary dispute which lay behind a secondary boycott would, I believe, have been a much more sensible approach to resolution of those disputes than the use of penalties against parties engaged in that secondary boycott. Indeed, I believe that recent events-I refer to the Queensland dispute-have shown that that kind of approach results in much increased industrial disputation. Of course, the Opposition's reaction to that is 'Get in there and use more of that kind of legislation', which would only up the ante more. We would have seen the greatest industrial conflagration in this country since the 1890s had we pursued the kind of approach which the Opposition would have us pursue. On the contrary, what we have done has been to take an approach which goes to the heart of the matter. We have been able to resolve the industrial disputation. This afternoon I will be introducing legislation which I believe will go a long way towards resolving this matter and I look forward to the Opposition's support for it. Mrs CHILD —Is the Minister for Health aware of concern amongst pharmacists about delays in processing pharmaceutical benefits claims? Can the Minister advise the House whether action has been taken to eliminate payment delays and, if so, with what results? Dr BLEWETT —I am aware of the concern expressed by the honourable member for Henty and that there have been delays in the payment of pharmaceutical benefits which, as I pointed out to the House at an earlier stage, were due to the change over to the pharmpay system, to repetition strain injuries within that section of the Department and to some industrial troubles. I point out that this Government has already established an excellent record in that it has honoured its commitment to turn round doctors' bulk billing claims within five days of receipt. That promise has been honoured. We regarded these delays in relation to pharmacists as unacceptable. I made certain promises to the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and to pharmacists when I wrote them a letter on 29 March pointing out how we would respond to these unacceptable delays. I promised then that the backlog would be paid and fixed by the end of May. I am glad to be able to tell the honourable member that the final backlog advices were presented to the Department of Finance yesterday and that they will be paid in the next two to three days; that is, we have honoured the commitment we made to the pharmacists to clear up this backlog problem. I would also indicate to the House that we have taken administrative measures to ensure that, should this problem arise again, we would take immediate action to prevent the kinds of backlogs that unfortunately developed in the past five months. Mr MACPHEE —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I remind the honourable gentleman of his statement yesterday regarding the rebel cricket tour of South Africa in which he said: . . . too much of the debate has come to be centred now on individuals. I would like to get it back to principles, where I believe it belongs. I refer the Prime Minister to the statements of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, who described the rebel cricketers as 'an ugly, money-grabbing gang', to the remarks of the Foreign Minister, who accused them of earning 'blood money' and to his own attacks on individual cricketers as being 'beyond the pale and shameful'. Does the Prime Minister accept full responsibility for his Government's having reduced the debate to one of abuse of individuals? What action does he intend to take, apart from the humbug which he talked yesterday, to ensure that there is no recurrence of this denigration of individuals? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Goldstein for his question. I can assure him that we will try to see that the debate on this serious matter does concentrate on the issues of principle. In that respect, I think some of the things that have emerged in the last 24 hours are useful and should be useful to all of us who are concerned to ensure, if we can, that this tour does not proceed. May I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I welcome the issuing by him yesterday of his statement that the Opposition does not support and does not want to see the rebel tour go ahead. I am glad that he has issued that statement. It was necessary for the Leader of the Opposition to issue that statement because his shadow Minister had made a statement to the opposite effect. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has now overruled his shadow Minister. Mr Peacock —There is no overruling at all. You just get it right and on track. Mr HAWKE —Now there has been a qualification. The shadow Minister's statement has not been overruled, so that undoes some of the good of the statement by the Leader of the Opposition. As I was saying, some things have emerged in the last 24 hours which I think should help us to concentrate our minds on this question of principle and should go a long way to dissipating that area of argument which has been embraced by some people in the community that, in some sense, as far as South Africa is concerned, sport and politics have not been mixed up. I refer to an extract from the transcript of today's Macquarie news in which the following is said: The Johannesburg Star newspapers leads its front page with the blaring headline 'Hawke bid to halt tour has collapsed'. Says the paper, it's all go now for the Aussie rebel cricketers. The following statement is very important: The signing of former Aussie test skipper, Kim Hughes, to lead the rebels is described in the Star as arguably the greatest coup by South African sport against the Gleneagles Agreement. I suggest that that should give everyone cause for concern because our position on this matter is a matter of pride to this country. I think honourable members will recall how consistently I have expressed my pride in and gratitude for the position taken by the previous Prime Minister in this respect. The Gleneagles Agreement did not represent the outcome of some collusive gathering of a few politically prejudiced people. As I had cause to say earlier today on a radio program, that Agreement represented the view of the Margaret Thatchers, the Malcolm Frasers and the Pierre Trudeaus, as well- Mr Peacock —Margaret Thatcher wasn't there at all, you fool. You have got the wrong time, if you want to go back to the drafting of it now. Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition has fallen right in. He is trying to tell us what we all know, that Margaret Thatcher was not there. Margaret Thatcher has endorsed the Gleneagles Agreement; that is what I am saying. Mr Peacock —Of course she did. She didn't draft it. You went back to the drafting, you fool. You have not got it right. Mr HAWKE —What a pathetic exercise we have just witnessed. I did not try to say that Margaret Thatcher was involved. The Gleneagles Agreement represents the view of a range of people right across the political and, if you like, the colour spectrum. It is endorsed by the Margaret Thatchers. It has received the endorsement of a wide range of people because there is a clear recognition that in the area of sport the countries of the Commonwealth have a unique opportunity to ensure that comfort and standing are not given to the regime in South Africa. That is the whole point of the Agreement. There are certain areas in which we can do nothing, but the area in which we can do something is the area of sporting competition. It has been said that here we can do something in protest against that abhorrent regime which endorses and applies the repugnant scheme and practice of apartheid. We can do that by ensuring that teams from Commonwealth countries do not engage in international sporting competition with South Africa. That is the whole point and purpose of the Gleneagles Agreement. Today the Johannesburg Star has said that Kim Hughes having agreed to go to South Africa to skipper what is to be labelled as an Australian team is the greatest coup against the Gleneagles Agreement. That is our concern. Neither I nor any of my people would say that we cannot understand the temptation that people are faced with. For Kim Hughes and others involved there is a temptation, and we are not saying that they have been evil in succumbing to the temptation. We are trying to get them to understand that, by adopting this course of action, they are going against the policy not just of this Australian Government but of successive governments in this country and in other important Commonwealth countries. These people have received the benefit of representing Australia. The position of Australia-not just of the Labor Government but of successive Australian governments representing the Australian people-is that Australian teams should not participate against South Africa. Again I take this opportunity-I trust that I will be joined by the Opposition in putting the plea as calmly as I can to those people-of saying that they should not participate in this tour. It should be clear to them now that by their participation, to use the words of the Johannesburg Star, they are facilitating the greatest coup by South African sport against the Gleneagles Agreement. I do not think that is something they want to do. I hope they will take it that it is the unanimous view of this Parliament that that is what they would be doing if they participate. I hope they will see that it would be improper for them to breach an agreement which has the support of this Parliament-not just of this Government, but of successive governments of different political persuasions right throughout the Commonwealth. Mr SAUNDERSON —Has the Minister for Communications seen a report in this week's Bulletin concerning a supposed secret report about Australia Post which, it claims, was mysteriously suppressed before it could be implemented? Will the Minister inform the House whether there is any substance in that story? Mr DUFFY —I have seen the report mentioned by the honourable member for Aston. I make it clear that at no time have Australia Post or I sought to suppress any efficiency audit by the Auditor-General's Office. The audit referred to was commenced some five years ago and a draft report was presented to Australia Post in May last year. Australia Post in its response of July 1984 did not argue, as is suggested by the Bulletin, that the nature of the report was outside the scope of the Auditor-General's Office. Rather, it was commented that Australia Post's attitude towards the audit had been one of total co-operation. It is noted that most of the major reforms raised in the draft report had been addressed at that time, or that the work was currently proceeding. The sorts of matters that were raised were the questions of corporate identity, postal level structures, electronic funds transfer, electronic mail, self-service post facilities, and automation of counter and related clerical activities. The Bulletin article completely failed to record that most of the matters raised by the Auditor-General's Office have already been effectively addressed by Australia Post and that the reforms are now largely in place. Moreover, the article ignores the fact that on 7 February this year the Auditor-General advised Australia Post that the efficiency audit division had been disbanded and that no further work would be undertaken. It is unfortunate that the mistruths and innuendos concerning Australia Post have been propagated in that article in the Bulletin. I regret that the experienced journalist involved did not have the courtesy to check with Australia Post or with my office. If he had, he would have been far better informed. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask a question of the Minister for Defence. As the United States Department of Defense has advised against the provision of sophisticated technology and systems for the Swedish designed submarine and as the IKL 2000, the German submarine, has apparently been offered to the Indian Navy and it is almost certain that Soviet naval technologists, therefore, have a knowledge of the noise profile of that submarine, and as neither of these submarines have, in any event, been built under the present configuration, can the Minister advise the House why we should not accept the words of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie that the whole competition was rigged, instead of the Minister's assertion in this Parliament today? Mr BEAZLEY —I will start by going through the process by which these decisions are arrived at and then I will get on to answering more specifically the right honourable gentleman's question. These processes went through one of the most thorough going pieces of analysis done in the Department of Defence on, firstly, what our requirement was and, secondly, what would best serve those requirements. Something like 150 people were involved in the assessment of the various tenders at different times through several committee processes at which there were representatives not only of the Royal Australian Navy and the Department of Defence but also of the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. All the questions raised by the right honourable gentleman were thoroughly canvassed in those committees and determinations were reached on them. A great deal of what was the basis of the conclusions reached does, of course, go to questions of commercial, in confidence matters. I cannot raise them in this place. Some of them go to questions of not only commercial, in confidence matters but also national security considerations. Therefore, I cannot discuss those matters in this place. At the end of that process it was recommended to government-we accepted that recom- mendation-that the capacities of the two companies to deliver what we required in terms of our industry requirement and to provide us with the most modern and effective conventional boats were to be performed by those two companies. I saw absolutely no reason why there ought to be any intervention in that process and there was absolutely no evidence that somehow a form of impropriety was associated with it. I come more to the point which the right honourable member was talking about in connection with Ingenierkontor Lubeck-Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft. All I can say is that, if the right honourable member is particularly worried about what the United States of America might think about IKL-HDW, the United States Pentagon sought the advice of IKL-HDW when it wished to consider matters associated with the possible development of conventional boats because in the Western world IKL-HDW produces something over 50 per cent of the boats sold in the conventional area. Mr Sinclair —I was talking about Sweden. Mr BEAZLEY —I will get on to that. I am trying to take the right honourable member's question point by point. In addition, IKL-HDW is a substantial builder for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers. Germany has an association with the United States in that regard. There was a suggestion by the right honourable member that as a result of these sales programs they will find themselves in some way or another in a position where they could be readily subverted by the Soviet Union. If that were the case there would be a much wider variety of concerns about that than those which have been expressed so far by anyone who has been associated with the process. I get to the point about the Swedes. The simple fact of the matter is that we have looked very closely at that question in that regard. We are satisfied that all we require in terms of the capabilities we bring into our boats which will be related to the capacities or our navies to exchange information with the United States, both in operational and on technical terms, will be adequately protected. I should point out too that in the area of the combat system the two preferred competitors are both competitors within the NATO framework. In the one instance Rockwell-Collins and other elements of that consortium have been heavily involved in the United States boat building program as well as in the programs of other countries. For example, Singer Librascope, while associated also with the Indian boat, has, nevertheless, had an association with the development of American systems for American boats. So if the right honourable member is worried about any connection in regard to IKL-HDW down that track, perhaps he could be worried about it down the other track and take up that question with the United States as well. All these matters have received very detailed consideration. We do not act irresponsibly in this area. These recommendations are before us not as a result of intervention by our Government in the process of tender selection within the Department of Defence, though, naturally, the Cabinet wished to be very thoroughly briefed on all the sorts of questions the honourable member for Kalgoorlie has asked before it made its decision. That was a product of what came forward from that Department, based on its very considerable experience of European submarine operations. That advice came forward and the decision was taken. I think the result we have will be of substantial benefit not only to Australian industry but also to the Australian defence forces. Essential elements of our co-operation are going to be adequately protected-both our access to what we want and what is developed-from the potential scrutiny or interest of people whom we would simply not wish to know a great deal about what we are doing. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the Administrative Review Council on the relationship between the Ombudsman and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The report is tabled in A4 format and limited copies are available from the Bills and Papers Office and the Senate Records Office. Final printed copies of the report are expected to be available in June and will be posted to all honourable members. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 9 (1) (c) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present a report by the Human Rights Commission on the Queensland electricity supply and related industrial legislation. The report is tabled in A4 format and limited copies are available from the Bills and Papers Office and the Senate Records Office. Final printed copies of the report are expected to be available in June and will be posted to all honourable members. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 9 (1) (a) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present a report by the Human Rights Commission on human rights and the Migration Act 1958. The report is tabled in A4 format and limited copies are available from the Bills and Papers Office and the Senate Records Office. Final printed copies of the report are expected to be available in June and will be posted to all honourable members. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) — Pursuant to sections 10 (3) and 10A (2) of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Act 1953, I present the annual report for the year 1983-84 of the trustees of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust, together with the Auditor-General's report and audited statement of assets and liabilities and statement of income and expenditure for the Trust Fund. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973, I present the Commonwealth Grants Commission report on special assistance for the Northern Territory. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Government response to the recommendations made by the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform in its second report presented in August 1984. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr HOWARD —During Question Time, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) alleged differences of view on wages policy between the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) and me. I would like to indicate to the House that there are no substantive differences between us on this issue and that both of us support a deregulation and freeing up of the existing rigid decentralised Australian labour market. As widely expected, the report of the Hancock Committee into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems endorsed a continuation of the present system. We had little expectation that it would do otherwise, but it went further in a number of areas. It added more rigidities at a higher order of regulation. Obviously while the present centralised system continues- Mr Young —Where is the personal explanation? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is straying a bit from his personal explanation. Mr HOWARD —It is a matter of some substance. Mr SPEAKER —It may be a matter of some substance to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but I point out to him that we have had this discussion before. Indulgence is granted to a member to explain where he has been personally misrepresented, not to indulge in a debate. There are other procedures of the House for that. Mr HOWARD —I respect that, sir. I am sure you recognise that some explanations are more complicated than others. Mr SPEAKER —Not personal mis- representations. Mr HOWARD —I simply make the short point, in deference to you, that the honourable member for Tangney and I are in favour of a system whereby individual employers and their employees have the freedom and the capacity, at plant or enterprise level, to make their own bargains independent of arbitral authorities, unions or employer organisations. Mr SHACK(Tangney) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHACK —Yes, I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed with his personal explanation. Mr SHACK —As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has mentioned, in Question Time today the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) made a very puerile attempt to draw some sort of difference between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and me on the matter of the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems. I say to the House that I concur absolutely with the statements made just now by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in making his personal explanation. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —by leave-The Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union-the Costigan Commission, as it became known-attracted enormous interest, both from the media and from the general public, giving the name of Frank Costigan and his investigations common currency among just about all Australians. The Commission was established by the Commonwealth and Victorian governments in September 1980. What began as a one-year inquiry into a small Victorian union with a reputation for violence became a four-year investigation into a wide range of criminal activity cutting across the whole spectrum of Australian society. The Commission delivered five interim reports prior to its final report being presented on 26 October 1984. Much of the content of the reports outlined the Commission's investigations and consequently was confidential to ensure continuing investigations and/or prosecutions were not prejudiced. The five public volumes of the final report were tabled in the Victorian Parliament, as well as in a number of other States, on 1 November 1984. The Commonwealth Parliament had by then been dissolved prior to the election. Nonetheless, copies of the public volumes were sent to all members and senators, with a full set of the confidential volumes being made available to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). A copy of the public volumes was also tabled by the President of the Senate on 22 February 1985. But the Costigan Commission's legacy is not just its reports. Its work ranks with that of the Moffitt, Woodward, Williams, Stewart and McCabe-Lafranchi inquiries in heightening our perception of the nature and extent of organised crime in Australia. The Problem of Organised Crime Commissioner Costigan reminded us that crime in Australia has come of age-it no longer involves small isolated pockets of criminal activity removed from the mainstream of Australian society. Taken in conjunction with the other inquiries to which I have referred, the Costigan Commission showed a complex web involving all manner of criminal activity, with links throughout Australia, and cutting across social classes and professions, Mr Costigan found that members of the Ship Painters and Dockers Union had apparently offered their services as general criminal hands and were involved in such diverse activities as 'bottom of the harbour' tax fraud, SP bookmaking, social security fraud, crimes of violence, and fraud and extortion on the waterfront. It is important to note that for the most part Mr Costigan's reports were devoted to criminal intelligence and information and not the gathering of admissible evidence-a point I shall return to. The Government recognises that organised crime is a national problem requiring a national response. Accordingly, we have taken action on a wide variety of fronts to tackle the diversity of criminal activity uncovered by the Commission. First and foremost, we have established the National Crime Authority. For the first time, there is now an Australian law enforcement agency which is able to investigate matters covered by the laws of both the Commonwealth and the States. The Crime Authority has the support of all Australian governments. It has many of the powers available to royal commissions, including the Costigan Royal Commission; it has all of the Costigan Commission material, its computer systems and its data bank; and it has available to it much of the expertise of the Commission's former staff. The establishment of the National Crime Authority was the subject of extensive debate in the Parliament and the community at large, but we should not let the complexities of that debate obscure the fact that the establishment of this body is a very considerable achievement. The most important action required from the Government arising from the Commission was the need to maintain the fight against organised crime. The establishment by the Government of the National Crime Authority meets this requirement. The Commission's Unfinished Investigations A number of the Commission's unfinished investigations featured prominently in the Commission's final report. Copies of the full report were immediately passed to the relevant Commonwealth agencies, particularly the National Crime Authority, the Australian Federal Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions, to ensure that all appropriate action was taken. Recognising the importance and urgency associated with the Commission's recommendations relating to the death of Mr Ian Coote, the Government acted quickly in providing a copy of confidential volumes 9 and 10 to the Queensland Government. The second inquest established by the Queensland Government into Mr Coote's death confirmed the original verdict of suicide. Confidential Volumes 6 and 7, and the full version of volume 5 of the final report, were subsequently provided to the Queensland Government to enable it to pursue its investigations. Similarly, these volumes, together with volume 9, were provided to the New South Wales Government. I have already indicated that the major task for this Government arising from the Commission was to maintain the fight against organised crime. This was one of the major purposes in establishing the National Crime Authority. The Commission handed over to the Authority during the four months of July to October 1984. The Chairman of the Authority has repeatedly stressed that this transition was effective and the Authority is now hard at work. During the transition, the Costigan Commission provided the Authority with summaries of 42 matters relating to its outstanding investigations. The Authority held a public sitting on 13 December 1984 to outline the position with respect to each of the 42 matters. The Chairman of the Authority, Mr Justice Stewart, stated that the 42 matters were at very different stages of development when received by the Authority. In particular, he noted that while some matters had undergone extensive analysis by the Commission, other matters had not been analysed at all and that some had not advanced beyond the receipt of police intelligence files. At that public sitting, the Authority also indicated that it had resolved to take action with respect to all of the 42 matters, save three in which proceedings have either commenced or concluded. It then outlined the action it proposed to take with respect to the remaining 39 matters, including referring some matters to the appropriate law enforcement agencies, undertaking further investigations using its general investigative powers or undertaking intelligence operations. Of the 42 matters, the Commission suggested that 20 be the subject of a reference. To date, the Authority has requested and been granted four references to undertake special investigations-all of which involve drug related matters. Three of these references arose directly from several of the 42 summaries provided by the Commission. Furthermore, the Authority has recently requested additional references relating to some other matters contained in the summaries which to date have been the subject of general investigations by the Authority. These additional references will be considered by the Inter-Governmental Committee at its meeting at the end of this month. Action against Organised Crime The Authority, however, is only one aspect of the response that is needed to tackle serious crime in Australia. As demonstrated by the inquiries I have mentioned, a wide range of law enforcement responses is required. With the establishment of the National Crime Authority, that range is now complete and includes: investigations by a single police force; joint task force operations to cover more than one jurisdiction and to bring together special expertise; special co-operative efforts, such as the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, to ensure full co-ordination across Australia; and investigations by the National Crime Authority to tackle those matters which require powers beyond those available to the police. The Government has taken action across this spectrum of responses. In particular: we have increased the resources available in all aspects of law enforcement-for example, the expenditure in the law enforcement areas of my portfolio has been increased by 16.5 per cent from 1982-83 to 1984-85; in particular, between 1982-83 and 1984-85 we increased Australian Federal Police numbers by 420, a growth of 14 per cent-we are now providing, over the next three years, $10m to recruit a stronger force and $7m for improved computer equipment; we have moved to increase the powers available to police-we have offered State governments telephone intercept powers for drug trafficking investigations subject to, inter alia, similar conditions to those applying to the Australian Federal Police. We are also considering granting access to tax information by law enforcement agencies, if suitable safeguards against the misuse of such information can be formulated; we have introduced legislation in the Parliament to establish an independent Australian Customs Service with its own Comptroller-General to provide an appropriate focus for the management of that Service and we have also approved additional resources for the Service to interdict illicit drugs entering Australia; we have established the Director of Public Prosecutions, streamlining the Government's prosecution system, to overcome the deficiencies in the earlier arrangements noted by the Costigan Commission in its fourth interim report; in conjunction with the New South Wales Government, we have made the Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking a continuing weapon in our fight against the menace of illegal drugs; we have allocated an additional sum of the order of $1.5m to upgrade the automatic data processing capacity of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence over the next two financial years; and we are also examining the possibility of introducing crime impact statements to try to overcome, in advance, the possibility of legislation being abused or circumvented by criminals, thus decreasing the incidence of fraud on the revenue. Bottom of the Harbour Tax Fraud The Costigan Commission also played a significant role in focusing public attention on bottom of the harbour taxation fraud, the subject of Interim Report No. 4. Following on the McCabe-Lafranchi Report, it made the public aware of the magnitude of the problem and was instrumental in changing public attitudes so that tax evasion is no longer considered to be a sport but is recognised as irresponsibly placing a burden on the rest of the community. These investigations resulted in the appointment by the previous Government of Special Prosecutor Gyles to handle bottom of the harbour tax matters and Special Prosecutor Redlich to handle all other matters. The purpose of appointing Special Prosecutors was to develop admissible evidence using the criminal intelligence and information furnished by Mr Costigan. This Government fully supported the work of the two Special Prosecutors, now being carried out by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In addition, the Government has also continued action to overcome other weaknesses in the taxation laws. In October 1984, the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1984 strengthened existing mechanisms for the collection of tax, increased the levels of penalty for breaches of the taxation laws and modernised provisions for prosecution for such breaches. These amendments pre-empted concerns expressed by Mr Costigan in his Final Report. The Government's action in relation to tax fraud is on the record. Indeed, significantly more evaded taxes could be recovered if the Opposition did not continue to block the legislation the Government has put before the Parliament in relation to tax evasion schemes. Waterfront Crime Another area which Commissioner Costigan investigated was, of course, crime on the waterfront. He pointed to problems including the level of security on the waterfront and co-ordination between all the Commonwealth and State agencies involved. To overcome these problems, he recommended that a port security authority be set up in each major port to collect and disseminate information relating to ports and to prepare and co-ordinate the targeting of major criminal groups. The Government also has before it the report of the Joint Commonwealth-New South Wales Task Force on the Security of Wharves and Containers, which was tabled in both the New South Wales and Commonwealth parliaments on 23 April 1985. The Task Force favoured a different approach to the Costigan Commission. Recognising the considerable cost and likely duplication involved in establishing a new body, it favoured a cargo security co-ordinating committee in each State. The Government supports the need to upgrade waterfront security. The Government has given the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Federal Police the task of co-ordinating and disseminating all Commonwealth waterfront information and intelligence, to improve the Commonwealth's law enforcement efforts on the waterfront. Clearly this is a matter involving both the State and Commonwealth governments, given the concerns of the Task Force and the Costigan Commission regarding the lack of co-ordination. Accordingly, the Government has referred both reports to the Australian Police Ministers Council to ensure the problems identified are tackled on a national basis. The Australian Transport Advisory council is also considering the reports and will liaise with the Australian Police Ministers Council. This action was endorsed by the special Premiers Conference on drugs on 2 April 1985. To parallel the work on waterfront security, the Government has established a committee to review existing security arrangements for air cargo, with a view to minimising the opportunity to use air cargo to transport illicit drugs. This committee includes membership from the Department of Aviation, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Customs Service and the State police forces. Investigative Techniques One of the major contributions made by the Commission was in the development of investigative techniques, described in volume 2 of the final report. While the Costigan Commission followed the lead of other inquiries by bringing together lawyers, accountants, civilian intelligence analysts and police investigators, its special contribution was the development and use of modern computer technology as an investigative tool. These techniques led to the uncovering of links between a variety of persons involved in diverse legal and illegal activities, and illustrated how criminal activities can be intermingled with legitimate activities to mask effectively the source of funds. One technique advocated by the Commission not accepted by the Government is the concept of public exposure of persons not charged with any offence, and the National Crime Authority Act has been carefully drafted to prevent the use of any such technique. Other techniques established by the Commission are available to the National Crime Authority. The Authority, however, is going one important step further than the Royal Commission. The Authority collects admissible evidence for the prosecution of persons involved in organised crime. This necessarily imposes on the Authority a difficult and painstaking requirement. The Government strongly supports the use of modern computer technology in the fight against crime. The National Crime Authority has, of course, inherited the computer facilities and the data bank of the Costigan Commission. The system is being upgraded to a fourth generation language and other developments are taking place which should ensure that the system operates more efficiently. When this conversion is completed, detailed proposals will be prepared by the Authority on making the system available to other law enforcement agencies. It should, however, be recognised and firmly borne in mind that computer technology is not magic. It is but a tool, albeit a most important tool, in this critical fight against organised crime. Recognising the important role the tool of computer analysis has played in the fight against organised crime, the Government, as I mentioned earlier, is providing $7m for upgrading the computer facilities of the Australian Federal Police and will provide an estimated $1.5m to improve the ADP capacity of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. The Costigan Commission reinforced the importance of being able to follow the money trail to determine the ultimate destination of profits from criminal activities. This Government has repeatedly stressed the importance of concentrating law enforcement efforts against those at the apex of the organised crime pyramid, rather than those on the bottom rungs. It is the drug financiers and traffickers, not the users; the crime bosses and their lieutenants, not the hired hands, who must be the primary targets. This is the main purpose of the National Crime Authority. It will concentrate on those who have successfully eluded ordinary police methods. The Government has ensured that the Authority has the appropriate powers, particularly in the area of following the money trail. Like the Costigan Commission, it has access to income tax information. In addition, the Government has introduced legislation to extend this access to other tax information, including sales tax information. Like the Costigan Commission, it has access to banking and other financial records; and like the Costigan Commission, it has financial analysts and experienced corporate affairs investigators working for it to track down those who profit from organised crime. But this is not just a matter for the National Crime Authority. The Government is considering providing other law enforcement agencies with access to taxation information if suitable safeguards against the misuse of such information can be formulated. In addition, a working party of officers is examining proposals, in consultation with banks and other financial institutions, to reduce the possibility of financial institutions being used to facilitate serious crime. One of the most effective ways of striking at top line criminals is to take away their profits. The Government firmly endorses a multi-pronged approach to wrest illegal gains from criminals and to make organised crime unprofitable. Central to this approach is the continuing enforcement of the tax laws in relation to profits from illegal activities, and the introduction of legislation providing for the forfeiture of assets which can be shown to be derived from criminal activities. The Report of the Royal Commission points out that as a direct result of its activities, tax-including additional tax-of $25m has been assessed. The Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking also has demonstrated the usefulness of using the tax laws. The Australian Taxation Office, acting on information from the Joint Task Force, has identified significant amounts of understated income and has assessed several million dollars as additional taxation and penalties. The Costigan Commission recommended in its final report the continued use of the taxation system to remove illegal profits. Again, the Government firmly supports this. We are confident that the Australian Taxation Office, together with the Director of Public Prosecutions, the National Crime Authority and other law enforcement agencies, can effectively pursue this line. The Commission recommended establishment of a new taxation investigation tribunal and special taxation investigator. The Government takes the view, however, that it is better to leave the task to the existing authorities. Creating new bodies runs the risk of overlap and inefficient use of resources. For some time there have been Commonwealth provisions for asset forfeiture with respect to drug trafficking offences. A number of States have, or have proposed, similar legislation. The Government has accepted the recommendations of the Costigan Commission and others and has introduced legislation to enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to pursue civil remedies on behalf of the Commonwealth to recover unpaid taxes and other duties owed to the Commonwealth. In addition, the Director will be authorised to take proceedings for the recovery of pecuniary penalties against those involved in narcotics dealings. Repeating recommendations made in the other reports I mentioned earlier, the Costigan Commission also supported the extension of forfeiture legislation from drug trafficking to other areas of crime. In this regard, the final report cited the American racketeer influenced and corrupt organisations legislation, noting the constitutional differences between the United States and the Australian systems. While this specific style of legislation is not appropriate for our situation, the concept of broader forfeiture legislation is being developed. It is supported by the Australian Police Ministers Council. The Special Premiers Conference on 2 April also endorsed the concept of forfeiture of assets in drug trafficking offences. At its meeting on 2 May this year, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General considered model drafting instructions prepared by the Commonwealth. The Standing Committee also agreed to the setting up of a joint working party of officials in conjunction with the Australian Police Ministers Council to enable the matter to be finalised as soon as possible. The aim is to achieve uniform legislation throughout Australia so that the profits of organised crime will not be safe from confiscation in any jurisdiction and all jurisdictions will have an effective weapon to discourage participation in this kind of criminal activity. Drug Trafficking The Costigan Royal Commission was specifically encouraged by this Government from early 1983 to concentrate its energies on drug trafficking. The National Crime Authority is continuing to pursue this fight with vigour and determination. A co-ordinated national response is especially important in the fight against drug trafficking. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), all Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory met in Canberra in a Special Premiers Conference-the drug summit-on 2 April 1985 and agreed to mount a national campaign against drug abuse. The campaign will place a major emphasis on reducing the demand for drugs through education, treatment and rehabilitation programs. The Conference agreed that it was essential that government efforts to combat drug trafficking and to prevent supplies of illicit narcotics coming into the country be intensified. The summit agreed particular attention will be paid to those who control, direct and finance such activities. As I indicated earlier, this is a central theme of this Government's policies on organised crime. Apart from initiatives I have already mentioned, we are providing substantial additional resources-$5.5m over two years-to strengthen the capacity of the Australian Customs Service to interdict drugs entering Australia. In addition, the Customs Service is revising its northern strategy. We had previously introduced revised coastal surveillance arrangements including the Coastal Protection Unit with the Australian Federal Police. We recognise, as did the Premiers Conference, the importance of ensuring adequate surveillance of the Australian coastline. The Commonwealth also announced at the Premiers Conference the intention to create a new offence of sending illicit drugs through the mail, with the Australian Federal Police to have powers to examine suspected mail. Furthermore, the Customs Act is to be amended to clarify powers to detain and search persons concealing drugs internally to bring them into Australia. In consultation with the States, the Commonwealth is developing a model legislation package covering the regulation of the manufacture, distribution and medical use of drugs of dependence, diversion for treatment and penal provisions. The Costigan Commission reaffirmed that the drug problem was a national problem with significant international links. Recognising that a major source of illicit narcotics coming into Australia is the South East Asian area, the Government has committed significant resources to an aid project in Thailand. This project involves approximately $7.2m from the Australian Government, over five years, for computer equipment and automatic data processing personnel for the Thai office of the Narcotics Control Board. Australia's strong commitment to international efforts to combat drug trafficking will continue. We are seeking re-election to the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs. Increased co-operation with other countries-specifically Malaysia-is being actively pursued. The Government is also moving to strengthen our international treaty arrangements-by modernising existing extradition arrangements, including those with Western European states, and securing new agreements with other countries, such as the Philippines, where we do not already have them. We are also giving high priority to concluding mutual assistance treaties with selected countries to extend international co-operation in the pursuit of organised criminals. Conclusion I have outlined the approaches and techniques of the Costigan Commission and the action this Government has taken to ensure these are continued as appropriate. I have also touched on a number of the Commission's recommendations and our response. I now table a schedule outlining all of the recommendations of the Commission and the action taken to date. Two words probably best sum up the public's view of the Costigan Royal Commission's work-'organised crime'. The Opposition has repeatedly tried to accuse the Government of a lack of commitment in fighting organised crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. We ensured the Costigan Commission had appropriate resources-out of a total cost of more than $14m over five years this Government provided $8m in nearly two years. In particular, we increased the Commission's budget from just under $3m in 1982-83 to just under $6m in 1983-84-our first year in office. We have established the National Crime Authority to lead the fight against organised crime. We have established the Director of Public Prosecutions to streamline the prosecutions area and overcome earlier problems. We have substantially increased the resources available to the Australian Federal Police and have instituted a whole host of improvements and measures of assistance in just about every aspect of the fight against crime. But we are not finished yet. We remain committed to ensuring that organised crime is attacked relentlessly in this country with every weapon that a democracy can marshal. I present the following paper: Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union-Ministerial statement, 21 May 1985. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Menzies speaking for a period not exceeding 24 minutes. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(3.20) —At the outset I must thank the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) for his generosity in providing me with a copy of his statement yesterday. He has been more than generous, as would befit his cheery disposition. However, there is little for the Government to be proud of in its response to the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. After a period of seven months gestation, the Government has delivered a very puny infant indeed. It is now seven months since Mr Costigan presented his final report to the Government. It is in itself quite extraordinary that the Government should have taken seven months from the time it received the report to present its considered response. The Government was very keen to receive the Costigan report, or so it said; so keen, in fact, that it cut the Commission off before it had completed its real work. Since then, the Government has given seven months weighty deliberation to the Costigan report. At long last, we now have an opportunity to examine the fruits of that deliberation. Let me say at the outset that the response we have heard today is totally disappointing and entirely inadequate. The Government has, in fact, proceeded no further than its preliminary statement made by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) on 18 December. Who can forget the Attorney's fulsome statement on that date that the Costigan report was 'one of the first priorities' of the Government? We were promised then a detailed response during the autumn sittings. The statement from the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) today is presumably that detailed response but it advances things no further than they were last December. The bulk of the recommendations of the Costigan report have been neither accepted nor rejected by the Government. Most have been confined to the limbo of the Police Ministers Council, the police forces or other bodies for further deliberation. The Government has rejected out of hand the one and only recommendation Mr Costigan made on the National Crime Authority. It has acted on the one and only recommendation he made on the Director of Public Prosecutions, but more than a year after it first received it. The most frequent and common single response given by the Government to a whole host of Costigan recommendations is: 'This recommendation is under consideration by the Government'. If this statement by the Minister is meant to be the Government's answer to the charge that it lacks the commitment to fight organised crime, the answer by any impartial judge must be 'guilty'. The Government's whole response is too late, half-hearted and pathetically weak. What does the Minister rely upon to support his case? I give him credit, in the first place, where it is due: The establishment of the Director of Public Prosecutions; increased expenditure on law enforcement; increased numbers in the Australian Federal Police; the new Customs Service; the new automatic data processing capacity for the Australian Bureau of Criminology; and improved coastal surveillance. All of these are welcome moves and the Government should be congratulated on them. But none of them are Costigan recommendations, and this statement is supposed to be the Government's response to those recommendations. What the Government has done is to reject or defer virtually all of the Costigan recommendations and then dress all of this up with a recital of everything it can find that it can claim credit for, mostly recent inventions, in the field of law enforcement. Where do we go from there? What else is new? What has the Government to show for its labours since it received the succession of Costigan reports and since that lofty promise last December to prepare a detailed response? Very little indeed. The Minister highlights, for example, waterfront crime that must be tackled, he says, on a national basis. But what is his response to this? He has referred the problem to the Police Ministers Council, a complete abrogation of responsibility. Next, the security of air cargo is said to be a problem. The Minister establishes a committee to review this problem. Modern computer technology, we are told, is important in the fight against crime, but the response today is a promise of detailed proposals that will be prepared in the future for the use of the Costigan databank. The importance of tracing the money trail is emphasised but, here again, the response is the ultimate evasion of making any decision at all. A working group of officers has been set up, as recently as 17 April, to examine the Costigan financial recommendations. Presumably nothing was done before then. The use of the taxation system to stamp out big money crime was emphasised by Costigan and accepted by the Government, but there is utter confusion on what the Government will do about it. Costigan recommended a new taxation investigation tribunal and a special taxation investigator. On 18 December the Government announced that Ministers would be making submissions on this matter. The next day the Attorney-General was asked on radio whether the Government would definitely implement the Costigan recommendations for a special tax authority and a port security authority. Replied the Attorney-General: No risk about that. We're going to leave no stone unturned. Yet we are told today that that has all changed. The Government's position now is that it is better to leave the taxation task to existing authorities-and so on and so forth. I will say something about the details of the recommendations and the Government's response shortly. The response by the Government to the Costigan report is a succession of cop-outs, compromises, deferrals and postponements. None of the hard decisions has been made and the Government has failed on this, the first major test of its commitment to fight organised crime. The Costigan report is a remarkable document. It marks the culmination of the most thorough examination of organised crime ever undertaken in Australia. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said, Mr Costigan and his team have made a 'significant contribution to the exposure of the role of organised crime and drug trafficking'. As the Prime Minister also said, Costigan's 'exposure of tax frauds and related tax evasion schemes is a major achievement'. Furthermore, the report destroyed the myth that those who engage in white collar crime are in some senses gentleman criminals. Above all, the Costigan report exposed the inadequacies of our existing criminal investigation and police systems and the need for a new approach to solving the problem of organised crime. Mr Costigan and his team gave a new dimension to criminal investigation, a blueprint for the future. They deserve our gratitude for an excellent job. Yet despite the overwhelming case made out by Mr Costigan, despite the Government's oft repeated commitment to fight organised crime, it has done little of any substance in the last seven months to implement Mr Costigan's recommendations and little of any substance since it came to office to implement his earlier recommendations. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that its inactivity has actively frustrated the authorities in taking positive action to fight organised crime. Let us look now at exactly what the Government's response has been to the Costigan recommendations in the order in which Mr Costigan sets them out in the final volume of his report. I do that because when we look at those recommendations in order we find that, behind the words of the Minister's statement today, the Government has done virtually nothing in making a positive response and in taking positive action on the Costigan recommendations. The first recommendation relates to the law relating to perjury. Mr Costigan recommended that the Royal Commissions Act be amended so as to delete the requirement that the false answer has to be shown to be material to the inquiry. The good sense behind this recommendation is obvious. The only test of whether a witness before a royal commission has committed perjury should be whether he has lied. The test should not be a piece of lawyer's sophistry, whether the lying answer he gave was material or relevant to the inquiry. The Opposition parties are committed to legislating to implement this recommendation. What is the Government's response? After seven months we are told that the recommendation is 'being considered'. Mr Costigan's second recommendation on perjury was that the Royal Commissions Act be amended so as not to exclude the application of State laws relating to perjury where a joint Commonwealth and State royal commission is being conducted. This amendment will mean simply that a proven liar before a royal commission can be convicted under State perjury law, as he should be. It is so obvious that there should be an effective and all embracing perjury law to deter lying witnesses that it is not necessary to argue further in support of this recommendation. What is the Government's response to this second recommendation? Again, after seven months, the response is that the recommendation is 'being considered'. The third recommendation related to the National Crime Authority. Mr Costigan recommended that the Government should repeal the provisions it put into the National Crime Authority Act requiring a reference being granted by the Inter-Governmental Committee to the National Crime Authority and requiring that reference to be attached to every summons that the Authority issues. The Government rejected the first part of this recommendation in the Attorney-General's statement of 18 December. Indeed, from the day it first imposed this shackle on the National Crime Authority, the Government has refused to lift it and continues to restrict those matters that can be investigated by the Authority using its coercive powers. This restriction means in effect that any one State representative on the Inter-Governmental Committee can prevent the National Crime Authority from using its coercive powers to investigate any aspect of organised crime. This is a ludicrous restriction on the powers of the National Crime Authority and guarantees that it remains essentially subject to political control. This is the only recommendation made by Mr Costigan on the National Crime Authority and the Government has rejected it. The Government trumpets the establishment of the National Crime Authority as its great achievement which will 'lead', as the Minister puts it, 'the fight against organised crime'. Yet the Government has rejected the only recommendation that Costigan made to give the NCA the strength and independence that it clearly needs. The government should change its attitude on this and remove the requirement for a reference by the Inter-Governmental Committee, as Mr Costigan recommended. The Opposition accepts the recommendation and will legislate to remove this need for a formal reference and to remove from the NCA the political control to which it is presently subject. The same applies to the requirement for the National Crime Authority to attach a copy of the reference to every summons that it issues. We have consistently argued against this requirement. Surely, now that we have seen the system in practice, it can be seen that the requirement should be removed. It should be removed and the Opposition will legislate to that effect when it gets the opportunity. But the situation is that we have the ludicrous workings of the National Crime Authority in relation to this matter today because of the foolish requirement for a reference from the Inter-Governmental Committee and a copy of the reference to be attached to summonses. The fourth recommendation relates to the database. Mr Costigan recommended that his Commission's database should be provided to the Australian Federal Police, the Victoria Police and the Victorian corporate affairs commissioner. The Government's response today to this is that the National Crime Authority is examining the matter. It is another unresolved recommendation; another deferred decision to add to a growing list. Again, it is a deferred decision after the Government had seven months in which to consider the recommendation. Fifthly, there are the guidelines for pro-active law enforcement. Mr Costigan recommended that there be a study made of guidelines to be issued to law enforcement agencies for the selection of targets for pro-active law enforcement and that they should be issued as guidelines for the State and Federal police. What is the Government's response to this recommendation? We are told that there are to be consultations about it. There is another electrifying response-the matter is actually to be discussed at the Australian Police Ministers Council later this month. No doubt Australia's organised criminals will quiver at such a devastating response from the Government. Sixthly is the matter of civil proceedings brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr Costigan recommended that the director of Public Prosecutions be empowered to initiate civil actions on behalf of the Commonwealth, freed of the shackles imposed on him when the Government set up his office. We all know the sorry history of this recommendation. The only conclusion anyone can reach is that the Government was very loathe to legislate to bring about this reform and did so only when the Opposition gave notice of its intention to introduce a private member's Bill on the same subject. The Government has had this recommendation before it from Costigan, Gyles, Temby and Redlich and did nothing about it at all until it was galvanised into action by the Opposition. Seventhly, we have the labour management reporting and disclosing Act. Mr Costigan recommended that there should be an Act similar to the American labour management reporting and disclosing Act to counteract extortion by trade unions. The Opposition again was able to say before the election that we would legislate to implement this recommendation. The recommendation was made necessary by the ugly side of unionism revealed for all to see by the thuggery and utter corruption of the Painters and Dockers Union. We suppose that it would be too much to expect this Government to take action against union thuggery, and the Government's response shows clearly just how intimidated it is by union pressure. Indeed, as we have seen from the Queensland blockade, this Government will do nothing to stop union terrorism, will do nothing to enforce the law against boycotts and will do nothing even to require its own employees or the employees of its statutory corporations to comply with the law. Why then should we expect a positive and strong response from the Government on this recommendation? We did not expect one and we did not receive one. The Government's response, again after seven months of weighty deliberation, is that the matter is under examination by the Government. The eighth recommendation related to union office bearers. Mr Costigan recommended laws prohibiting a person from holding office in a union for five years after conviction for an indictable offence and that the law should imitate the existing provisions prohibiting such persons from holding office in companies. We accept the recommendation. What possible argument is there against it? What is the Government's response? After seven months the Government has said that it will raise the matter with State Ministers. But, lest it be thought that the Government will actually talk about it, we are disabused of any such wild notion by the further response that it will be raised only with a view to discussing it at the next meeting of labour Ministers. In relation to racketeering Mr Costigan recommended that there should be enacted laws similar to the American racketeer and influenced and corrupt organisations statute. What is the Government's response? After seven months we are told that a joint working party has actually been established to consider the recommendation-an astounding response. I refer to the Port Security Authority. Mr Costigan recommended the establishment of a port security authority as an intelligence gathering and dissemination agency to upgrade waterfront security. But the Government has responded by referring the proposal to the Australian Police Ministers Council in liaison with the Australian Transport Advisory Council. There has been no positive response. We are told simply that it will be considered. That is again a feeble response after seven months. Illegal bookmaking had the spotlight put on it by the Costigan Royal Commission but again the Government is not prepared to refer this matter to the National Crime Authority, as Costigan recommended. With respect to the recommendation on the co-ordination of intelligence on illegal bookmaking the Government's response guarantees that it will continue on its merry path of indecision, for we are told simply that the conference of State racing and police Ministers has resolved to refer the matter to the Australian Police Ministers Council for consideration. Again after seven months there has been no decision, simply more consideration. The same decision has been taken with respect to Telecom Australia's subscriber call record printer machine facility which enables the origin of telephone calls to be located. Mr Costigan recommended that the use of that equipment should be granted to law enforcement agencies. We are told that the Government is actually examining the wider use of this facility. But we have to wait for another day and almost certainly for another government to see any action on it. I turn to taxation tribunals. Mr Costigan recommended the establishment of a taxation investigation tribunal and a taxation investigation office. The Government has rejected these new facilities on the curious ground that they would duplicate existing agencies. This must surely be, especially after seven months, the ultimate non sequitur, as the whole basis of Mr Costigan's recommendations for the establishment of these bodies was that existing agencies had proved inadequate. Mr Costigan recommended further that the Commonwealth Crimes Act be amended to make it an offence to fail to report knowledge or information of criminal offences punishable by imprisonment for three years or more. What has happened to this recommendation? Again after seven months it has been referred to Mr Justice Watson for consideration-anything, of course, but a positive decision. I turn to bankruptcy and corporate affairs administration. As far as bankruptcy is concerned, the Government has given its tried and trusted response that the recommendation of Mr Costigan for improving investigatory techniques in this area is being considered by the Government. The Attorney-General, we are told, is considering Mr Costigan's recommendation that significant amendments to the Bankruptcy Act should be made. Again after seven months we are told nothing more than that the Attorney-General is examining it. The Government has rejected-we maintain that it made the wrong decision-a proposal to establish a new royal commission into matters which were the subject of volume 7 of the report. One can go on and on. Not only with respect to the final report of Mr Costigan but also with respect to the interim reports the comment can be made that the Government has found itself quite unable to bring itself to make positive decisions on so many of these recommendations made by Mr Costigan. There must be no other government which has been so unable to muster enough conviction to say yes or no to the recommendations of a royal commission but which has been as ready as this Government to take refuge in indecision. One can go through the recommendations in interim reports Nos. 4 and 5 in respect of which we are again told that they are under consideration by the Government. We are told that other recommendations are still under consideration by the Government, when the report has been held by the Government for over a year. The ultimate insult to the intelligence is the response to the recommendations made by Mr Costigan for tightening up procedures on bank accounts, false statements, transferring funds abroad and the retention of banking records. What has the Government done over the last seven months on this series of recommendations? Believe it or not, as recently as 17 April, only four weeks ago, the Government set up a working party of officials actually to examine those recommendations. It did nothing about this matter until 17 April when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) issued his statement to the effect that a working group of officials would be set up to examine those recommendations-a decision which can be described only, with that great Australian expression, as the ultimate cop-out of responsibility. There are further recommendations on tax clearance certificates. We are told that these also, to use the time-honoured phrase studded through the whole of this attachment to the Minister's statement, are under consideration by the Government. Accordingly, the House can come to no conclusion other than that the Government has done nothing since December in advancing the recommendations of the Costigan Royal Commission and that it has avoided decisions by a cowardly use of committees and working groups and promises of further consideration which will probably never take place. Furthermore, the Government has shown that it does not have the courage to take any of the hard decisions needed to fight organised crime. The Government should be condemned for the thoroughly inadequate statement delivered by the Minister today. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentations as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Charles,Mrs Child,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawke,Mr Hawker,Mr Howe,Mr Kent,Mr Macphee and Dr Theophanous. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Governments failure to act to correct the anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions bring to its notice and due to have effect from the 21 March, 1985 the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners, and calls upon the Australian Democrats to support Senator Messner's Bill for the abolition of the Assets Test. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the passage of the Social Security and Repatriation Assets Test Abolition Bill to repeal the Labor Governments iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Mr Drummond and Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the USA by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and indiscriminate slaughter. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling,Mr MacKellar and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small enterprises finally sell these assets are not ''windfall gains'', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr and Mr Cadman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for 'Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to: intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament. remove U.S. bases from Australian soil. keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mrs Child and Mr Hollis. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that there is a need to end the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery and the other anomalies existing in sales tax law. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this tax should be replaced by a broad-based consumption tax with a uniform ad valorem rate, without any exemptions whatsoever. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- The financial plight of grape producers, their families and their respective local communities. Your Petitioners therefore pray that the Government Act now during the 1985-86 Budget considerations to: remove the sales tax placed on all Australian produced wines. restrict the ease with which wines produced in E.E.C. countries have access to the Australian market place. provide funds for the establishment of an institution to administer the needs of the grape producing industry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Member of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- The financial plight of grape producers, their families and their respective local communities. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that-the Government act now during the 1985-86 budget considerations to: remove the sales tax impost on all Australian produced wine make funds available for the establishment of an institution to administer the restructuring of the grape producing industry place revenue raising imposts on all imported wine and wine spirit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and Member of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the House- That we should co-operate with America to prevent a nuclear war. That we should have a stronger alliance with America pursuing a common goal of sensible and controlled nuclear arms development. That we should have a referendum to establish the desire of the Australian people to have a more definite and secure commitment in our defence relationship with America. That the referendum should read- That Australia maintain and strengthen its treaties with the United States of America even though that may result in separate and different agreements between the U.S., New Zealand and Australia. Your petitioners therefore request that the above referendum be taken to the Australian people to vote on. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Member of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. The richest 2000 people own as much as the poorest 2 1/4 million. It is a travesty in these circumstances that 2 million people are living in poverty in this country (Bob Hawke 11.7.81 Sydney Morning Herald) The present provision of Social Benefit is absolutely inadequate, locking recipients into poverty (including 800,000 children of those on social welfare pensions or benefits). To enable all Australians to share in the wealth of their country we call on the Australian Government in the forthcoming taxation reform to 1. Raise the tax threshold to $10,000 2. Double the permissible income ($30 to $60) plus indexation. 3. All pensions and benefits to be raised to 30% of the male average weekly earnings and indexed to C.P.I. 4. Full standard pension to be paid on an individual basis to eliminate the discrimination against married couples currently losing $30 per week. Furthermore we strongly oppose the introduction of a broad based indirect tax. Thereby shifting the tax burden onto those dependent on social welfare and low income earners, further increasing their poverty while allowing continuation of high income earners and tax avoiders to pay little or no tax. by Mr Charles. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: 1. We affirm our belief that, in Jesus Christ, human sexuality is placed in the context of mutual loving relationships and therefore Christians reject any form of pornography, which depicts violence against adults and/or children and the economic, physical and spiritual exploitation which is basic to hardcore pornography. 2. We urge the Parliament to prohibit the importation or production of this kind of pornography. 3. We request the Parliament to continue a public inquiry during 1985 to report on the operation of regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to video tapes and video discs which have been refused classification or classified 'X' by the Film Censorship Board. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That, in arid areas people die of thirst on roads and highways. The Australian Bureau of Statistics mentions that-In 1980: 12 died of thirst, 11 died of heat. In 1981: 11 died of thirst, 4 died of heat. In 1982: 6 died of thirst, 20 died of heat. The newspapers sometimes relate these incidents but generally they are overlooked because it is admitted that the motorists use these roads at their own responsibility. Right now when their motor car breaks down, the motorists and their children have no other alternative if no assistance is given them in time but to die of thirst or heat after his provision of water for the trip and break-down have exhausted. The purpose of this petition is to bring to an end these barbarous conditions. Water must be supplied or collected at strategic points to prevent people dying of thirst and heat on the roads and highways. We support this petition so that the motorist finds within a reasonable walking distance on the roadside the complement of water he needs to save his family from death. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. We are completely dissatisfied with the pricing policy of petrol in this country. 2. We are aware that it has an adverse effect on the living standards of the average wage earner of this country. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that the price of petrol be reduced by 3c a litre in line with a commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Goodluck. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: Prior to the election in 1983, 1. In response to a question sent to him from the Ethnic Communities Council of N.S.W., Mr Hawke, as leader of the Labor Party, promised he would support a substantial increase in the number of English-as-a-second-language-teachers in schools to the extent of $1.7 million, to give ethnic schools an increase from the present $30 to $45 per pupil. 2. Further, at a pre-election public meeting both Mr Hawke and Senator Ryan repeated this promise. 3. We believe that Mr Hawke as Prime Minister should now fulfil both these promises to the ethnic communities. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians strongly support the reintroduction of compulsory National Service. 2. That the overwhelming majority of Australians believe that the options of military and Civil National Service ought to be available. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Forthwith pass Commonwealth Legislation for the reintroduction of compulsory National Service. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives should: Not adopt the X Classification for films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: A. Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. B. Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertilizer in revitalising impoverished soils; C. Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian Crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher and Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact upon the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned residents in South Australia showeth: 1. That we are concerned with the gross lack of good television reception in Pinnaroo and adjacent areas. 2. That at present, the privately owned Television Towers, which range up to 30 metres in height, are not sufficient to achieve a satisfactory Commercial Television picture. 3. That the currently received Commercial Television service is grossly inferior compared to the Metropolitan and near Metropolitan areas. 4. That the most reliable television service is only received from ABC Regional Service based at Loxton which is 110km from the Pinnaroo Township. 5. That the residents of Pinnaroo and the adjoining areas consider that we are disadvantaged as we do not receive a clear Commercial Television Reception. Your Petitioner therefore pray that the Honourable House will ensure that the Department of Communications will upgrade the Commercial Television reception in Pinnaroo and in the adjacent areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of Tasmania respectfully show: (a) Last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads (b) Alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths (c) Alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol (d) Alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain Dairy Farmers, citizens of Australia, electors of the Division of Murray, shows-grave concern over their future due to their present and likely future financial plight. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government ban imports of dairy products into Australia forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lloyd. Petitions received. Assent reported. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The confusing effect of Government policies on the confidence and viability of the small business sector. 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 TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.49) —We are debating today a definite matter of public importance, namely: The confusing effect of Government policies on the confidence and viability of the small business sector. Small business is a hazardous vocation. The Government's latest report 'The Small Business Review 1984', in referring to the closure of small business, says: These estimates suggest an annual closure rate of approximately 4 per cent to 6 per cent. The main reason, given by firms themselves, for the closure was failure to operate profitably. This has not deterred over 660,000 small business people from entering small businesses to create 50 per cent of private sector employment and 40 per cent of industry value added. Between 1978 and 1982 large employers in Australia shed 288,500 jobs, whereas small employers created 310,000 jobs. In America the figures were 1 1/2 million and 6 1/2 million jobs respectively. There are many ingredients for a successful small business, but none is more important than stable government policy and action. Business is not about making decisions on the run. Business is not about arriving in Brussels with a clear cut policy for investment to which one has categorically committed oneself to one's business colleagues and then changing one's mind overnight. Business, small and large, requires long term decisions, decisions that must be taken within the knowledge of a stable policy climate. Table 5.1 of the report 'The Small Business Review 1984' shows that the second highest cause of bankruptcy is economic conditions affecting industry and includes increases in charges and other overhead expenses. Picture, then, the confidence of someone with small business intentions during the lead up to the 1983 election and soon after when he heard statements such as: 'Small businessmen would no longer pay tax on profits re-invested in their companies if the ALP were elected', the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hawke, said yesterday. I quote again: It deprives them of their own funds when most are in dire need of finance to fund their growth. That was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald of 14 February 1983. Division 7 taxes are a major inhibition to small business growth. Business potential would expand dramatically if they were removed. That statement, like many others, no doubt encouraged believers to go and invest because they thought they would be able to have these opportunities promised to them by the then Leader of the Opposition. In July 1984 the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia newsletter, said: We are determined to do all we can to help small business realise its enormous potential. So there we are. Small businessmen have been convinced; they have invested their hard earned savings in a business. The Prime Minister they can trust has told them that they have his personal support. The trap is closed; they are in. Then one day, while gulping down a sandwich in one's 10-minute lunch break, one sees the Courier-Mail of 30 August 1984 and reads: The Federal Treasurer, Mr Keating, yesterday lashed small business in Australia and said it was time it stopped acting 'like a race apart'. 'It's time they stopped asking for subsidies, subsidies they are not going to get', he said. Then that even more powerful influence over the Labor Government, Bill Kelty of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, told a discussion group consisting of former Communist Party members and current Australian Labor Party members, predominantly of the left wing: Small businesses that bleat about the taxation system don't pay tax in reality. What they are able to do is by and large avoid their responsibility. The honeymoon for small business had lasted approximately six weeks. Further, Kelty ignores the huge burden of up front taxes paid by such businesses. The taxes on enterprise are the taxes levied by all levels of government and could be best equated with an employee being obliged to pay, say, $5 a day for the privilege of entering a work place where his wages were not even guaranteed. Small businessmen are locked in. They believed the Government. The MX missile U-turn, which so shattered the confidence of the international business community, had not yet occurred. They had no reason to distrust this Government. When business borrows money it usually plans to owe if for some years. It includes in its budget projections the charges for borrowing that money. It does it, in this day and age, with the full knowledge that there is no such thing as a fixed interest rate. To budget for a profit one must come to a judgment as to what interest rate movements are likely to occur in the future. This judgment is integral to one's decision as to whether one can borrow the money or not. As the Government's business review tells us, the future stability of one's business relies on that decision. Where better to seek advice to help one in this judgment? Who better indeed than the Treasurer of our nation? Who better than this man who has been touted by his political supporters as the world's best Treasurer? If the unsophisticated small businessman cannot trust his judgment, who can he trust? In November 1984, when small businessmen were confronting interest rates of 14 per cent-they were high but tolerable-the Treasurer (Mr Keating) told them: I think there is an interest rate step fall ahead for Australia and its interest rate structure generally through 1985. The Treasurer told them that they could only anticipate a fall in interest rates-invest. If that was not enough, that other self-proclaimed master of economic theory and trust me dogma, the Prime Minister, reinforced that view when he said in the Age on 21 November 1984: What I can be certain about is that there will be a continued downwards movement in interest rates. That was the rhetoric. What of the reality? As I stand in this Parliament today, that trusting small businessman is confronted with rapidly rising interest rates of a minimum cost of 17 per cent and that is only if he is an A-grade risk. That businessman is now in big trouble. If he borrowed $100,000 at that time his budget projection has deteriorated by $3,000 per annum. If he borrowed $200,000 he has to consider a junior staff retrenchment, if he has any staff to retrench. But he should not worry to much. On 11 April this year the Prime Minister was still assuring him that there would be a lowering of interest rates. Tax is a proper cost to business. Many taxes are imposed whether a profit is made or not. A business budget must include such charges as payroll tax, the tax component of fuel consumption and council and State rates and charges. The ability to retain one's profits without tax penalty, one's rights to share one's income with one's family and thus reduce the overall tax burden and, above all, to know that having made full and true disclosure, the money one pays the Commissioner of Taxation is the final claim he will make upon one for that year of income are most important to one's business success. Small business cannot create reserves for the Commissioner to change his mind, as is occurring under this Government. State and local government taxes and charges are very much affected by Federal government policy. As we have seen in the last two days, this Government is breaking all its promises to those two levels of government. No longer can business people budget with certainty regarding the up front charges of which State payroll tax is the biggest burden and the most likely to arise. The hotel industry traditionally pays high council rates. Heaven help the new hotelier who purchased his business on tight finance believing this Government's promise that it would maintain the present formula for local government funding. What does the future hold for small business in regard to its tax paying and tax collection liabilities? The answer is: We do not know. In a speech the other day I referred to the day of tax confusion. That day is still with us. Despite the fact that the Cabinet apparently arrived at a 'preferred position' on taxation yesterday, the Treasurer has gone rushing off to Melbourne to sell his case to a reluctant ACTU. The Government has reserved the radically different Walsh proposals as a fall back position. That is the position for today. What will it be for tomorrow? We do not know. We can take our pick. We can take our pick of retail taxes. We can have higher taxes, death duties and a few others. The honourable member for Melbourne, Mr Hand, says that any sort of increase will do just as long as it is a tax on the wealthy. All in all, today's decision is tomorrow's indecision and the next day's backdown. That is the history. That is what the small businessman has to put up with in attempting to make his business decisions and project his business forward. All of this creates the sorts of circumstances in which we are asking ourselves: Will we have a retail tax; will we not? The businessman contemplating a new cash register or computer must wait a little longer until Simon says what direction our new tax policy will take and whether he needs to include software facilities to calculate a consumption tax. He is still to discover whether he can afford to fund an avaricious policy that will require him to pay the consumption tax before he receives it. He does not yet know how much he will have to borrow from his bank to do that. Certainly, he has no idea, in the environment created in recent times, as to whether the interest rate will be one he can afford. Small business cannot take decisions on its business structure because it does not know whether there will be a capital gains tax or estate duties. If the Australian Council of Trade Unions has its way, we can bet there will be. The unions are the only organisations which are getting first-hand information. For the Government, the small business person can wait; after all, he is unlikely ever to become a union member. It is worth stating that the taxes small business fear most are capital gains and estate taxes. As I have previously stated, the tax on property as a result of rates and State government charges already represents $4,700m of our total tax burden. Australia is the fourth highest taxer of property among countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and that is enough. Small business seldom achieves any level of disposable income for a proprietor. Small business consumes profit. There is never any uniformity between balance sheet profit and bank statement surplus. The small businessman, taxed in every direction during his operating life, has only one chance to gain disposable income-that is, when he sells his business. If that return is to be taxed also what return incentive remains for him? I am pleased that Opposition policy rejects capital gains taxes and estate duties, probate or whatever one chooses to call them. I ask honourable members to picture a young and energetic person deciding to enter business as a trucking operator in 1983. At that time fuel represented 35 per cent of his operating cost and cost him 44c a litre. If that person trusted the statement made by the Prime Minister in his election speech of 1983 he could have expected a reduction of 3c per litre on that price. What has happened? What has this Government done to him? It has rapidly increased his fuel price by every conceivable means. It has imposed a higher excise, made parity pricing decisions and removed the fuel freight subsidy. The price of a litre of fuel today is approximately 58c, and higher in country areas. As the Professional Transport Drivers Association of Western Australia Inc., told the Treasurer in March 1985, the professional truck driver's income has increased by $7,500 since 1983 and his fuel and tyre costs alone have increased by $9,747. That represents a trading loss of $2,200. The position has deteriorated by 5c per litre since then, representing an additional $6,000 cost. How can people make business decisions when a government so blatantly states one policy and practises another? The Government, in presenting its business action program in 1983, made in excess of 20 specific promises to small business. So far, the Government has effectively met two promises; both of those have increased the size of the Canberra bureaucracy. The Government did not promise an increased tax burden yet the introduction of the recent sales tax legislation will substantially widen the scope of government tax collectors. Small business needs stability. Small business must be able to plan at least a few years in advance. Small business must be able to trust the statements of government. If the Government does not know where it is going it should not say that it does. More importantly, the Government should not give advice that is patently wrong just because it suits it politically. I say to the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) before he rises not to give us a history lesson either. Small business wants to know what the Government is going to do to meet the other 18 promises-all the important ones. These promises deal with division 7 tax and all the things small business wants. The Government is not delivering and has small business totally confused. I sincerely hope that before the Minister has finished today he will have done something to relieve that confusion. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.04) —Inevitably I begin with a history lesson. The most extraordinary first point of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) was, in referring to the 1984 Small Business Review report, to protest that small business closures ran at between 4 and 6 per cent. He referred to paragraph 5.1. The honourable member is absolutely correct. However, he neglected to mention that this was the closure rate between the years 1973 and 1978-one and half years under Labor and the later years of which were under the Liberals. He is not talking about a contemporary situation, but one of some years ago. I reject the absurd notion that Government policies have had a confusing effect on the confidence and viability of the small business sector. We recognise the importance of this vital sector. As the honourable member said, the 660,000 small business firms contribute more than 50 per cent of private employment and 40 per cent of value added. The most important thing for small business is that the Government gets the economic fundamentals right. We have done that with an unprecedented and dramatic economic recovery in Australia. In 1982 non-farm gross domestic product growth was 0.9 per cent. In 1983 it was 2.6 per cent. In 1984 it was 5.1 per cent. Two years of Labor Government economic growth has equalled a total of seven years of Fraser Government growth. This is something that will be further taken up by my colleague the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe). Small business has shared in that recovery. In the national accounts, unincorporated business income for the 1982-83 financial year fell by $1 billion. In 1983-84 it increased by $4 billion. Profits of incorporated enterprises have risen sharply also. In the calendar year 1982 company profits fell by 3.5 per cent to $16.231 billion. In the calendar year 1983 company profits rose 23.2. per cent to $19.997 billion. In the calendar year 1984 company profits rose another 25.1 per cent to just over $25 billion. If this is regarded as the kind of instability that is destabilising the small business sector, the honourable member has not made a very strong case. These are the fundamentals for small business and, indeed, all business. Real unit labour costs have returned to the levels of the late 1960s and the early 1970s. They are lower than they were at any time under the Fraser Government. The profit share of GDP has been restored to 15 per cent compared with 12.2 per cent in the last six months of 1982. A particularly strong factor of this Government's record, very closely attributable to the success of the prices and incomes accord, is that industrial disputation is at its lowest level since the late 1960s. It is very much lower than the lowest year of the Fraser Government. These are the benefits of our accord with the trade union movement. We have delivered what the previous Government could not-wage restraint during a recovery. That has resulted in more growth, more jobs and more profits for all types of business. Further evidence of recovery can be seen from recent bankruptcy statistics which reveal that in 1984 the number of bankruptcies in Australia fell by 10 per cent. I will just mention other moves which assisted small business. Perhaps the most important is financial deregulation. Small business has been a very big gainer from our moves to relax financial control-a change which the Liberal Party of Australia, although it was part of its economic policy, never had the guts to make. Just the other day the Government announced further deregulation of bank interest rates, removing controls on loans of less than $100,000, which were very widely welcomed by the small business sector. The honourable member for O'Connor talked about the Opposition's commitment to the free market. However, the honourable member's party is very much inclined towards regulation. There were special measures for business contained in the last Budget. For example, depreciation allowances for non-residential building have been increased, companies can transfer losses in a group, general mining exploration is deductible against income from any source. Predictably the kinds of things the honourable member for O'Connor was complaining about were interest rates and taxation. Obviously we are at a turning point in the taxation history of this country. This is a government which believes in open government with full disclosure and full involvement of all levels of the Australian community, for example, the Economic Planning Advisory Council, the Business Council of Australia, small business groups and the trade union movement-right across the board. The taxation summit will contain wide-ranging community representation. That is characteristic of a government believing in the open processes of discussion and attempting to reach concession. Given the supposed commitment of the honourable member for O'Connor to the free market, I thought the most extraordinary contribution he made was on interest rates. He spoke as if interest rates could be absolutely divorced from the international economy. Is the honourable member suggesting that we should cut ourselves off from the rest of the world in the way that Muldoon did in the last months of his Government in New Zealand? Inevitably Australia will reflect international interest rates in our local interest rates. Anything the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has said about interest rates always has to be read subject to the caveat: 'Depending on what happens with international market forces and international interest rates'. These will be beyond the control of any national economy. The honourable member for O'Connor spoke about the action programs of the Government for small business. He said that very few of the Government's promises have been fulfilled. I deny that categorically. Mr O'Keefe —Rubbish! Mr BARRY JONES —I hope not. Let me point out the Government's commitments and what has happened. There was a promise to create a small business division. We have created two small business branches in place of one. We said that we would reform the Small Business Advisory Council. We did that in April 1984. We said that we would encourage State governments to establish small business development corporations. All State governments have now established specific machinery to provide counselling and advice to small business, something that is very necessary. We said that we would make the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia more responsive to small business needs and that we would allow it to provide equity finance. It now has that expanded role. We said that we would expand the capital base of the Commonwealth Development Bank. That proved not to be necessary because its capital assets rates now compare favourably with those of other trading banks. We said that we would ease constraints on the Commonwealth Development Bank's capacity to borrow. Recently the Government decided that individual Commonwealth Development Bank borrowings will no longer require the approval of the Treasurer. The Australian Industry Development Corporation has had its charter expanded. There has been a dramatic increase in its capacity to borrow. I can testify from my own experience that it has taken a very keen and involved interest in the development of some high technology areas. I want to make a couple of other observations about taxation and then concentrate for a few minutes on two particularly successful small business areas under this Government. The Small Business Advisory Council has put a submission on tax to the Economic Planning Advisory Council and has been invited to participate in the tax summit. The Australian Small Business Association has also made a submission. Small business is represented on EPAC by Don Gibbons, the Executive Director of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. Both ASBA and COSBOA will be represented at the summit. COSBOA was also represented at the National Economic Summit in 1983. There has been very close liaison with small business and with personal involvement by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, the Treasurer, and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The Small Business Council has been very active in providing comments and suggestions on a variety of policy issues. There are two areas of particular significance which illustrate very clearly how effectively this Government has assisted the development of small business. One area is high technology and the other is tourism. The greatest area of trade growth internationally in the past 15 years has been in what, to use the jargon, are now called ETMs, elaborately transformed manufactures-that is, high technology, high value added goods. The Government has done a tremendous amount to try to encourage this kind of development by, firstly, the provision of financial incentives, partly through the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board, which has had its capacity enlarged significantly in the last two and a half years, and partly in the provision of capital through the Australian Industry Development Corporation and management investment companies; and secondly, by the provision of services overseas, for example, by the Department of Trade with trade commissioners, who, I think, are now much more susceptible to the needs of small business. Once there was very heavy emphasis on the selling of high bulk, low value-added staples. Now there is, quite correctly, more emphasis on production in the cities. There are also very important non-financial measures, which create an economic climate conducive to development. Austek Microsystem Pty Ltd and Vapocure International Pty Ltd, which are perhaps the two star performers, are examples of firms not directly reliant on funding from Commonwealth lending bodies. They have not relied on tax advantages from the MICs, for example. In the last couple of years we have had the development of nearly 1,000 software companies in Australia, many of them now exporting. There are problems-it would be foolish to deny it-but they do not lie with government; they lie within the private sector. There is a basic hesitancy about capital formation. There is, I regret to say, a lack of entrepreneural tradition in this country. There is a historical dependence on overseas ideas and products. This is illustrated by the deplorable decline in private sector expenditure on research and development investment, something that honourable members would have heard me talk about a good deal in the past. One of the advantages of the Espie High Technology Financing Committee report, which led to the development of management investment companies, was that it recommended measures designed to encourage private investment in high technology industries, particularly to create private investment companies which would invest in high technology businesses. In 1983 the Federal Government announced a program which followed the Espie report. Mr Jacobi —You know more than anybody else on that. Mr BARRY JONES —I am very glad that we did it. It was an opportunity we could not afford to lose. By the end of 1984, 10 licences had been granted with a total capital value of around $80m. The small business report quoted by the honourable member for O'Connor indicated that MICs had a significant effect on the flow of capital towards new enterprises. MICs had a triggering effect, helping to stimulate interest in related areas. I also want to mention tourism. The tourist industry, which is one with which the honourable member for O'Connor has had a personal link, stands out as an area which has the potential to be the largest single employment sector in the economy, if it has not reached that already. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) is similarly placed. Tourism is a classic example of small business. The tourist industry encompasses all of those businesses which directly supply goods or services that meet the needs of travellers. The Bureau of Industry Economics estimates that tourism contributes $7 billion of our gross domestic product. It is by nature decentralised and offers a wide range of employment opportunities. When has there ever been a government that has done anything remotely like what has been done by this Government, especially under the outstanding Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, first of all to bring about a dramatic increase in the number of people touring domestically and to bring overseas tourists here as well-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(4.19) —If there were any lingering elements of trust in this Government's commitment to small business they have been well and truly dispensed with following the dissertation of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) to this chamber. The Minister has again reaffirmed this Government's total commitment to monopolism. He has reaffirmed its commitment to big government and big unions. The Minister has failed to address the specific concerns of small businesses over a whole range of economic matters, whether they be taxation, wages, regulations, labour on-costs, competitiveness, or specific matters such as the Trade Practices Act. Yet this Minister, in sheer humbug and in a dishonest way, seeks to reassure small business that firstly, this Government has its interests at heart and, secondly, that it is proceeding down an orderly, predictable path. I and the other members of the Opposition reject both those contentions. To pick up one aspect of the Minister's speech, I refer to the laudatory praise of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) and the efforts made for the small business orientated tourist industry. It will perhaps come as a surprise to the Minister to know that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has desperately failed the tourist industry and all the small businesses thus incorporated. We know that because the tourism industry was previously included in the export market development grants scheme which, as honourable members would be aware, has done a great deal to stimulate the tourist industry. The mini-Budget of 14 May has removed tourism from the EMDGS. In doing so, the Minister stated: 'I will bring forth a package of direct assistance measures to the industry to compensate-and I repeat, to compensate-for the loss of the export market development grants scheme'. That package has not been presented to either the industry or this Parliament. In fact, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism is still calling for submissions from the industry. The industry has no idea of the rules of any replacement scheme and it is not possible for the industry to plan ahead. That export market development grants scheme was worth $9m to the tourism industry annually. If the scheme to be introduced eventually by the Minister-and we are working on the assumption that the Minister will be as good as his word-does not provide for a replacement $9m in assistance, he will have failed the industry completely. The Minister for Science, who is at the table, has again recited the classic economic and perhaps even social theory of this Government and that is that monopolies, big business or big unions have right of way. The Minister should try reassuring the many small business people of this country of the economic well-being which he so loudly proclaimed in the Parliament today. It is humbug, Minister. Get out amongst them and realise that taxation rates, centralised wage fixing and on-labour costs are driving a great many businesses out of their field or else into bankruptcy. Moreover, there has to be a clear statement from this Government as to the commitment to the concept of profit and reinvestment. We are still waiting for that statement. Looking at some of the specific concerns of small business, in taxation we know, of course, that there is a glad bag of proposals circulating under the pompous title of a white paper, which is yet to surface, if the Minister will excuse me, from the bottom of the harbour. The fact is that we have the left wing, the Centre Unity, the Centre Left, the right wing and the Independents even all having their say, but having their say independently of consultation with small business. When are we going to hear this fabled White Paper, which shall emerge from the skies, and discuss Division 7 taxation? Business needs access to all its funds if it is to expand. Moreover, the spectre of capital gains tax or some sort of wealth tax hangs heavily over small business and it is an indisputable fact that this is discouraging further investment and discouraging the notion of entrepreneurship which I, together with my colleagues, believe has been the base zone for private enterprise in this country. Also in relation to taxation, we have the problem that the investment allowance of 18 per cent will be abolished from 30 June-abolished by a government which claims to be committed totally to small business. Another problem for small business is tax which has to be paid by the seventh day of the following month. Failure to pay on the exact date will result in a 20 per cent penalty interest rate. That does not in any way correlate to the penalty imposed on government for its late payments or its taxation refunds. Looking now at interest rates, the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) clearly outlined the unquestioned problem that small business has when interest rates remain as high as they do at present. Dr Harry Edwards —The highest for 50 years. Mr McGAURAN —Indeed, they are the highest real interest rates for 50 years. It has to be remembered that small business does not have the same access to capital or to finance when making new investments or setting up business. Its access is extremely limited and yet it is subject to the same regulation as big business. Mr Tim Fischer —Especially decentralised small business. Mr McGAURAN —This is especially so of decentralised small business, as the honourable member for Farrer reminds me. Let us now look at the matter of wages. There is not a small businessman in this country who is not suffering under the impost of a centralised, highly structured labour system. We only have to talk with the representatives of small business groups or with small businessmen themselves to know that they are unable to generate profits and thereby make investments resulting in increased employment. This is due to the centralised wage fixing system in pricing labour out of the market. Small businessmen must pay the same wage increases and in many cases the same conditions of work as does big business. It is delving into the realms of the ridiculous to expect a small manufacturing firm to pay the same quarterly increases that a multinational or a large corporation pays. I have yet to hear one member of the Government explain in any credible fashion the logic of requiring a small businessman to bear the same labour costs as, in many cases, a demonstratively more successful and larger business. We know also that small businessmen are suffering under an avalanche of regulations-so much so that the Confederation of Australian Industry has estimated that it costs business $1 billion to administer government regulations. In all the pronouncements of the Minister, where is there clear evidence of reducing the grass roots level of regulation upon small business? I realise and I welcome, as do so many other members of the Opposition, the deregulation of the financial market and interest rates. We say that the Government does not go nearly far enough. It lacks the courage of its convictions and it does not properly give credit where credit is due because it was the previous Government that initiated the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System report and the move towards deregulation. We know also that labour on-cost is a tremendous burden for small business and that this Government is not addressing it in any constructive way. We have workers' compensation, penalty rates, holiday loadings and long service leave. Indeed, the Business Council's estimate of labour on-cost is 40 per cent of the total wages bill. Mr Braithwaite —How much? Mr McGAURAN —Forty per cent of the total wages bill is labour on-costs. This Government has also failed small business through its repeal of sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act, thereby leaving a great many small businesses at the mercy of ruthless and arrogant union power. It only has to be said in summary that the Minister representing the Government has failed totally to address the everyday needs of small business. Small business is aware that this Government is more concerned with retaining the monopolies of big business and big unions at the cost of small business. It has to be said that small business employs two-thirds of the work force in the private sector and is the greatest contributor to wealth and prosperity in this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(4.29) —I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate today. The matter of public importance brought forward by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) talks in terms of confusion. I can assure him that confusion in the economy is not within the small business sector; it is not within the Government; it is over there on the other side of the House. I can hardly believe that the honourable member for O'Connor could come in here today and bring forward a matter of public importance such as this because he clearly has forgotten the question that was asked in this House. I refer him to a question in Hansard of 25 February relating to the leasing arrangements for retail space in shopping centres in Western Australia. A number of small businesses had complained that they were at the mercy of the landlords who controlled shopping centre leases. Mr Lamb —Who was the landlord? Mr O'KEEFE —The Carnarvon shopping centre was the complainant. Who is the landlord of the Carnarvon shopping centre? It is none other than the honourable member for O'Connor. I could hardly believe my ears when the honourable member came in here and talked about confusion and disincentive for small business. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who I think is known now as the shadow Minister for Tourism, also spoke in this debate. Obviously, the honourable member also lacks any sense of business perspicacity or knowledge. The record should be set straight in this debate. The matter of public importance is about small business confidence and viability. For honourable members opposite who are confused and do not understand, two key components give small business confidence. One is profitability and the other is stability of the environment in which they operate. Wages and inflation are key factors in small business profitability. Let us look at the situation which this Government inherited in March 1983. We inherited record inflation levels and record small business bankruptcies. This Government did something that the previous Government was unable to do. It set in motion the most important plank of the Government's economic platform-the prices and incomes accord. The accord has worked. Honourable members opposite have knocked and abused the accord ever since it was set in place. However, they could not come near to implementing anything like that measure themselves. As a result of the prices and incomes accord we have got inflation down to 5 per cent. I could hardly believe my ears when honourable members opposite spoke about small business confusion. Improvements are reflected in the market place now. There have been dramatic improvements in retail sales. With our injection of a stimulus through the first home buyer's scheme and public sector building programs we have been able to get the show on the road again. Car sales are now at record levels. The motor vehicle industry, under Senator Button's motor vehicle plan, is rolling again. What can one say about that sort of thing? A number of small businesses contribute to the motor vehicle industry. They supply the components and sell and service the vehicles. Honourable members opposite are just totally out of touch. Compare that with the situation between 1975 and 1983 when honourable members opposite had their chance. It was a period in which there were record levels of inflation and small business bankruptcies. Why did the honourable members opposite fail? They failed because they do not understand-they do not understand the economy and they do not understand the interactions out there in the community. Take the Opposition's position on public sector expenditure. Honourable members opposite are always raving in the House about cut backs in the public sector. What do they lead the people out there into believing that they are going to do? They lead them to believe that a coalition government would cut back the number of public servants. Coalition governments have never done and would never do that. The previous Government cut back capital expenditure in the public sector. Who does the work for government? Who does the contracts that are paid for out of public expenditure in the capital sector? Small business supplies government and supplies industry. It does the building of the police stations and the hospitals. It does the building in all of the areas which are paid for by public sector capital. Small businesses are the tenderers; they are the sub-contractors. However, honourable members opposite claim to represent their interests. We recognise that small business is one of the most important sectors of our economy. There are over 600,000 small firms in Australia and over 95 per cent of them employ fewer than 100 people. They account for 97 per cent of enterprises in the service industries. Overall, small business employs between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of the private sector work force. Small businesses make an important contribution to the economy and, as a result, we treat them seriously. A number of points of policy in our small business action program, to which the honourable member for O'Connor referred, are in the process of being implemented or have already been implemented. Small business knows this and welcomes it. Having turned round a disastrous position, the Government is now looking to further development and further prospects for small business. We will be continuing down the path of deregulation for which the honourable member for Gippsland correctly gives us credit. We will be taking further steps to improve efficiency and trading performance in the small business sector. I remember that in this place not long ago the new whiz kid on business on the other side of the House-the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), the millionaire-got up here and stated that the House's attention should be drawn to the hyper-regulation of the Australian economy, and the labyrinth of bureaucracy. I just ask: How did this happen, how was it all created and for how long has it been around? For all but five of the 38 years I have been on this earth the Liberal and National parties have been in government. They are the ones who created the monster that we are now having to set about deregulating and correcting. Therefore, let us not have too much of this mumbo-jumbo about deregulation and the other things that honourable members opposite think ought to be done. The most significant developments relating to deregulation in the months to come will be the continuing finance sector deregulation and, in particular, our decision to welcome foreign banks under the guidelines that we have laid down. One of those guidelines requires foreign banks to make a substantial injection of capital into our economy. Those banks will provide a new level of competition and business development for small business. I make the point that the small business sector is the first to admit that it has not done too well over the years out of the trading practices of the trading banks of Australia. Our action in allowing foreign banks to operate in this country has meant that extra capital will free up this sector of the market. As the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) mentioned, we have removed restrictions on the Commonwealth Bank in respect of borrowings from the Loan Council and this will assist in the massive increase that is needed in the business borrowing program of small business. We have expanded the Government's range of small business publications to assist in management training. We have co-sponsored with the Australian Jaycees organisation the 'Mind your own small business' project-a campaign which is designed to assist managers to take up the benefits of management training. As the Minister mentioned earlier, we also set up the Small Business Council in March, the membership of which includes representatives from State governments, small business organisations, the unions and the finance industry. We do not back away from consultation. We do not back away from taking advice from the community. We do not back away from it because we believe that the more the information, the better the information and the better the decisions. That is why this Government is acting in this area; that is why it is doing it right. A number of decisions on major issues will be made in the next 12 months as the Government finalises the work that has been set in motion by inquiries such as the Martin Review of the Australian Financial System, the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs and the Hancock Committee of Review into Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems as well as to trade practices legislation and small business education programs. In conclusion, I return to one matter relating to the view and the confusion on the other side of the House. We have recently been paid a compliment by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is a former Treasurer, in relation to our activities. On 7 May in this place the honourable member said: The Labor Party has played a significant, proper and credit-worthy role in deregulation in this economy. What has happened to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? He has now been removed from being the chief economic spokesman because his colleagues do not like his coming out and admitting that this Government is on the ball. The fact of the matter is that honourable members opposite are out of touch, they are divided and they are rapidly becoming incoherent. They have wet policies and dry policies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 229th report of the Committee, relating to the reports of the Auditor-General 1981-82 and September 1982. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.41) —I move: That the House of Representatives, recognising the desirability of a thorough review of the Australian Constitution in the light of experience since its establishment and of modern day requirements agrees that the Commonwealth Parliament continue its participation in the Australian Constitutional Convention established to review the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution and accordingly resolves: (1) That, for the purposes of the Convention- (a) a delegation from the Commonwealth Parliament take part in the deliberations of the Convention, and comprise 12 members of the Parliament of whom 4 shall be members of the Senate and 8 shall be Members of the House of Representatives; (b) that 8 Members of the House of Representatives comprise 4 members of the Australia Labor Party, 3 members of the Liberal Party of Australia and one member of the National Party of Australia. (2) That- (a) the Prime Minister and 3 other Members of the House of Representatives, being members of the Australian Labor Party, nominated by him; (b) the Leader of the Opposition and 2 other Members of the House, being members of the Liberal Party of Australia, nominated by him; and (c) the Leader of the National Party of Australia or another Member of the House being a member of the National Party of Australia, nominated by the Leader of the Party, be members of the Delegation. (3) That the Prime Minister or his nominee be the Leader of the Delegation and the Leader of the Opposition or his nominee by the Deputy Leader. (4) That a member of the Delegation cease to be such a member if- (a) he ceases to be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament; (b) the House of the Parliament of which he is a member terminates his appointment; or (c) he resigns as a member of the Delegation by writing addressed to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case requires. (5) That where, because of illness or any other cause, a member of the Delegation is not available to attend a meeting, or part of a meeting, of the Convention, the Leader or senior available member of that member's Party may nominate an alternative member and the member so nominated shall be a member of the Delegation for that meeting or that part of that meeting. (6) That, in the event of a member of the Delegation ceasing to be such a member, the Leader of that member's Party in the House from which that member was drawn may nominate another member (being a member of the house of the House of which the first-mentioned member is or was a member) to replace the first-mentioned member. (7) That the Leader of the Delegation from time to time make a report for presentation to each House of the Parliament on matters arising out of the Convention, and that the Deputy Leader of the Delegation may make an accompanying report. (8) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of the resolution agreed to by the House of Representatives. It has been decided that the Brisbane meeting of the Australian Constitutional Convention should go ahead as planned. That meeting will be held from 29 July to 2 August, notwithstanding the failure of the 1984 referendums. Most of the parliaments have now passed their resolutions and all have accepted the principle of equal government and non-government representation and a reduction in the size of delegations. On that note, I make the point that the proposal for the reduction in the size of delegations came from Mr Medcalf of the Western Australian Opposition and was accepted by the Executive Committee as a way of improving the general operation of the Convention. The Executive Committee initially agreed in February to a proposal by Mr Medcalf that the size of the delegations should be halved; that is, that the Commonwealth delegation be reduced from sixteen to eight and that the State delegations respectively be reduced from twelve to six. Later, in March, this decision was changed to a reduction by a one-third after the Chief Executive Officer had prepared a paper arguing that a delegation size of twelve for the Commonwealth and eight for each State would be easier to allocate between upper and lower Houses. All States have agreed with the reduction in size. The Brisbane meeting will be the sixth meeting of the Convention. It will be a smaller gathering than any of the previous meetings. An agreement has been reached to reduce the size of the Convention with a view to allowing individual delegates more opportunities to speak and generally improve the performance of the Convention in its procedures. Mr Tim Fischer —Hear, hear! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I welcome the support from the honourable member because it has been recognised that the Adelaide Convention was somewhat of a fiasco and a disaster. The Commonwealth delegation has been reduced from sixteen to twelve, comprising eight members of the House of Representatives and four senators. Each State delegation has been reduced from twelve to eight and each local government delegation from three to two. Representation of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory remains at two each. The total size of the Convention has therefore been reduced from 112 to 78. Provision has been made for alternative delegates to be appointed in circumstances where a delegate is unavailable. However, the Executive Committee has recommended that for the better operation of the Convention the number of alternates should be limited to six in the case of the Commonwealth and four in the case of each State. The Government believes that this recommendation should be observed by the Commonwealth and that government and non-government leaders should exercise restraint by nominating only three alternates each. It is hoped that this new Constitutional Convention will be worth while, although its background shows that it has been very difficult to bring about constitutional change. There has been a very modest achievement in that recently only three changes have been brought about-those put to referendum in 1977-despite a wide-ranging discussion on a number of issues and the failure of a number of issues submitted to referendum. My personal view is that it is about time we explored alternative strategies such as a broadly representative gathering of Australian people to talk about a new Constitution for Australia, but that is a matter for further debate at the forthcoming Convention. I hope that the House will adopt this motion, which I understand has bipartisan support. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(4.45) —I support the very important motion before the House. I take the opportunity to point out that perhaps we should not become too distracted by the bicentennial celebrations planned for the year 1988 because we should also realise that we are approaching the centenary of our Constitution and the centenary of this Parliament, which will occur in the not too distant future-indeed, in the year 2001. The first Federal elections took place in Australia on 29 and 30 March 1901 and the first session of the Federal Parliament and its opening took place on 9 May 1901. In many ways the celebration of that forthcoming centenary, some 15 years down the track, is of just as much importance to the future direction of this nation as the bicentennial celebrations in 1988. I am not overly confident that the necessary streamlining and updating of our Constitution will have been achieved between now and the year 2001. It will certainly take a massive effort and a good deal of bipartisan co-operation to bring this about. The settling of the original set of Conventions associated with the Constitution of Australia took place between 1891 and 1898. Some of those important meetings and Conventions took place in my electorate of Farrer in the town of Corowa. The second phase of Constitutional Conventions resumed after action by the States in 1973. I think it is important to record that this led to the initial session in Sydney in 1973, the Melbourne session in 1975, the Hobart session in 1976, the Perth session in 1978 and, more recently, of course, the Adelaide session in 1983. I attended the Adelaide session of the Constitutional Convention. I was pleased to hear the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) make what I thought was very accurate comment on the conduct of the Adelaide Convention. I wish to explain why I have reservations about the process for constitutional upgrading. I know that there are those in the community who would argue that the existing Constitution, as printed, is in no need whatsoever of change. I do not happen to share that viewpoint but I point out that there are perhaps three reasons why constitutional change will continue to be a very difficult process. Firstly, the track record of the Adelaide Constitutional Convention was that of a massive talkfest. With great respect to the lawyers present in this chamber, it was dominated by the legal fraternity. At times the domination by the legal fraternity did a disservice to the proceedings of the Convention. Secondly, following a Convention is the other part of the equation, the need to go to the process of referendum to seek the adoption of change. I do not have to remind the House in too much detail that since Federation the adoption of referenda questions put to the people of Australia has had a very poor track record. This method has been employed in Australia on some 19 occasions since Federation, in the course of which 40 questions have been submitted to the electors. Thirty-eight of these covered constitutional amendments and the other two sought approval for military conscription for overseas service during World War I. It is a matter of record that of the 38 proposals for constitutional amendment put to the electorate since Federation all but eight were rejected and, of course, the two proposals relating to military conscription in World War I were also rejected. I will not delay the House because I know that the sitting schedule is already tight enough this week. The record of those proposals which were adopted, including those put at the referendum in 1977, is readily available. Again last year we saw two questions defeated. So we have this additional hurdle of overcoming the reluctance of the Australian people to adopt referendum questions referred to them unless those questions enjoy bipartisan support. That leads me to my final point on the somewhat tortuous process of updating our Constitution. I refer to the injection of a new dimension into that process, as advocated by the Deputy Prime Minister when he spoke to the New South Wales Law Society on the eve of May Day 1985. He said that there was a need for a 'people's convention' to take over from the parliamentarians in providing for constitutional change. In some ways I share his sentiments, but the politicians and parliamentarians who have dominated Conventions have now had 12 years to produce the goods in respect of constitutional change-they have had since 1973 until this year-or to put up referendum questions to be adopted by the people. Now in 1985, the Deputy Prime Minister says that we should perhaps be looking at alternative methods. This motion is to provide a delegation of parliamentarians to go to Brisbane for the Australian Constitutional Convention later this year. I believe that the proposal by the Deputy Prime Minister must be examined carefully. As we prepare for this further delegation from the Australian Parliament to the next session of the Convention, I ask that every effort be made by people from both sides of the House, by all major political parties, and by all participants in the next session of the Convention in Brisbane to help bring about realistic and appropriate changes to certain sections of the Constitution. To do that will take much effort and careful planning of the agenda. Now that Senator Gareth Evans has been transferred out of the portfolio of Attorney-General, I expect a far more reasoned and reasonable approach from the Federal delegation manager, who undoubtedly will be the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General. I am sure that he will do a far more capable job in managing the parliamentary delegation than did his predecessor, who got carried away with legal niceties of constitutional change and sought to force through ideas which would never be accepted by the majority of people. Nevertheless, I commend this motion for this Parliament to participate once again in the Constitutional Convention. I make a plea for careful planning to try to ensure that the next session of the Convention does not break down into a talkfest with no real productivity. This is a most important matter which it is to be hoped will lead to necessary and relevant alterations in our Constitution, where approved by a referendum of the people. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(4.53) —Briefly, may I say that I support the thrust of the motion, particularly that part of it which, by implication, reduces the number of delegates to the Australian Constitutional Convention. Indeed, it is fair to say that I was a party to the proposal to have the numbers reduced. However, it was a view which could fairly be said was held by all who took part in the decision along the general lines that smaller delegations might concentrate on issues more positively and, in turn, this might lead to a resolution of more issues at the Convention. The simple point I wish to make at this stage is that, although the Opposition supports the motion moved by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), it may be necessary at some stage-this would be in the course of the next few days-to ask for the Government's indulgence in certain circumstances to move an amendment to the motion to accommodate simply the adjustment of numbers on the Opposition side as between the House of Representatives and the Senate. I am not in a position at this stage to say whether that will be necessary, but we would ask for the Government's indulgence perhaps to make an amendment if, as things work out, it is necessary to seek some adjustment between the two Houses in the Opposition's representation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.55) —in reply-I assure the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) that there will be no difficulty in the Government meeting that request. It has been agreed that representation at the Australian Constitutional Convention should be six for the Government and six for the Opposition. The Government will be working on the basis of four from the House of Representatives and two from the Senate. I understand that there are some difficulties because there are other parties and other personalities in the Senate. On that basis the Government will agree with any recommendation put forward by the honourable member. I leave the matter there. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Willis, and read a first time. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(4.56) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. Honourable members will be aware that the dispute involving members of the Electrical Trades Union in Queensland and the Queensland Government, through the South East Queensland Electricity Board, or SEQEB, as it is known, recently reached very serious proportions. This dispute poses grave implications not only for Queensland but for the nation as a whole. As I will outline later, the Queensland Government has shown itself totally unwilling to seek a rational basis for satisfactory resolution of this dispute. It has been left to the Federal Government to act to restore some sanity in this matter and to take measures which will both address in a reasonable way the issues at the heart of the dispute and will help to achieve the principal objective of a guaranteed, stable supply of electricity to Queensland. The Queensland Government has abrogated its responsibility in these areas. The original matters in dispute in the Queensland power industry have long been lost sight of as the Queensland Government has eagerly seized on the dispute as a means of mounting a savage attack on the union movement and on the Federal Government. The Queensland Government's handling of this dispute, its attitude to the State Industrial Commission, its use of legislative powers to override basic industrial and democratic rights, and its total refusal to enter into any discussions are, taken together, unprecedented in Australia's industrial relations history. These actions have sought to overthrow established and respected industrial relations practices. The independent processes of conciliation and arbitration have been rejected in favour of a policy of unilateral legislative action to change terms and conditions of employment which were previously agreed by the Queensland Government and to impose sanctions on those who breach the provisions of this legislation. These actions have gone far beyond what is necessary to ensure stable electricity supplies to the State of Queensland. The Queensland Government has repeatedly rejected calls by this Government to enter into discussions with it, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the other parties involved in the dispute. We have offered to convene such discussions in an attempt to resolve the dispute through negotiation of the central issues involved. An essential part of that process of negotiation was that the ACTU and all its affiliates would call off all industrial action against Queensland. In addition, the ACTU would ensure that dispute settlement procedures were put in place which would effectively guarantee a stable and continuous supply of electricity to Queensland consumers. These initiatives have been rejected out of hand by the Queensland Government. As the Queensland Premier has himself admitted, he is more interested in prolonging this dispute as a means of attacking the Hawke Government than in achieving a resolution of the issues involved. The Queensland Premier is intent on pursuing this absurd course regardless of the cost to Queensland or the nation. The Queensland people have every reason to demand an explanation from the Premier of his motives in this matter. Not surprisingly, the union movement has reacted strongly to these moves by the Queensland Government. The Queensland trade union movement and the ACTU imposed a prolonged transport blockade affecting road, rail, sea and air transport to and from Queensland. In addition, industrial action was taken or threatened in the building, brewing, communications and mining industries, as well as wide-ranging action against a number of individual companies. The implications of this campaign spread well beyond Queensland and threatened serious damage both to national economic recovery and to our international trading situation. From the outset, the Government expressed its strong opposition to this industrial campaign and called on the unions to seek other means of resolving the dispute. I have said many times, and I repeat it again today: The Government does not and cannot condone wilful industrial action which causes widespread hardship to innocent Australians. Unions operating in essential services, in particular, have an obligation to prevent unnecessary interruption to such services and to exercise their democratic right to strike only in the most exceptional circumstances. The unions involved in the initial dispute have not been beyond blame. Indeed, by rejecting an order from the Queensland State Industrial Commission directed at resolving the dispute, the unions involved helped lay the groundwork for subsequent moves by the Queensland Government. The situation in Queensland has now become a matter of the deepest concern for all Australians. The Queensland Government has, by its actions, created a potentially very dangerous state of affairs with implications spreading right across the nation. By rejecting every opportunity to achieve a rational and reasonable resolution to this matter, the Queensland Government is placing at risk the successful economic and industrial situation which this Government has worked hard to achieve-with outstanding results-over the last two years. In these circumstances, the Federal Government has had no option but to act, and to act decisively, to bring this matter to resolution. In the first place, the Federal Government must act to prevent further severe economic and industrial damage which a continuation of the dispute would undoubtedly cause. Further, the Federal Government is obliged to intervene to protect the long-established and respected processes of conciliation and arbitration by independent tribunals through which such disputes have been traditionally resolved in this country. The contempt shown by the Queensland Government towards these processes threatens to undermine the very basis of industrial stability in this country. In taking this action, the Government totally repudiates the approach advocated by the Federal Opposition, which has called for the further application of sanctions against unions taking industrial action-in the form of the use of the Trade Practices Act and reintroduction of the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act. It has been just this kind of heavy-handed action which has brought about the current situation which the Bill attempts to remedy. Adoption of the Opposition approach would certainly ensure a major nationwide industrial confrontation, greater than anything seen in this country since the 1890s. This Government is not about to embark on such a potentially disastrous course of action. At this stage, I would like to remind honourable members of the background to this dispute. It is important to do this so that the House will have the necessary basis to judge whether the Queensland Government has been really concerned about the resolution of this matter. This dispute developed from a long-standing disagreement between power unions and the SEQEB over the use of contract labour by the authority. Late in 1984, bans were placed by the union on work performed by contractors. These bans were the subject of proceedings in the State Industrial Commission which directed the SEQEB to reinstate ETU members stood down as a result of the bans and to withdraw contractors from two of the four projects on which they were engaged. The Commission also directed the ETU members to return to work, which they did, the next day. Negotiations over the use of contractors failed, and bans were reimposed in January this year. These bans were lifted at the direction of the Commission, following violent storms in Queensland, but overtime bans were reimposed by the union at the beginning of February. As a result, workers were stood down and others walked off the job in protest at these stand-downs. By 8 February, 1,500 workers were either on strike or stood down. A deadline to accept another State Industrial Commission recommendation and return to work expired that day and 920 workers who remained on strike were dismissed by the SEQEB a couple of days later. Further industrial action by other electricity unions followed these dismissals and major industrial confrontation occurred leading to widespread blackouts in the State. Eventually, operators employed at the power stations were convinced to lift their bans and the Queensland Government put an unrealistic 'peace offer' to the dismissed linesmen. Not surprisingly, the offer of a return to work under new terms-specifically an increase in working hours, a loss of entitlements and a commitment to no further strikes-was rejected. The matter was still in the hands of the State Industrial Commission, which recommended a return to work on existing conditions with a lifting of bans and a concurrent withdrawal of dismissal notices, together with urgent talks over the contract labour dispute. Although the unions agreed to those recommendations, the Queensland Government would not accept two recommendations to this effect and, in what can only be described as utter contempt for the State Industrial Commission, used emergency powers to change conditions of employment and then removed the matter of the power dispute from the Commission's jurisdiction by forcing legislation through the Queensland Parliament, in a matter of hours. The Premier's express criticism of the Commission prompted its President to convene a public sitting to defend his Commission against this unwarranted attack. The President, in his statement at that sitting on 5 March, pointed out that, far from giving the unions everything they wanted, as had been alleged by the Premier, the most significant industrial gains achieved by union members employed by the Electricity Board resulted from direct negotiation between the unions and employers, with the approval of the Government. The attack on the State Industrial Commission was, however, only one of an array of weapons which the Queensland Government chose to deploy in its response to this dispute. All honourable members will be aware of the five pieces of legislation hastily introduced in Queensland which have, amongst other things: Given the electricity commissioner unprecedented power to direct any person to carry out work at pain of penalties; removed the right to strike in the electricity industry and imposed penalties on any person undertaking strike action without any avenue of appeal against such penalties to an independent body; overthrown award terms and conditions of employment; removed the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Commission over matters involved in the electricity industry to a new tribunal with restricted jurisdiction; provided wide powers of arrest for use against peaceful picketing, and inserted new evidentiary provisions to facilitate prosecutions under the legislation. Not only is this legislation an attack on basic industrial and democratic rights but also it is patently in breach of important international obligations undertaken by this country. This is a matter of serious concern to this Government, and the Queensland Government has been requested to take action to remedy this situation. It is obvious that the Queensland Government, in pursuing this battery of measures, has gone far past what was necessary to achieve a satisfactory resolution to the problems of stable and continuous electricity supply for Queensland. The end result of the actions of the Queensland Government is that there is now no avenue available within Queensland which will permit the issues central to this dispute-the reinstatement of the sacked linesmen and a return to original working conditions-to be considered. It cannot be over-emphasised that there will be no lasting resolution of this dispute until these issues have been properly addressed. The absolute refusal of the Queensland Government to consider these issues will not resolve the dispute. There is obviously a clear need to redress the balance by getting the parties together before an independent authority which will give the unions the opportunity to make out their case on all the elements still in dispute. Such is the legislation that the Queensland Government has passed that the only means by which this can be achieved is for the unions to turn to the Federal system of conciliation and arbitration. This they have already done or are in the process of doing. The ETU has already instigated proceedings before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to secure a Federal award for its members and other unions have either instigated or foreshadowed a similar course of action. This Government has intervened in the Commission proceedings involving the ETU to support the making of a Federal award. A Full Bench of the Commission has recently confirmed Commissioner Brown's finding of a dispute in this matter. In the view of the Federal Government proceedings before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission provide the proper approach whereby all the arguments may be fully argued and properly assessed and a fair resolution sought. There is, however, the very real problem that these proceedings could be lengthy and could be subject to many delaying tactics by the Queensland Government seeking to obstruct at every opportunity the making of a Federal award to cover the electricity industry. During this time it would be most likely that the current industrial confrontation would continue and the costs to the nation would be immense. It is to overcome these problems and to facilitate the processes of making a Federal award that the Federal Government has decided to introduce this Bill. The proposals in this Bill were put to the ACTU on the basis that all industrial action, both outside and within Queensland, be lifted, that the electricity unions give a commitment to a defined disputes settling procedure designed to ensure a continuous stable supply of electricity to Queensland consumers and that there be no victimisation of current SEQEB employees. These conditions were fully accepted by the ACTU. The measures proposed in this Bill are restrained but eminently practical in seeking a permanent resolution. Honourable members will note that the Bill is strictly confined to disputes in the Queensland electricity industry, including the ETU dispute and other disputes which may occur in the Federal jurisdiction following the over-reaction of the Queensland Government to the original power dispute. The Bill is not an amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It is a discrete piece of legislation designed to facilitate the restoration of an ordered relationship between employing bodies in the Queensland electricity industry and the unions concerned. Honourable members will note that the Bill contains a 'sunset clause'. So, it is a piece of legislation designed for this purpose only and should not be seen as having any wider implications for the system of prevention and settlement of industrial disputes in this country. I turn now to the main features of the Bill. The Bill is designed to facilitate the movement by the unions in the Queensland electricity industry from the now unsatisfactory State jurisdiction to that of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Federal Commission is, of course, not subject to the same extraordinary limitations as have been imposed by the Queensland Government first on the State Industrial Commission and subsequently on the new State body, the Electricity Authorities Industrial Causes Tribunal, which was established to replace the State Industrial Commission in this area. The Federal Commission is able to deal with all important elements of the terms and conditions of employment of workers in the electricity industry, including hours of work and preference which cannot be dealt with by the Queensland tribunal. This is more likely to promote a resolution of the current dispute involving the ETU and any further disputes in the State electricity industry than the arbitrary imposition of conditions of work. Clause 9 is central to the operation of the Bill. It requires that any industrial dispute to which the Bill applies be dealt with by a Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This will speed up the processes of dispute resolution by eliminating appeals which could be made from decisions of a single member of the Commission in relation to such matters as the finding of an industrial dispute and the making of an award. A Full Bench has recently upheld Commissioner Brown's finding of a dispute in the matter involving the ETU. After the Bill commences, a Full Bench will become responsible for dealing with the dispute. Moreover, in the future, a Full Bench will be responsible for deciding whether a dispute exists in other matters coming forward in which Queensland electricity authorities are involved. Clause 9 will not prevent any member of the Commission who is hearing a matter which comes within the Bill from being a member of the Full Bench which is required to deal with that matter. Clause 9 also permits a Full Bench to direct any member of the Commission to endeavour to settle a dispute which is before the Full Bench by conciliation, or to inquire into any matter involved in such a dispute. In either case, the member concerned must report to the Full Bench on the matter. It should be noted that the Bill requires a Full Bench to certify any agreement or make any consent award or order which may be settled upon in such conciliation proceedings. These powers of direction are intended to give the Commission a measure of flexibility in dealing with matters coming within the Bill. Clause 9 also provides that, where a Full Bench considers it appropriate to hear and determine so much of an industrial dispute as relates to Queensland electricity authorities separately from any other part of the dispute, the Full Bench will be able to make a declaration to that effect. Thereafter, the part of the dispute not involving such authorities will be dealt with under the normal processes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Clause 8 is a second critical provision of the Bill. Because of the special circumstances of the conflict in Queensland, a discretion normally available to the Commission will be removed by the Bill. Clause 8 provides that, when dealing with an industrial dispute to which the Bill applies, insofar as the dispute involves Queensland electricity authorities, the Commission is not to be able to dismiss or refrain from hearing the dispute on the ground that the dispute could be dealt with by a Queensland industrial tribunal or that further proceedings are not necessary or desirable in the public interest. The Government does not believe that the Queensland Government or its electricity authorities should be able to delay the proceedings before the Commission by arguing for the exercise of this discretion, particularly in the light of that Government's demonstrated disregard for the independence of its own industrial tribunals. Quite simply, we have been forced to conclude that it is overwhelmingly in the public interest that the Queensland elements of disputes in the electricity industry be brought without delay into the Federal jurisdiction. In removing the section 41 (1) (d) discretion, we have been careful to confine that removal to such aspects of a dispute as affect the Queensland electricity industry. Other parties involved in relevant interstate industrial disputes will still be able to seek the exercise of the discretion, if they wish. Clause 8 makes it clear that the Commission will be able to limit the application of an award relating to employees of a Queensland electricity authority to such employees as the Commission thinks appropriate. The Commission will be required to have regard to work that is or could be performed for that authority by members of the organisation of employees involved in the dispute and by members of other federally or State-registered unions. This provision is designed to avoid any demarcation difficulties which might occur in the changeover from State to Federal jurisdiction. Thus, the Bill is limited as far as possible to the special circumstances relating to the Queensland electricity industry. Clause 6 provides that the processes under the Bill are to apply not only to the current industrial dispute involving the Electrical Trades Union and Queensland electricity authorities, but also to other industrial disputes involving Queensland electricity authorities and federally registered trade unions where those unions are prescribed by regulations made pursuant to this legislation. It is intended that unions will be prescribed only where the Government is satisified that they are not seeking to encroach on the membership of State registered unions against the wishes of such bodies. This is particularly necessary in the light of the removal of the discretion under section 41 (1) (d). Clause 6 is also framed so that the Bill will apply primarily to disputes which could result in the making of Federal awards for the first time in the relevant area of employment by such authorities. However, the situation in Queensland may require these speedier processes to operate in relation to a dispute involving the State electricity authorities, even where Federal award coverage of their employees exists. Accordingly, provision has been made in clause 6 to allow the Act to be declared to operate in relation to disputes in such cases. There is another element of the Bill to which I wish to draw attention. Relevant terms are defined in clause 4. The definition of 'authority' and 'electricity authority' make it clear that the Bill will apply not only to relevant statutory authorities in the electricity industry, but also to government departments engaged in the generation and distribution of electrical power. Similarly the term 'electricity authority' extends to contractors who carry out work other than as employees in that industry for or on behalf of an authority. In other words, claims for Federal awards in relation to employees of such contractors could come within the Bill. This broad definition is intended to give the Bill a wide operation in relation to arrangements for the Queensland electricity industry. Honourable members should also note that, under clause 7, the Commission is required to act expeditiously under the Bill. This provision is included for emphasis, not because the Government has any doubt about the Commission's readiness to act in such a way when the circumstances, as is the case here, indicate such an approach is necessary and desirable. Finally, I draw attention to clause 11. As I have already indicated, the legislation is to operate for a limited period. It is to be in force for three years after it commences operation, unless an earlier date is proclaimed. This provision is included because of the special and limited nature of the Bill. In conclusion, let me stress that this Bill provides an opportunity for the issues at the heart of this dispute to be substantially addressed and for the dispute to be resolved sensibly in the interests of the community as a whole. Presently, major impediments exist to the re-employment of workers dismissed by SEQEB. These include the legislative imposition of increased hours of work, requirements to sign a no-strike contract and abolition of union preference and requirements to declare the names of workmates who supposedly instigated industrial action. By allowing a substantial return to the terms and conditions which previously applied to employees of SEQEB, we believe that these impediments will be removed and the prospects for the re-employment of many of the workers considerably improved. Since there is no constitutional power for the Commonwealth to do so, this Bill does not seek to directly provide for reinstatement of the dismissed SEQEB employees. Nevertheless, the Government believes that the processes provided by this Bill will enable this issue to be constructively dealt with in proceedings before the Commission. The Government has put forward a totally constructive course of action designed to resolve this matter. We have been driven to take these steps by the uncompromising obstinancy of the Queensland Government. The ACTU has already told the Queensland Government that it will co-operate in formulating a new approach to handling disputes in the electricity industry. The opportunity has been provided for the Queensland Government to co-operate in achieving a lasting and equitable solution to this difficult problem. Failure on its part to do so will be a clear sign that the Queensland Government is not acting in the best interests of the Queensland community. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Shack) adjourned. Mr Donald Cameron —I raise a point of order. As this legislation will not hold up in the High Court, is it all right to waste the time of the Parliament debating it? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will resume his seat. The debate has been adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(5.21) —I move: That, in accordance with sub-section 49 (2) of the Audit Act 1901, the House approves the variation to the form of the Statement of Financial Transactions of the Commonwealth presented to the House on 15 May 1985. Before the question is put, I point out that last Wednesday I tabled in the House a statement made in the Senate by the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh. In the course of his remarks, Senator Walsh said: I have presented to the Senate particulars of an amended form of statement of Commonwealth financial transactions together with a statement which outlines the proposed changes. When a statement such as this financial transactions statement is being changed a resolution of the House is required for that to be done. In fact, it requires a resolution of not only this House but also the other House. Therefore, last Wednesday notice of this was given. The original format was based on the then Budget presentation of receipts, outlays and financing transactions. (Quorum formed) Since then, particularly in the receipts area where new taxes have appeared, the format of the statement has diverged significantly from that used in the Budget documents and it is desirable to realign them more closely. Indeed, the existing format of this statement is not providing Parliament with the detail of information to which it is entitled. That was said by Senator Walsh in the statement I tabled last Wednesday. I have repeated it here. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr Ian Cameron-Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Can I have a copy of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill and a copy of the explanatory notes? We do not have the explanatory notes regarding the mind-shattering legislation that has just been introduced by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.25) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 and by reason of the urgency related to implementation of the work, it is expedient that the following proposed work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: Upgrading of accommodation, Commonwealth Offices, 11 William Street, Melbourne. The Commonwealth Offices complex at 11 William Street, Melbourne, is a 16-storey building providing some 14,000 square metres of floor space. It was constructed in the mid-1960s to provide accommodation for the then Department of Customs and Excise and replaced the original and historic Customs House in Flinders Street, which is now used as offices for Federal members of Parliament. In recent years proposals were developed to refurbish the building services, modernise the lifts and alter internal partitioning layouts to bring the building up to modern acceptable standards and so cope with changes in occupancy proposed under the Commonwealth office accommodation strategy for the Melbourne metropolitan area. The building had been planned to be redeveloped in stages but several factors were not foreseen when the proposals were developed initially. Increases in the scope of work have resulted in the total cost being substantially in excess of the present $2m Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works referral limit. One factor not initially identified was the need to increase sound attenuation of the external wall fabric against an increased noise nuisance emanating from a nearby rail viaduct. This problem arose from the considerable increase in the number of train services along the viaduct following the opening of Melbourne's underground rail loop. Another factor was the requirement now to remove asbestos-based fire proofing material in ceiling spaces. While the presence of this material was well known, the safety hazard associated with work on building services in the vicinity of the asbestos material was not recognised when the scope of work was initially identified. It was considered earlier that the individual stages in which the work was programmed were not so interdependent as to require reference as a whole to the Public Works Committee. The Attorney-General's Department has since advised that the better view is that the proposed work, although programmed in stages, is in fact a single public work subject to the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act. The building has been vacant for some 12 months and there is now considerable urgency associated with the proposed work. The vacant space is worth the equivalent of some $2m to $3m per annum when compared with rental costs in similar locations in the central business district of Melbourne. The Public Works Committee was briefed on the details and background of the project and the need to proceed as soon as possible. Advice has been received that the Committee is satisfied with the explanation of the circumstances and will not object to exemption of the proposal from Public Works Committee scrutiny on the grounds of urgency. In proposing this action I assure that House that the Government fully supports the Public Works Committee process as a valuable forum for review by the Parliament and the public at large of its major works proposals. Exemption action is proposed only in most urgent situations, usually where delays would be very costly to government. The House should note that the estimated cost of the work is $3.71m. This is below the revised reference level of $6m which has been agreed with the Committee and for which enabling legislation is expected to be presented very soon. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can continue with the aim of the first elements proceeding to construction during this financial year. I can assure the House that the building should be ready for re-occupation in June-July 1986. I commend the motion to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr Ian Cameron-Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I am still inquiring about the whereabouts of the Conciliation and Arbitration (Electricity Industry) Bill 1985 and the second reading speech presented by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) on the Queensland industrial scene. This Labor Government in its haste- Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr Ian Cameron-Where is the Bill? I want the Whip to explain to us where it is. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the Leader of the House. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(5.30) —I move: That, in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills: Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985; Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1985; National Health Amendment Bill 1985; Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1985; Defence (Re-establishment) Amendment Bill 1985, and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.32) —The Opposition does not accept the suspension of Standing Order or the necessity to introduce- Mr Jacobi —You have done this a few times. Mr SINCLAIR —Not the guillotine, my friend. Nor does the Opposition accept the necessity to introduce the guillotine to restrict the time and duration of the debate. Throughout the last two and a half weeks we have had a very heavy program. The Leader of the House (Mr Young) has not been able to get this act together to recognise that the House should be sitting longer. The only reason this motion is being moved tonight is because the Government wants to run away from the Parliament. It is a matter of the Government not being prepared to debate these measures. The measures which are now to be guillotined relate to the mini-Budget which has imposed such harsh measures on so many Australians and which has illustrated how the economy is running out of control under the Labor Government. We are not prepared to accept the guillotine at a time when other alternatives are available. The Leader of the House knows that it is quite open to him to ask us to come back next week. The fact that if so many members of the Government are going overseas and doing as the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) is and running away from their responsibilities is no reason why this Parliament cannot resume next week. There is no reason why we cannot come back to give adequate consideration to matters which are of very profound consequence. In fact all these Bills are tremendously important. For example, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) relates to over 80 Bills. The Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill relates to the whole of our protection policy. This group of Bills also includes the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill. We all know the mess the Government has made of the assets test and the problems which so many people have suffered because of it. We know therefore that the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill is a Bill which requires adequate and careful thought in regard to its implications for the people of Australia. Debate on the National Health Amendment Bill also is to be guillotined. We know that Medicare is a disaster. We need to consider this Bill as it affects the Australian citizen and the level of health care. We know that the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill relates to cuts that are to be imposed on the share of personal income tax revenue flowing through to local government. It is an area about which members of my Party feel particularly strongly. Every honourable member in this House who has anything to do with local government knows the degree to which local government looks after local roads and local services. This is the role of local government. Here we are in a situation in which we will be sent away from the Parliament and not be given adequate time to consider and consult on these Bills of importance. Finally, the Defence (Re-establishment) Amendment Bill and the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill reflect yet again how little the Labor Government is concerned about the terms and conditions of those in employment in our Services. It is important that these matters be considered adequately and properly in the Parliament. Dr Klugman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is the Leader of the National Party entitled to read a speech made by the honourable member for Port Adelaide in 1981? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no substance to the point of order. Mr SINCLAIR —I am very glad that my colleague the honourable member for Prospect raised that point because the difference is in the nature of the legislation. The people of Australia need to know that whereas we had entirely beneficial legislation no one in his right mind could pretend that anything in this package of legislation was in any way beneficial. I ask honourable members to consider the removal of defence re-establishment entitlements. Minimal grants are available to servicemen who seek to retire from the Services and get some help when they go back to civilian life. What is this Government doing? It is removing such entitlements. The Government says that this removal will not affect many people, only 200 people a year. It says that there will be $1.3m in savings. I point out to honourable members that $1.3m means a hell of a lot of people who are benefiting at the rate of perhaps $5,000 or $10,000 a head. Whatever the honourable member for Prospect might think, this legislation is not beneficial; it is legislation that prejudices the entitlement of Australians. These are ordinary every day Australians who probably do not vote for honourable members opposite. They certainly vote for us on this side of the House. It concerns me that there should be a motion of this sort moved this time in relation to this array of Bills. We need to think of two things. Firstly, the Government has to get its business through. It can do that by having this House sit properly at hours that do not mean legislation by exhaustion. It can get its legislation through by recalling the House. Just because it is having a tax summit and all the nonsense it is carrying on with- Mr Hunt —They are all going overseas. Mr SINCLAIR —Yes, honourable members opposite are going overseas. The Minister for long luncheons has moved this motion but I think the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who tends to be the travel king, should be moving it. There is no need to have a guillotine. I think that is an unfortunate course to take. I do not believe that because the Parliament cannot be properly run the guillotine needs to be resorted to by the Leader of the House. I believe there are other ways by which he could have accommodated fair and adequate discussion on these Bills. For that reason we are opposed to the suspension of Standing Orders. We believe that the guillotine should not be implemented. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G.Cobb, M. R. Millar, P. C.Coleman, W. P. Moore, J. C.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith,W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Mildren, J. B. Carlton, J. J.Hayden, W. G. Nehl, G. B.Dawkins, J. S. Robinson, I. P. Question so resolved in the affirmative, with an absolute majority. Declaration of Urgency Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills: Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985, Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1985, National Health Amendment Bill 1985, Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1985, Defence (Re-establishment) Amendment Bill 1985, and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. Question put: That the Bills be considered urgent Bills. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R.Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A.Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P.Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T.Edwards, Ronald Price, L. R. S.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L.Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hawke, R. J. L. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. RCadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Mildren, J. B. Carlton, J. J.Hayden, W. G. Nehl, G. B.Dawkins, J. S. Robinson, I. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(5.49) —I move: That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows: (1) Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985-For the remaining stages, until 6.30 p.m. this day. (2) Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 8.45 p.m. this day. (3) National Health Amendment Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 9.30 p.m. this day. (4) Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 10.15 p.m. this day. (5) Defence (Re-establishment) Amendment Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 11.00 p.m. this day. (6) Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985-For the remaining stages, until 11.45 p.m. this day. There would be no two members in this Parliament more reluctant to use the guillotine than the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) and the member for Port Adelaide. No two members understand the value of the Parliament more than the right honourable member for New England and the member for Port Adelaide. As far as guillotines go, I can tell new members that this is a very, very timid guillotine. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) interjected during this debate that he has not seen anything like this since the Opposition was in power. Occasionally when we get towards the end of a sitting, of course, we have noticed under previous conservative governments just how quickly legislation can go through the House of Representatives. I think we are being extremely generous. Honourable members will notice that five of the six Bills are concerned with the economic statement, so they will be a general debate by virtue of being connected with the economic statement. Honourable members have 3 3/4 hours in which to debate them. I think that the business of the House has been dealt with rather correctly. It does give the Opposition a better opportunity to put in order the speakers it wants because I have noticed that there have been two or three speakers on the other side who have been dominating the proceedings. Perhaps some of the other honourable members will now get into the debates as a result of knowing how much time is available for the rest of the night to debate these Bills. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.52) —Needless to say, I am not a little surprised at the care and concern that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) is suddenly showing for the well-being of the Parliament. It is a pity that he did not demonstrate that care and concern in the motion that we are now considering. While I, of course, gratefully accept those words of commendation which he said about the member for New England, I find it difficult to reciprocate in the present circumstances. There are a few quite serious implications, however, that members of this place need to register. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have also been through this process a number of times in this Parliament. I can understand that there is some noise going on. I suggest that honourable members lower it as it is quite out of order. Mr SINCLAIR —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I feel quite constrained in the circumstances. However, I am worried about a number of the details of the motion that we are now deliberating on. The first is that the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is not part of the package that flowed from the mini-Budget of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). It is a Bill that is introduced into this Parliament normally so that it can embrace all those minor changes in legislation that need to be introduced before the House rises and which are normally hardly adequate to be included in a Bill in their own right. It is the first of the Bills that is included within this guillotine. Perhaps the most serious, however, of those that are included and the one that concerns the Opposition most, is that which is to come at the end of the day. We have been told that the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill is to be deliberated upon some time between 11 p.m. and 11.45 p.m. tonight. The Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill-every returned serviceman needs to understand-attacks directly the benefits which they have received. It is ensuring that henceforth there are to be some fairly fundamental changes in the nature of their entitlements. They are changes which have been introduced without adequate consultation. They are changes that have been introduced in advance of detailed recommendations due to be given to the Government within the next few months-we understand by September. I believe it is totally inappropriate therefore-apart from the principle applicable to every one of these measures-that the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill should be included in this bracket guillotine. It is not appropriate that our returned servicemen should be attacked in a way that does not permit proper parliamentary consideration of these measures. I think there are very serious implications for anyone who is addressing the entitlements of ex-servicemen and doing so in a short, abbreviated time, but when one knows that it is going to be in the middle of the night, one becomes even more suspicious. We have seen all sorts of things happen from this Government in the middle of the night. We are never too sure where they go or where they have been. When it comes to debating matters of major public importance, it is not sufficient that the Government place a gag on the measure to ensure that there can be no proper consideration. I trust that every member of the Returned Services League and every veteran, whether he was in Vietnam, Malaysia, Korea, World War II or World War I, knows that this Government cares so little for their well-being that it is putting a guillotine on the measure, that the measure itself is going to be debated between 11 o'clock and quarter to 12 midnight and that totally inadequate opportunity will be given for its consideration. This is a serious Bill. For all that we might in moments of camaraderie in this place engage in light banter, it is no light matter that we reduce the time available for the proper consideration of the Treasurer's mini-Budget. There has not been enough time to debate the statement. Most of the honourable members on this side of the House have not had an opportunity to give their points of view nor to tell people how it affects their constituents. For that reason, the members of the Opposition cannot support these proposals as put by the Leader of the House. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 12 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beddall, D. P. Jacobi, R.Bilney, G. N. Jakobsen, C. A.Blanchard, C. A. Jones, BarryBlewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D.Free, R. V. Scott, J. L.Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W.Gear, G. Snow, J. H.Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R.Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C.Griffiths, A. G. Tickner, R. E.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hawke, R. J. L. West, S. J.Holding, A. C. Willis, R.Hollis, C. Wright, K. W.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Mildren, J. B. Carlton, J. J.Hayden, W. G. Nehl, G. B.Dawkins, J. S. Robinson, I. L. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 9 May, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(6.04) —The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill No. 1) 1985, which we certainly have not been given adequate time to debate properly, is a piece of legislation of the sort frequently introduced into the Parliament to deal with what might be described as mechanical and procedural amendments. At least that is the generally accepted principle upon which such a Bill proceeds. That is to say, such a Bill should not contain substantive provisions of any great significance. Such provisions should of course be promoted in individual and separate Bills and not included in a statute law revision piece of legislation of the sort we are now considering. It is certainly true and fair to say that the bulk of the amendments in the Bill now before the House are of a procedural and technical nature. One cannot have very much ground for complaint with respect to amendments which, as I say, are of a technical nature; there is no need to have them promoted in a separate piece of legislation. Nevertheless, substantive amendments are proposed to a number of Acts which we would have thought, with respect, should be promoted in separate pieces of legislation and not legislated upon in an omnibus Bill of the sort we are considering. I wish to mention just two of those provisions, although there are others. If sufficient time had been allowed it would have been possible to give more substantial attention to some of the provisions in the legislation that should be highlighted. The first of the two amendments to which I wish to refer is the amendment to the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980. In effect, the amendment seeks, amongst other things, to implement the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals. I do not propose to make a speech relating to Antarctic seals. The reason why I mention this matter is simply to make a point that it is in our view not appropriate, irrespective of what practice might have been adopted in the past, to take steps in legislation to implement a treaty by way of a statute law miscellaneous provisions Bill. Such an amendment surely would justify a separate piece of legislation. I hasten to add that I am not proposing on this occasion that any amendment should be made. I am simply drawing the attention of the House to the fact that there is proposed to be effected by this Bill an amendment to the law which is by no stretch of the imagination a mere technicality. We are proposing to implement an international convention not by way of a separate Bill, as it should be, but by an omnibus Bill-the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985. We would maintain that that is not appropriate. We hope that this sort of thing will not be done again. Such a practice is doubly bad in circumstances in which the Bill, albeit an omnibus Bill, is being debated under such draconian restrictions as we now have. Despite all the pomposity that one hears from the Government these days about democracy, the hard fact of the matter is that we are now having rammed through this Parliament a series of measures without adequate time being made available for debate. One of the measures in this omnibus Bill contains provisions which seek to implement an international treaty. That is a matter of great significance. It is a matter which Government members as well as Opposition members should greet with the greatest degree of concern. It is not appropriate that such a matter should be debated under these restricted circumstances. It is certainly not a matter that should be part of an omnibus Bill. The second matter to which I wish to draw attention is the proposed amendments to the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975. I wish to say two things about that. The first is that the omnibus Bill contains a large number of amendments to this legislation. I would have thought that it was not appropriate by means of an omnibus Bill to make wholesale amendments to any piece of legislation, especially one which seeks to change the structure of a semi-government organisation. As I have said, a Bill of this sort is supposed to be concerned with mere technical and administrative changes. It is not supposed to be concerned with substantive amendments. The amendments which are proposed to the Trade Union Training Authority Act are substantial amendments. Let me give one illustration. It is proposed under the amendments to create a new Australian council to administer this outfit. Whereas previously the Australian Council of Trade Unions had seven out of the 14 representatives on that august body, under the amendments it will have a majority, 10 out of 16 representatives. I know that the Government likes to act at the behest of the ACTU at every opportunity and that if the ACTU says 'boo' to the Government it instantly cringes. If the Government wants to do that, it has to account to the people for its craven, spineless attitude in these matters. But if it is going to do that, at least it should have a separate piece of legislation with a second reading speech explaining why it is necessary to hand over the control of the governing body of the Trade Union Training Authority to the ACTU so that that Authority becomes a mere instrument and an extension of the ACTU, paid for by the public at large but doing the bidding of the ACTU for the simple reason that it will have a majority on the governing body. It is not appropriate for that sort of amendment to be contained in an omnibus Bill such as the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1). As well as the matters I have mentioned, there are a host of administrative and minor amendments in the Bill. Many of them give the Government an opportunity to pursue some of its private hobbies. I notice that many of the amendments change words from being gender specific and put them in an epicene context, as it is called. This means that replacing words such as 'he' and 'she' with words such as 'Chairperson', 'president' or 'Attorney-General'. I suppose the Australian Labor Party regards the Government as a convenient mechanism to pursue hobbies of this sort, which seem to mesmerise it out of all proportion to the significance and importance of the matter. So there are a whole host of amendments which, frankly, butcher, twist and contort the language in Acts of this Parliament in a quite unnecessary manner. Finally, I point out that a number of members of the Opposition wanted to speak on this Bill and draw attention to its provisions. They have been frustrated by the Government in their attempt to do that. They have been prevented by the Government from speaking. More particularly, we have had amendments prepared. They are in print. They are available for any member of the Government who wants to look at them. They are significant, serious and substantial amendments that we wanted to promote and which is almost certain we will not have time to promote. This is unfortunate. Those who parade themselves around this place as being quite competent to lecture to other countries such as South Africa about democracy, principles of conduct and standards should look at themselves occasionally and see the way in which they are twisting our own parliamentary institution. If they go on doing it in this manner, this institution will not survive. I know that on occasions my Party has been obliged to move the guillotine under difficult circumstances. But whatever honourable members opposite say about us we have never been in a situation in which, two or three days before the Parliament is to rise, dozens of Bills have been introduced. Mr Beazley —Oh! Mr N. A. BROWN —The Minister has not been here all that long, despite his pomposity and pretensions. He has not been here long enough to know exactly what the history of this place is. If he wants an independent arbitration on the subject, I suggest that he read Hansard to see the history of the introduction of legislation. Of course, there have been times under the administration of my Party when the guillotine has been applied-I do not deny that for one moment-but we have never been in the position of forcing such a dray load of Bills-this battery of Bills-through the Parliament only a couple of days before the Parliament is due to rise. Indeed, even at this late stage-today, Tuesday, when the Parliament is due to rise on Thursday night-new Bills have been introduced. If honourable members opposite want to make political points about it they should do so because at the moment they have the numbers. I do not know how long they will have them but I can guarantee that they will not always have them. They will leave behind them some very sour monuments. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(6.15) —The comments made by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) would be amusing if they were not so much out of context. The reality is that the honourable member for Menzies was part of a Government that used these mechanisms in the House with as much vigour as Madam Defarge. In any event, although it is only hearsay, one of my colleagues advised me that the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) on one occasion guillotined some 22 Bills in 14 minutes, which is significantly in excess of the number being dealt with in that way this evening. One of the points I wish to raise relates to the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967, which is affected by the amendments contained in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1), and the tourist industry. I do not intend to spend a great deal of time on this matter because a number of other honourable members want to utilise the limited time set down for debate on the Bill, but I wish to advert very briefly to the economic significance of the tourist industry and then relate some of that information to my own electorate of Maribyrnong. Honourable members will be aware that the tourist industry represents 5.2 per cent of Australia's total employment-by any definition a significant part of the Australian economy. Just to give honourable members some perspective on the size of the industry, I indicate that it is equivalent to the textile, clothing, footwear and motor vehicle industries combined. For every tourist dollar spent in the economy, around 56 per cent goes into the production of goods and the provision of services, and so it goes on. Currently, the tourist industry is obviously one of the few growth industries in Australia. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) indicated that some 40,000 jobs have been created in that industry since March 1983. It certainly is an indication of his efforts in his portfolio. Getting back to my own electorate, I wish to place on record what I strongly believe to be the lack of recognition of many major potential and actual tourist attractions in the western region of Melbourne. Honourable members will be aware that in recent times Federal and State Labor governments have initiated a considerable degree of spending on the Maribyrnong and Yarra rivers. I invite all honourable members, when they have the opportunity, to take a trip up the Maribynong River. It is a river of considerable beauty, a tidal river with unique attractions, yet it is relatively unknown within Melbourne, let alone in other parts of Australia. I recently had occasion to take some colleagues down that river and it is fair to say that they were amazed at the river's potential both in terms of recreational pursuits and as a tourist attraction. Its close proximity to both Essendon and Tullamarine airports and the fact that it is straddled by the major commuter links from Sydney and South Australia into Melbourne are other indicators of its potential if the resource is properly utilised. There are a range of attractions along the Maribyrnong River including the historic Hume Factory at Footscray, the very famous tea gardens at Avondale Heights, which are under restoration, the Flemington Racecourse, know to many members of this House, particularly the honourable member on my right whom I shall not name, and a whole range of river-abutting bicycle and pedestrian paths. The potential of the river in terms of its impact on tourism, particularly domestic tourism, will be achieved only by significantly greater Government involvement and co-operation between State, Federal and local government and, more particularly, the ability of various Commonwealth and State government departments to make land available for recreational purposes. My time is extremely short, and as I know that another honourable member wishes to make some comments, I shall conclude my remarks on this note: There are a number of very large areas of Commonwealth land owned by the defence factory along the environs of the Maribyrnong River. At this stage there have been preliminary discussions about that land being made available for public recreational use. I wish to use the time available to me to suggest very strongly that any attempt to sell off that defence land for other than public recreational use will meet strong opposition from the honourable member for Maribyrnong, and I am sure those of my colleagues whose electorates have some connection with the Maribyrnong area. I commend to the Minister for Defence the great kudos that will accrue to him as Minister and to this Government by sensible utilisation of those resources in the near future. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(6.20) —It is disappointing that this important Bill, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985, is being considered under the guillotine and that one has only 10 minutes in which to raise a number of substantive issues that arise in the legislation covered by this omnibus Bill. It is important to understand that the reason we are considering the legislation in this way is that the Government is in total disarray; it is unable to program its legislation effectively. The way in which legislation has been rammed into these last weeks of the sittings has meant that the Government, in order to get its legislative program through, has had to curtail the opportunity to discuss responsibly and properly legislation that is of importance to the Australian community. It is important to know that time will not permit my colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) to move certain amendments to the Public Works Committee Act he has foreshadowed, because amendments to that Act are included in this omnibus Bill. Furthermore, my colleague the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has amendments he wishes to move to the Repatriation Act and the Defence Act where they are referred to in this omnibus Bill. He will now not have an opportunity to put those amendments before Parliament. The amendments to which I want to draw attention in this Bill relate to two separate Acts of Parliament. One is the Australian Citizenship Act and the other the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946. The amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act provide for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to be able to administer the oath for people who are becoming Australian citizens. There is a provision that people who are not Australian citizens cannot administer the oath. I imagine that it is meant to ensure that people who are mayors, shire presidents, or whatever who are able to administer the oath will not be able to do so if they are not Australian citizens. They might be ratepayers, but if they are not Australian citizens they will be unable to administer the oath. There are provisions designed to validate the acquisition of Australian citizenship, if it was obtained in circumstances where the oath was not administered by an Australian citizen. Those provisions, in the view of the Opposition, are essentially non-controversial, but other aspects of Australian citizenship need to be addressed urgently. If a separate Bill were being introduced at this time, we would have been able to discuss these matters in a meaningful way. The provisions amending section 17 of the Australian Citizenship Act, when looked at in 1984, have brought forward a number of anomalies that need to be brought to public attention. People who believed they were Australians now find that, because of some circumstance in which they have applied for a passport for some other nation, they have put at risk their Australian citizenship or have lost it. This matter could have been easily remedied, but it has not been dealt with in this legislation. The second matter relates to the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 and the amendments thereto. The purpose of those amendments is to provide for the Minister to be able to be appointed as guardian of certain minors who have entered Australia with supporting relatives. When those relatives have perhaps been unable to continue that obligation, the Minister is able to become their guardian. The Opposition does not object to those provisions. It believes that they are appropriate and support them. The circumstances in which this amendment was proposed are something of which all honourable members should be aware. On 15 February I had a briefing from the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The Deputy Secretary was able to foreshadow to me at that time that amendments were intended to this legislation. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) wrote to me on 15 April, told me of this legislation, and asked me whether I would agree to its being proceeded with as essentially a non-controversial item. I replied on 22 April indicating that I did so agree. The Minister put a postscript to the letter to the effect that if the amendment proved to be acceptable and non-controversial, he would arrange for it to be included in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I told him that that was not acceptable, yet it has come forward in this legislation. We wanted an opportunity to be able to raise a number of other important matters relating to the guardianship of children. Because of the circumstances those matters cannot now be discussed. The Minister put considerable pressure on the Opposition to ensure that these matters proceed as they have in this legislation, but it should be known and understood that the matter clearly involved his responsibility. It could have been dealt with when it was first proposed in February and it was foreshadowed that legislation of this type was to be included in the program. It was not a matter that could come up only at the end of the session. It could have been dealt with in time. It did not need to be brought forward in this way, where the co-operation of the Opposition had to be sought, as a result of which there will be no opportunity to discuss these important and substantial issues. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(6.28) —in reply-The question has been asked whether the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1985 is too large and covers too many matters. I am assured that all these matters are of a minor policy nature, even though the Bill may appear to be large. Mr Sinclair —We have each got amendments. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I appreciate that, but I think the amendments would have been able to be answered in that they are not acceptable. For example, in respect of the amendment to the Public Works Act, the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works is firmly of the view that it would not be prepared to accept such an amendment. Mr MacKellar —Well, that is the Chairman, but the rest of them aren't. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am making the point that in respect of immigration it is important that provision is made for the children concerned. I know that the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) does not disagree with that, but he wanted to know why this could not have covered other matters. I do not know why they cannot be dealt with at a later stage. The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) was concerned about the fact that the legislation deals with Antarctic seals. The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals has been in existence since 1972, and all the amendment does is enable us to enter into negotiations for ratification of the Convention. It is not a new matter. I am assured by the Parliamentary Counsel that all the matters in this Bill are in accordance with precedent and cover only what are called minor policy matters. I accept that there are amendments to be moved, and I have no doubt they will be moved in the Senate, if that is the position. I say to the two honourable members concerned that I am not aware of the information that might relate to matters of defence, but in relation to the Public Works Committee matter that amendment would not have been acceptable. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time being 6.30 p.m., the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(8.00) —The Opposition does not oppose the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill which will amend certain particulars in the Social Security Act and the Nursing Homes Assistance Act. I want to talk in general terms about both Acts. Opposition responsibility for the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974 rests with the shadow Minister for Community Services, Senator Tony Messner. I want to make a few remarks in this place on behalf of the Opposition. The change brought about by this Bill is expected to save the Government $500,000 in the remainder of 1985-86 and a similar amount in following years, as was announced as part of the economic statement. Currently some nursing homes which run day care centres for their patients also cater for other members of the local community. This Bill seeks to ensure that matters relating only to nursing homes and their patients come under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act and that matters involving the rest of the community or homes in the community will fall within the proposed home and community care program-HACC. This HACC program was announced prior to the election of last year. There is great concern within the community about what the HACC program will cover. There has already been some indication that some of the more traditional programs will suffer. There is still the basic need for the community to be informed about the HACC program. I know that I have been approached by many of those community based services in both the welfare and health areas as to where they might fit into this program. It is also noted that the promise of expenditure of $300m was made in this regard. The same people who might become the clients of that program are now suggesting that if the old, traditional programs are cut it will be a $295m loss on the one hand and a $300m gain on the other. With inflation there is likely to be little gain overall. I think the opportunity has to be taken by the Government to consult with those people who are concerned in order to make sure that they know where they stand. The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill is one of the expenditure cut measures which, as I have said, we will not oppose. It intends to discontinue, as from 1 November 1985, the payment of family allowance in respect of student children who have attained the age of 18. The outline of the Bill suggests that the savings for the remainder of 1985-86-that is, from 1 November 1985 to 30 June 1986-will be some $20m and there will be a $30m saving in the 1986-87 financial year. Some exceptions in the Bill cover those areas where hardships could be involved. I understand that those exceptions cover about 6,000 students. This matter is particularly relevant to the low income families where there is a necessity for additional income support, because they may not be getting the pension. I understand that those people will benefit as an example for many others. Some anomalies could be created in relation to the transfer from the family allowance to the tertiary education assistance scheme. It depends on the age at which people apply. There is an in-between period when a student who is without the benefit of TEAS or the adult secondary education assistance scheme could fall short of funds by being denied the family allowance. It must be noted also that the provision cutting off the allowance at the age of 18 does not merely cut out the first child at the lowest end of the scale of those in receipt of the allowance. That actually means that the Government is taking off that child and putting the second child into the lower end of the scale of those in receipt of the allowance. By that spread the Government is actually denying the family the final benefit for the last child and is not so much denying the benefit for the first child. I am not sure whether the Government has appreciated this and what it might mean in some families. I believe that there is a case to be made for the middle income earner when one appreciates that the lower income earner will be protected by the benefits which flow from the family income supplement. There is a need for this society to look at the traditional single income family. I believe that it is taking a large part of the burden of not only maintaining children but also educating children in society today. I take the example of someone with, say, a middle income. The income could be between $18,000 to $20,000, on which the family is trying to support five or six children and is trying to give them a Christian education which involves sending them to a convent or a private secondary school and on to the final years in tertiary education. In spite of the fact that there are allowances for the individual members of the family, those people can be denied TEAS. I am sure that other members, particularly those in the National Party of Australia and those who are associated with country electorates, often find the case of the embittered man in the middle income bracket who is trying to do the right thing by society and make his own way, but is being denied- Mr Donald Cameron —Being squeezed like a lemon. Mr BRAITHWAITE —That is right, he is being squeezed from the point of view that the lower income earners are being looked after and those on higher incomes are able to afford this type of education. But as the honourable member for Moreton says, these people in the middle are squeezed like a lemon. They are unable to get any benefit from either the family allowance, if the child is over 18 years, or TEAS. Also, because of the additional benefits which often flow from the isolated children's education scheme, they cannot be allowed that assistance. I believe that if it is fair enough for the Government on this occasion to be treating a person at the age of 18 as an adult-I am not sure whether that was implied-perhaps on the other side of the coin one could also imply that a child over the age of 18 who is independent of his family and who is treated as an adult for the purposes of the family allowance should also be treated as being independent for the purposes of the TEAS allowance. Of course, that is not the case. A child between the age of 18 and 25 who is going through tertiary education is means tested on the parents' income. I just put in a plea for the situation of those middle income earners. Those people with traditional families are really the basis of our society. They are trying to do the right thing. They are certainly not being subsidised, but they are certainly not being encouraged by the programs we have at the moment. I also want to mention a philosophy which seems to be coming out of the Australian Labor Party at the moment. There is a suggestion that the dependent spouse tax rebate should be transferred to a family allowance. Basically we are talking about a family allowance in this situation. Those who espouse this cause would indicate that the dependent spouse tax rebate goes to the income earner of the family, male or female. The tax rebate is given to the person who is a taxpayer and the benefit does not go to the person who is the spouse. The suggestion is that if this arrangement were cashed up and transferred to a family allowance it would be available to the spouse, male or female. In this regard I caution that I believe that those who speak in that way reject completely the concept on which the dependent spouse tax rebate was first introduced. I firmly believe that the spouse tax rebate is a method of equalising the incomes of single income and double income families. If my calculations are right, just to give a single income family the benefit of the second tax zero ceiling the spouse tax rebate should be in the vicinity of $1,200. So, there is no comparison between that and a further supplement to the family allowance. I caution that the spouse tax rebate, if transferred to family allowance, could suffer the same fate as the child dependant rebate, which, since the transfer in 1977, has not been indexed. It has been allowed to sit there as that one amount until about four years after the transfer, when it was increased. Actually, what I am saying is that the family allowance would not benefit to any great extent by that transfer and runs the risk of being overlooked and not increased in line with the increase in the cost of keeping families. The family allowance, when introduced in 1977, represented fair value for the struggling family. It does not have the same value in the context of 1985 prices. While there is every good reason to believe that the Government, in putting the ceiling at 18 years, is acting with a certain amount of discretion, there is the problem that the family allowance is not maintaining the value it had in 1977. Basically, there is nothing more that I would like to say, because of the constraint on time as a result of the guillotine motion. This could have been an opportunity to talk of other matters. My remarks have related to two items in the Bill before us-nursing home assistance and the family allowance. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. I rest our case in the hope that the Minister will answer some of the queries mentioned in my speech. Mr GEAR(Canning)(8.12) —In looking at the origin of the family allowance we should go back as far as 1907 and the Harvester judgment in which it was said that the basic wage should be sufficient to clothe and feed a family of three. That is a concept we still live with today. That concept having been established and what was at the time termed a basic wage having been brought in, not very much was done to make sure that the basic wage covered the needs of the family unit. It was not surprising that over time inflation had its effect and that progressively the basic wage of that time stretched thinner and thinner and people found themselves in need of a supplement to their incomes. It was not until around 1941 that child endowment was brought in. Significantly enough, it was financed through a payroll tax. That was possibly a recognition that a supplement to the basic wage should come from the work force. While we have trouble nowadays with payroll tax, we should remember its origins in 1941 as a method of collecting tax to supplement the income of lower income families. That continued until 1952, when this tax no longer served that purpose. That would have been an opportune time to get rid of the payroll tax. But the government of the day did not do that; it went on collecting payroll tax and, in 1972, handed that tax over to the States. We can see the effect nowadays in that we have high unemployment and the most regressive tax in the country is the payroll tax collected by the States. We have now reached the position where the States rely on the very significant amounts of money raised by that tax to balance their budgets. There was a recognition in 1941 that there had to be a wage supplement, a topping up of the inadequate basic wage, and it was not to be considered a welfare payment. The Child Endowment Act, at its commencement, did not include the first child. It made payments available for only the second and subsequent children under the age of 16. That continued for quite a while, until in 1964 the program was expanded to include full time students between the ages of 16 and 21. They became eligible at that time for the purpose of family income supplement payments. The age of 21 is very significant because at the time it was the age of majority, and the government of the day believed that, as long as these students were still at school, their families incurred some expense in keeping them there and they should be looked after until they were 21. That was a significant step which, I point out to the House, was very much easier to take in 1964 than it would be nowadays because of the relative affluence of that time. Another 12 years went by until in 1976 the eligibility criteria were once again broadened to include full time students aged up to 25 years. I do not know the rationale behind that, but certainly benefits were extended in respect of those up to 25 years of age. The focus of the Bill before us tonight is the taking away of some of those benefits. In 1975 the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty reported a relatively high level of poverty in large families and found that by that time, with little increase in the rates and the effects of inflation, the financial benefits of the family income supplement had been significantly eroded. The Whitlam Government replaced what it saw as the inequitable and regressive concession tax deductions for dependants with rebates so that children were categorised at the same level for all, whatever the parental income. Until that time one could claim a tax rebate for one's children and the amount of money one earned determined the amount of rebate; so that the children of those families on the top marginal rate were worth more to them in rebates than were the children of lower income families. That was changed by the Whitlam Government. One of the first acts of the Fraser Government, one that was applauded by many, was to take that child endowment out of the tax structure and pay it directly to the mother. The benefits, instead of accruing to the taxpayer, went directly to the mother. That is the system we still have. Mr Donald Cameron —Are you against that, too? Mr GEAR —No, I was all for it. I do not think anybody on this side would argue with that. The first means testing of the family allowance, since 1941, was introduced in 1978. Things were getting a little tougher by that time. Children with an income of over $1,040 attracted a reduced allowance. In 1979 the family allowance was not payable to students receiving tertiary education assistance scheme payments or other Commonwealth educational allowances and was no longer paid for children living outside Australia. Under the means test that we are proposing it is estimated that the allowance will be cut for only about 2 per cent of the more than four million children and students for whom the allowance is paid. The decision will not affect other children of low income earners who go on to tertiary education as their allowance is already subsumed by the tertiary education assistance scheme and related programs. A couple of examples will illustrate just how fair the hardship provisions are. A family with two children living at home and receiving TEAS allowances will continue to receive family allowance for those children up to an income of about $31,000 a year-not an insignificant amount. Another example is that, if there are five children, three of whom live at home and receive TEAS allowances and two of whom are under 18 and at school, the family allowance for the three TEAS students will be payable up to incomes of about $40,000 a year. Even beyond that income level the family will still receive the family allowance in respect of the two children under 18. So I do not think anybody could say that the measures outlined in the May statement are in any way hard. I think that they address a problem and that, by and large, the beneficiaries of the payments will not miss them. I have looked at the origins of the scheme. The basic wage was seen as a concept that should be developed and maintained throughout the work force. The family incomes and child endowments of the day supplemented the wages because of the effects of erosion. In 1983 the Labor Government introduced the family income supplement. So we seem to have gone a full circle. We are now going into phase two of the whole program. Now that the family allowance is in place and is widely given to all people, regardless of whether they need it, we find that we have to come up with another program-the family income supplement-to lift once again the incomes of low income earners to a level whereby the basic wage concept is maintained. If there is a thorough review of the way in which governments make money available to recipients in the form of welfare payments, it is my hope that it will address the basic wage concept and get back to that. Having said that, once benefits are given to people it is very hard to take them away. For there to be a rational discussion in this Parliament about how we should direct our welfare payments, whether through the social security field or the taxation system, there has to be a bipartisan approach. It is very hard for any government to take benefits from people unless it is supported on both sides of the chamber. It was our experience in government when we introduced the assets test that the political opportunism of the Opposition discoloured the waters in that respect. The Government was painted in many corners as being a mean and miserable government, which it was not. What we were trying to do was to direct welfare payments to those most in need. We seemed to think that there was something wrong with paying out pensions to millionaires when people who had no assets and who were in the private rental market were trying to exist on the basic pension. It is our belief that those people in real need should be the focus of any welfare payments. If the Opposition is to continue to behave as it did in relation to the assets test-there is nothing to suggest, certainly in recent times, that that attitude will change and that the political opportunism will go away-I do not hold out much hope for a thorough review of our social security payments system. As I have pointed out, I think that a review is long overdue. The taxes which are collected from honest taxpayers should be directed to those people most in need As I have said, we need a bipartisan approach from both sides of this Parliament. There are claims-quite rightly, I think, in some cases-that governments collect too much in taxes, that governments spend too much. The Opposition is always talking about smaller government and smaller taxation, but when it comes actually to cutting back in areas where government expenditure can be cut back without causing a lot of hardship, what does it do? It jumps on the band wagon of political opportunism and gets stuck into the Government. I do not hold out any hope at all that the taxes that are collected will be distributed in a rational way, mainly because of the way the Opposition has acted in the debate so far. Having said that and having regard to the time, I would say that I believe the amendments to the social security legislation, which is before us tonight, are a step in the right direction. I hope that one day the Parliament will be able to sit down in a way that is truly bipartisan in nature, and look at the way the honest taxpayers' money is spent, making sure that it goes to those people most in need. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(8.24) —One has to express some admiration for the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) in terms of his determination to cut government expenditure. In this place yesterday, I think it was, he advocated the reintroduction of the imposition of university fees. Cabinet sat into the early hours of this morning discussing that subject and even the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) capitulated on it. Perhaps those words of wisdom that he uttered at the end of his speech were more a reflection of his frustration with his own Party than anything else. In relation to the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the explanatory notes of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) contain only 15 lines. The legislation is clipping off the people an amount of between $20m and $30m, but it deserves only 15 lines. We are working on the principle that the less the Government says the less likely it is to get into trouble. It is a case of getting the legislation through the House quickly so that no one will notice. Contrary to the comments made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Canning, which were restricted somewhat to the family allowance, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill also includes a decision in respect of the Nursing Homes Assistance Act 1974. This great Government-this compassionate, caring Government-is saving the princely amount of $500,000 a year by introducing rules which will prevent nursing homes introducing additional services into those homes, such as those provided by physiotherapists and nurse trainers. The Government even proposes to put a stop to day care centres being established in those nursing homes. Speaking on a very personal note for a moment, today marks the twentieth year of the passing of my mother. If she had lived she would have been in the age group that we have seen being hit so solidly in recent months by this Government. The aged seem to be the easy target. In relation to the assets test, the Minister for Social Security, who is also in charge of this Bill, told us that only about 40,000 pensioners would be affected, at an advantage of $13m for the Government. Later he discovered that he had a saving of $100m. With a gleeful look on his face-we saw it when he appeared on television and when he was in this Parliament and other places-he indicated how he regarded the assets test as a great success. The 35-day rule has been maintained by this Government in relation to aged people, and even young people who are in hospital. These are examples of age bashing. Yet last year members of the Government-do not let me hear honourable members opposite say 'hear, hear' on this-voted for an increase in the size of the Parliament by 35 members. The cost of that and the cost of extending and altering the present and new Parliament Houses to accommodate those members over the next three years will be $85m. Yet the legislation before us tonight will save the Government $500,000. The Government really has its priorities screwed up. I am quite sure that come the next election it will pay a very serious price for its misjudgments. There is the example of the way in which the Government sat on the approval of nursing home beds. The moment the Government came into office the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) put a clamp on the approval of new nursing home beds. Two years passed before it released another 206 beds in Victoria and we saw strains coming on to the system. The Government, in its 1983 election speech, promised to give $300m to help people care for the aged. It has come forward with about $10m or $15m. Of that $10m or $15m there is not one brass razoo that is brand new because the Government has ripped the money out of other programs. It has done a shuffle of the pack, saying: 'Aren't we marvellous?'. A government of compassion! I turn to the second aspect which was alluded to by the honourable member for Canning and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), that is, the family allowance. I do not quite understand how the honourable member for Canning can come in here and tell us that people with, say, four or five children can have $40,000 as income and still qualify for the family allowance. From the very limited information which we have been able to glean, the Bill itself exempts only certain categories from the knife blade. I will refer to those people eligible to receive a family income supplement. To be eligible to receive the supplement one has to get an income of less than $247 a week. Therefore, if one is on $248 a week, as I understand- Mr Howe —Come off it. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I wish to be fair to the Minister. I am not discrediting the Minister but I do not believe that those figures of $30,000 or $40,000 are correct. Exemptions from the Minister's Bill include those eligible to receive a family income supplement, those in receipt of a double orphan's pension or those receiving a handicapped child's allowance in respect of the child. Other exemptions are made when payments are made in respect of a child under the secondary allowances scheme administered by the Commonwealth or the Aboriginal secondary grants scheme. Those who are eligible to receive payments under those schemes or who are eligible to receive assistance under the isolated children's scheme have no need to worry. It is a complete conflict to hear the honourable member for Canning talk about people in receipt of incomes of $30,000 or $40,000 still being eligible for payment of the family allowance when the Bill itself specifies the exemptions. This afternoon I endeavoured to obtain from the Minister's office the number of people who would be affected by the Bill. The Minister really plays this silence game well. He has all his staff keyed up to 'tell them nothing, keep them in the dark' because they could not tell me. His staff members have no information. Ringing a Labor Minister's office is like dialling a wrong number, because one will not get any more information from the Minister's office than one would get from dialling a wrong number. Mr Porter —They call it freedom of informa- tion. Mr DONALD CAMERON —One has to resort to the Freedom of Information Act. What we have been able to establish fairly accurately as a guesstimate is that there are some 200,000 children between 18 and 24 years of age whose parents will no longer receive this benefit. Those figures could be inaccurate by a few thousand because, as I said, I have not had any co-operation from the Minister's office. We have just had to use the resources available to us. We believe there are some 200,000 children aged between 18 and 24 years whose parents are likely to be affected. This is 4.6 per cent of the total number of children whose parents receive the family allowance, some 4.6 per cent of the family allowance budget of $1.5 billion is $70m. That is $40m more than the Government claims it will save. If we go back we see that in relation to the assets test the Government said that it would save $13m a year, but it then saved $100m. I ask whether we are being subjected to another two-card trick. I suggest that it is quite likely. Out there thousands of families in the middle income group do not qualify for the family income supplement, the double orphan's pension or the handicapped child's allowance, et cetera. The other day the Government introduced in the same package legislation to put up kindergarten fees by $2.50 or $3 a day. Families unlucky enough to have a little one in kindy or pre-school and another aged 18 years or over in university will be in for the crunch. Those families will cop it from both ends. Madam Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge the fact that we are allowed only 10 minutes each in the debate tonight. I conclude by saying that we are creating a new poverty group in Australia. The incomes of many average families have been subjected to amounts of $300 or $400 being knocked off here or $400 or $500 being knocked off there. They are being pushed into higher tax scales-from 30c in the dollar to 47c in the dollar with the Medicare levy. Because of these charges the Government has effectively pulled hundreds of thousands of Australians-perhaps even millions-down the income ladder. The Government has established its new mean level. It will be a lot easier to bring the poverty level up to the rest of Australia because the Government is pulling those people who are half way up the ladder down so fast that it is not funny. I wish I could speak longer but I will abide by the agreement. I plead with the Minister to have a little more heart in the way he approaches his portfolio. He should have a bit of courage and say to his Prime Minister: 'Don't wipe off half a million dollars here and there. Let us get into the big things about which we have been blundering on-some of Labor's favourite philosophical schemes'. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(8.35) —It is always remarkable to listen to Opposition speakers prating on and criticising any measures that the Government might take to cut expenditure. They are apparently capable of doing it without seeing the obvious inconsistency between that general line and their own calls for reductions in government deficits, government outlays and the claim of government over the economy. Quite frankly, no credence can be attached to those sorts of comments from members of the Opposition. It is really clear that they have no genuine credentials in this area. The Government has decided to limit the payment of family allowances to families with full time students over the age of 18 years. Obviously, that is part of a broad effort to limit social welfare payments to those people who have a genuine need. Various exemptions are inserted in the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill. For example, there is a requirement that those who receive the family income supplement or those on pensions or benefits receiving additional payments for children will continue to retain eligibility for the family allowance. Thus there is no question of those payments being withheld from people who have a genuine claim or need. It really is essential that from the point of view of maximising the level of benefit payment to those who have a genuine need the Government should look at a number of these areas. The fact is that over the last few years there has been a very clear deterioration in the position of low income families with children. The real value of the family allowance has progressively deteriorated. I would say that an essential condition of raising those basic levels is that we not pay these sorts of benefits to people who are, in fact, on high incomes. That is the broad objective of this measure. I take this opportunity to make a number of more general remarks about the whole system of transfer payments. I think it is essential that we look carefully at that in the context of the present debate about taxation reform because we can appropriately regard things such as family allowances as a form of negative income tax. As such it is logical that changes to the system of social security payments be considered in the broad context and in the same vein as tax reform. We are to receive a White Paper on tax reform in early June. In relation to the tax reform question currently under examination, I certainly hope-I have every reason to believe this will be the case-the Government will take an integral approach to the system of taxation and social welfare benefits of various kinds, which obviously includes the family allowance. The observation has been made on many occasions that so far as the degree of equity of the Government's intervention in the economy on both the expenditure and revenue sides is concerned, in many circumstances the achievement of a degree of vertical equity, so to speak, or, for that matter, horizontal equity, is more efficiently achieved through the social welfare transfer payment system than through the tax system. I believe that matter will be examined as part of the tax reform process. The priority to be given to those sorts of questions has been spelt out by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the nine principles of tax reform which he outlined earlier this year. Occupying a prominent place on that list of nine principles was the need to alleviate poverty traps that face social welfare beneficiaries and pensioners. The term 'poverty trap' has been taken to refer to the combined effect of the application of the tax system and the withdrawal of a social welfare benefit or pension. It is the situation faced by low income earners, pensioners or beneficiaries once they get beyond the free area that applies to their particular pension or benefit. The observation has been made that such people face higher effective marginal tax rates than the maximum rate of marginal tax that applies to high income earners, which is 60 per cent. If one combines the effect of withdrawal of benefit and the application of the tax system, in some cases, particularly when more than one benefit is withdrawn such as the pension and the supplementary rental assistance, one ends up with effective marginal tax rates in excess of 100 per cent. That means, in effect, that a person who earns an additional dollar of private income ends up depriving himself of a larger amount of income as a result of the withdrawal of pension, benefit, supplementary rental assistance or whatever other benefit may be withdrawn when the tax system is applied. Obviously, that is a perverse state of affairs and one that ought to be regarded as completely unacceptable. It is not an easy situation to deal with. Frankly, if we deal with the matter comprehensively, we are up for very substantial sums of money indeed. Ultimately, the way to deal with the problem is via some form of guaranteed minimum income scheme of the sort recommended by the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. However, that has a disadvantage in that if we are bound by commitments such as the trilogy there would be a very substantial increase in both outlays and revenues as a proportion of gross domestic product. It is a little deceptive in the sense that the whole thing is an income transfer between various classes of individuals. It does not represent an increase, in a fundamental sense, in the claims of government over the economy. Nonetheless, there is a major problem in that if one is supposedly wedded to a regime of fiscal stringency, limiting the growth of expenditures the rate of growth of outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product, one is constrained from going down the track of a guaranteed minimum income scheme. I believe that such a proposal has encountered fierce resistance from the Treasury on precisely that ground. Falling short of looking at a guaranteed minimum incomes scheme, we could contemplate some palliative assistance so that we could reduce the effective marginal tax rates faced by social security beneficiaries earning private incomes. We could do that by raising the point at which the pension or benefit starts to be withdrawn, by reducing the tax rate applicable to people who are in that position, or by reducing the rate at which the pension or benefit tapers off. A combination of those approaches can be addressed. The problem is that, whichever way we go, any attempt to alleviate significantly the problem of so-called poverty traps has very substantial revenue and or outlay implications for the government of the day. It is certainly not an easy problem to address; nonetheless it is one that ought to be addressed. There is a great deal of talk about the effect of high marginal tax rates on the supply of labour. We are told that tax reform must be regarded as a high priority matter because people earning about average male weekly earnings are now facing the 46 per cent marginal tax rate and this constitutes a serious disincentive to the supply of labour. Similar arguments have been put forward in support of efforts to remove the top marginal tax rate of 60 per cent. Such empirical evidence as exists on the relationship between marginal tax rates and the supply of labour tends to suggest that the decision of middle to high income earners-that is, the people who are likely to be impacted by the 46 or 60 per cent marginal tax rates-to supply labour is not, on balance, significantly affected by-(Quorum formed) Mr SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PORTER(Barker)(8.47) —These amendments to the National Health Act make fundamental changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Firstly, they introduce a new special patient contribution to be paid in circumstances which I shall outline in a moment. The second change to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme is the increase of the general patient contribution for pharmaceutical benefits from $4 to $5. I will deal firstly with the new special patient contribution. At present, if a drug is listed on the pharmaceutical benefit schedule an intending purchaser may obtain the drug free, pay $2 or $4, soon to be $5, for the purchase of that drug. Pensioners are in the first category of those who obtain pharmaceutical benefits free of charge. Concessional health care card beneficiaries obtain pharmaceutical benefits at a cost of $2 while other will have to pay $5. In order for a drug to be listed on the pharmaceutical benefits schedule, the drug not only has to be approved by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee but also has to be recommended to go on the list by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Having run that gauntlet, a price must be agreed between the Government and the pharmaceutical company supplying the drug. At present the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has indicated that the average cost to the Government of the general benefit prescriptions is now around $7.38. The Government subsidy to the cost of drugs on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme depends on the category into which the purchaser falls. As I have outlined, if he is a pensioner he pays nothing, whereas if he is not eligible for a concession he will pay $5, the balance being the government subsidy. Currently where there is a disagreement between the Government and a pharmaceutical company over the price the Government is prepared to pay, the Government has only one option. For new drugs, it is not to list the drug, or in the case of a drug already listed, it is to remove it from the pharmaceutical benefits schedule. In these instances the cost to the consumer would clearly increase as no subsidy would be provided. The Government's proposal in this situation is to provide a government subsidy at the price proposed by the Government and the balance between that price and the cost to the consumer is to be met by the consumer in the form of a special patient contribution. This would be in addition to the appropriate normal contribution. Concessional beneficiaries and pensioners will also be required to pay that additional patient contribution. The Opposition does not oppose this measure. However, I do take this opportunity to raise with the Minister the circumstances in which he will seek to implement the provisions. He has talked in his second reading speech about disagreements between the manufacturer and the Government in two instances; namely, when a manufacturer seeks to increase the price of a drug already on the list, and secondly, when a new drug is recommended for listing as a pharmaceutical benefit and an agreement cannot be reached between the manufacturer and the Government as to the price. There is, of course, another circumstance in which the provisions could be used and that is when the Government seeks to reduce the price of a drug currently on the pharmaceutical benefits schedule and the manufacturer disagrees with the reduction. The Minister, in his second reading speech, made it clear that the legislation is intended to operate in relation to price increases. However, the application of a special patient contribution could be invoked when the Government seeks to reduce the price of a drug on the pharmaceutical benefits schedule; that is, reduce the price paid to the manufacturer. I ask the Minister to clarify the circumstances in which he intends to invoke these provisions, and specifically whether they are only the instances he outlined in his second reading speech. The second part of the package flows from last week's mini-Budget when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) announced an increase from $4 to $5 in the general patient contribution for pharmaceutical benefits with effect from 1 July 1985. This is an increase of 25 per cent, and is the same as the last increase of 25 per cent, which was from $3.20 to $4, made in the August 1982 Budget. The Minister for Health was the shadow Minister for Health when the last changes were made in August 1982. Bearing in mind the changes made then-that is an increase of 25 per cent in the general patient contribution-and bearing in mind that they were proportionally the same as those which the Minister has now introduced, honourable members can imagine how surprised I was to read the Minister's statement during the debate in 1982. As I have already explained, we have a three-tiered pharmaceutical benefits scheme; that is, pensioners obtain listed drugs free, concessional beneficiaries obtain them for $2 and others will now have to pay $5. In October 1982 the now Minister for Health-then the shadow Minister-argued long and hard against this three-tiered scheme. He argued that the three-tiered scheme provides differential protection to groups in similar income situations. He argued that the concessional scheme covering only the unemployed maintained discrimination against the unemployed compared with other social security beneficiaries. He went on to say: The new pharmaceutical scheme adds one further level of complexity, one further level of stratification of individuals. He went on: This proliferating stratification of people into so many different categories of entitlement within the welfare system simply spawns bureaucracy while the maze through which people must pass to secure their correct entitlement becomes more complex and confusing. That was the Minister for Health, then the shadow Minister, in 1982. It all sounded wonderful at the time and in light of his detailed argument one would have expected that on attaining government and being appointed Minister for Health, the Minister would have acted to change the scheme to overcome the shortcomings which he had identified. But, in fact, the Minister has done absolutely nothing. These critical defects to which the Minister referred have been left unchanged. His promise of action has proven to be empty rhetoric. Like so many of the Government's promises, they have not been honoured. The Minister argued vigorously in 1982: The bulk of the unemployed are worse off than pensioners who are entitled to pensioner health benefit cards . . . He complained that the unemployed, under the existing provisions, are entitled only to concessional pharmaceuticals, not free pharmaceuticals to which pensioners are entitled. He concluded: How can the Government justify this clear discriminatory treatment of the unemployed. Indeed, as the Minister has not changed the scheme, how does he justify his position? If it was so clearly discriminatory in 1982 why is it not so now? How does the Minister justify his total failure to act given such clear and precise undertakings? Let me remind the Minister of his words: In justice and in equity the unemployed at least should be included in the first tier, not the second tier, of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme-that is, they should be provided with free pharmaceuticals as are all other social security beneficiaries subject, of course, to income tests, rather than being required to pay the $2 concessional contribution rate per item. The call for change by the Minister was loud and clear, and yet on attaining government we have heard nothing but a deafening silence. The Minister's failure to take action on a matter in which he purported to believe so strongly indicates the cynical, shallow and dishonest approach which the Minister has to his portfolio. The expediency and hypocrisy does not relate only to the Minister's feigned concern about the three-tiered pharmaceutical benefits scheme and the unemployed. His statements in relation to the increase in the general rate reflect an even greater intellectual dishonesty. I will read the now Minister's words which he stated in October 1982 when the pharmaceutical benefits were last increased by 25 per cent. When he was the shadow spokesman he said: One result of such flat rate increases in the general rate is that it immediately penalises those who just miss out on the concessional scheme. The fact that all of those who just miss out on the concessional scheme will from 1 January be facing $4 per item means that those who just miss out on the concessional scheme suffer even more heavily. Remember, the Minister is talking in 1982 about an increase from $3.20 to $4 and in this National Health Amendment Bill he is increasing the same costs to the consumer from $4 to $5. The Minister said: One of the most tragic aspects of this Government's whole approach to health payments is the wilderness it has created for those who narrowly miss out on the arbitrarily demarcated, free and concessional areas and are required to survive in the high flat rate user pays areas. The new $4 charge will undoubtedly create more difficulties for less well-off families- Remember, this is the Minister- Mr MacKellar —Who said that-Blewett? Mr PORTER —Yes, this is Dr Blewett in 1982 talking about an increase in the rate from $3.20 to $4. He said: The new $4 charge will undoubtedly create more difficulties for less well-off families, particularly when they are faced with multiple prescriptions for single medical incident of prescriptions for various members of the family at the same time. These are the words of the Minister who now is proposing a further flat rate increase in the general rate of $1; that is, from $4 to $5. But that is not all. This man's humbug has no limit. There have been more broken promises. In a speech in Melbourne in the lead-up to the 1982 election the then shadow Minister and now Minister-the same Dr Blewett-made a clear and concise pledge. He said: . . . we will provide free pharmaceutical benefits to those on unemployment benefits and to the social security category known as 'special beneficiaries'-a relatively small group who just miss out on other categories of benefits such as invalid pensions. We cannot understand the justification for excluding these groups, alone of social security beneficiaries, from access to free pharmaceuticals. Let me repeat the undertaking given by the Minister, on behalf of a Labor government. The Minister said: . . . we will provide free pharmaceutical benefits to those on unemployment benefits . . . Has he provided those free pharmaceutical benefits for the unemployed? Mr Donald Cameron —No. Mr PORTER —The honourable member is quite right. Of course he has not. This is yet another broken promise. But it does not end there either. He went on to say: Moreover, as we consider chronic illness a form of disadvantage- note this- we are committed to developing a scheme to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals to those suffering from specified chronic illnesses or disabilities, such as diabetes, pernicious anaemia, pancreatic deficiencies and hormones for prostate or breast cancer. This scheme will be worked out by departmental experts and representatives of medical and pharmaceutical organisations. Has he developed such a scheme? Again, the answer is no. This is one more broken promise to those suffering from chronic illnesses or disabilities. Now, three years later, not only has the Minister failed to act on his promise but, what is worse, the legislation we are debating tonight contains a $1 increase in the general rate-from $4 to $5. The disadvantage to which he referred and about which he was supposedly so concerned-that is, for the chronically ill-is aggravated by this measure. The Minister promised to alter the three-tier system. He has not done so. The Minister promised to provide free pharmaceutical benefits to the unemployed. He has not done so. The Minister promised to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals to the chronically ill. He has not done so. Instead, he has introduced a measure which will exacerbate the problems of the chronically ill. It is hard to imagine a more intellectually dishonest exercise. Finally, let me outline to the House some of the general issues of concern which the Opposition will be considering in the months ahead. Clearly, there will continue to be a need to provide free prescriptions for disadvantaged groups in our community. In addition, there are those who suffer from chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, who do not now come within the pensioner or disadvantaged categories. The Opposition in government would give consideration to the most appropriate way of reducing the financial burden of the high demand for pharmaceuticals, which typically accompanies chronic illness, so that action may be taken when budgetary circumstances allow. The recent report of the Bureau of Industry Economics has made some useful points in the consideration of this whole area. Whilst we accept that pharmaceuticals should not be considered as ordinary items of commerce, there are many aspects of the rules of supply and demand which can usefully be considered when seeking to find the most efficient and cheapest method of providing pharmaceuticals to our community. The Bureau of Industry Economics questions whether the universal subsidisation of drugs to all Australians, regardless of income or state of health, still serves a useful purpose. I see merit in considering alternative subsidy systems which rely more on the free play of market forces whilst continuing to make special provisions for pensioners and disadvantaged groups. I am particularly surprised, given the useful report provided by the Bureau of Industry Economics, that the Minister has not taken the opportunity to review the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, especially in light of his detailed criticism of the scheme and the promises he made to change the scheme when he was in Opposition. One is left with the impression that the Minister's undertakings in opposition were nothing more than empty rhetoric in the quest for short term political gain. The failure of the Minister to act on these undertakings is to be condemned. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes that this measure- (a) breaks yet another Government election promise-that being to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals to those suffering from chronic illnesses or disabilities, and (b) in fact exacerbates the problems of the chronically ill and disabled'. Normally we would force a division on this matter. However, given the outrageous guillotine which the Government has imposed, the time taken for such a division could reduce the Opposition's limited speaking time on subsequent Bills. If that is the case at the expiry of the time allocated for this debate, we will not call for a division. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Lloyd —I second the amendment. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.07) —In speaking in support of the National Health Amendment Bill 1985, the first thing to emphasise is that it is one of a number of measures that have been taken following the statement that was delivered in this House last Tuesday. The second thing to emphasise is that this legislation seeks to raise some $40.3m worth of revenue. They are the background factors with which we are dealing. I think I should draw the attention of the community and the House to some other issues. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), in speaking to the legislation and taking issue with the Government with respect to that legislation, raised a number of points about the three-tier system. He expressed concern for the less well off, such as people on unemployment benefit. The honourable member also made some distinction and said, in fact, that pharmaceutical items should not be considered as ordinary items of commerce. I believe that the honourable member needs to identify the fact that when governments get into power it is not possible for them to implement all of the promises at the one time. There is also a need to identify clearly that the concern for the less well off and the chronically ill was significantly absent during the New South Wales doctors' dispute. In fact, the honourable member for Barker and his cohort, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), egged on the rebel doctors in a most shameful fashion. It is extraordinary that the honourable member and his predecessor as shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar, who spend a lot of time talking about law and order, control and behaving responsibly, played an equal role in egging on the rebel doctors. So the concern for the chronically ill who were having trouble with being treated in New South Wales was not shared by the New South Wales rebel doctors. In fact, the honourable members egged them on. Although the chronically ill do not expect any better from the honourable members, perhaps we in this place do. However, I must say that our optimism about their good intentions fades with every day. I might also say that the capacity of honourable members opposite for enjoying and promoting conflict seems to be endless. Again, the Australian community will not be surprised about that because the Opposition is reacting as it has always reacted. It uses conflict for its own purposes and it seeks to make some minority groups less well off. I think the Australian community is aware of that circumstance. It is no good members of the Opposition getting a little concerned and wriggling around about that issue, because the Australian community knows them too well. That is why it regards them so lowly. So do we. With respect to this increase of $1 in the pharmaceutical benefits area, we are looking at an increase of 167 per cent over seven years under the previous Government, so very clearly the record of responsibility, concern and compassion that has been spoken about-I might say rather sanctimoniously-here tonight is not altogether very good. One thing of which honourable members opposite could never convince the Australian public is that the Fraser Government was compassionate about anything. It clearly was not. It had many features, but compassion was not one of them. Honourable members opposite should talk to the increasing numbers of unemployed and those in small business who are increasingly being put into bankruptcy before they talk about compassion and the lack of it. I do not think it is very good for them to try to address themselves to those areas of great emotional concern because such expressions of concern ring very hollow when one looks at the Opposition's record. Clearly, we are identifying some issues. An issue that has not been spoken about at any great length is the fact that the previous arrangements were very inflexible. If it was not possible for an agreement to be reached between the suppliers of a product and the Minister for Health, that product could be left out of the system. One of the amendments that we are proposing is to provide for a negotiation arrangement. I think that is a sensible thing. I am sure that those who previously faced that awkward circumstance in which a drug might be left out of the system would recognise that this is a sensible amendment. We believe that it will have some positive effects in relation to the Minister's capacity to negotiate to keep drugs on the prescribed list. I do not want to make only negative comments with respect to what the honourable member for Barker said. Obviously, one has to look for areas of concern. I am pleased to note that he said that, in a sense, matters involving pharmaceutical items may not be considered as ordinary items of commerce and that in fact the community has a wider responsibility in that area. I recognise that fact. I think that is a sensible comment to make. There are some on the honourable member's side of the House who are in favour of the complete deregulation of industry. He would do well to remind them that complete deregulation, the position of the economic dries, which envisages a removal of governments entirely from the market-place, would not wear well in this sort of circumstance. We just cannot carry it out. I think some honourable members on the side of the honourable member for Barker would do well to listen to his comments with respect to the fact that some pharmaceutical items cannot be considered to be ordinary items of commerce. I heard what the honourable member said about supply and demand. I think that the Minister, who under this legislation will now have a greater bargaining capacity with respect to reaching a negotiated price, will pay some attention to that matter. I think that is important. In the context of this debate, it is important to understand that, as has been said already, we are not talking about ordinary items of commerce; we are talking about matters which are fundamental to people's health and, in certain cases, to people remaining alive. It is therefore important that we adopt the responsible role. Clearly, it ought to be put on record at this point that if the position of the economic dries who say 'Let us deregulate everything, let us leave it to the market' were put into effect many members of the Australian community would be substantially imperilled. There is no doubt about that. I think that those who preach that philosophy from the other side of the House must either be willing to apply it and accept the social consequences or see that they should not apply it. That has already been said in debate. I think they also should remind those in the National Party who seek intervention in certain industries that the removal of intervention from the market-place may not always carry the social benefits that they seek. In returning to the fundamental issue that we are addressing, I think it is also important to emphasise that the amount of revenue to be raised under this legislation is quite substantial. However, if we line up the increase of $1 in the amount that patients will be expected to pay against the increase in the general cost of benefit prescriptions from $6.03 to an estimated $7.38-in other words, an increase of $1.35-we see that the increase that the Government is imposing is below the average increase that the market has caused. So we are not increasing the total cost to the patient by an amount which would be above the market movement. In fact, if it were indexed that movement would be slightly higher. So when we are talking about an increase in patient contributions under this Bill we are not talking about an increase which is substantially above the common cost movement in the market. I think that has to be emphasised. Clearly, this action is not irresponsible. It is an action designed simply to move patient contributions along with the average market movement. In fact, as I have already said, the increase is slightly below the average market movement. Very clearly, it is not correct to say, as the Opposition might want to say, that this is an irresponsible action. I wish to make some points with respect to the context in which this action was undertaken. I will reinforce a couple of issues which I have mentioned. The Minister now has the capacity to bargain and negotiate more sensibly about prices of drugs when those drugs may not fall easily into a price agreement with the manufacturer. That was a concern in the past and I believe that at times the manufacturer conveniently tried to blame the Government, because the Government was not prepared to pay the price the manufacturer was demanding, for an item that ceased to be on the list. Under this legislation, manufacturers will not have the capacity to push very hard and bargain with the Government from a near monopoly position and at the cost of the taxpayers. The Minister will have a capacity to bargain. I should say for those who are listening to this debate that the number of drugs involved in terms of price agreements is not substantial. It is not as if the situation is absolutely critical, but we are amending the legislation sensibly to allow for that negotiating capacity. In summing up, I think it needs to be said that these are responsible amendments. I believe that the Australian community would recognise that they are being carried out in the right spirit as part of the May economic statement. We believe they are important in terms of the direction of the economy and I am pleased to commend them to the House. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(9.17) —I suppose one could say in regard to the speech of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) that if one does not have very much that is good to say, one should keep saying it. At least he was honest enough at the end of his speech to admit that the number of drugs involved is likely to be very small. He also referred indirectly to unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies. The fact that the number of drugs involved is likely to be small is probably an indirect tribute to the pharmaceutical companies which generally do the right thing. I commend the Government for the measure it has taken in that area. Let the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) never say that Don Cameron never once said anything good about the Australian Labor Party Government, because he heard it with his own ears. On the other hand-this is much more important-I was pleased to see the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), haunt the Minister with the Minister's words of 1982. I refer to those phrases and sentences spoken by the Minister when the Fraser Government increased the patient contribution for prescriptions from $3.20 to $4. I recall the words again for the Minister, because they will haunt him for the rest of his life. He said: The new $4 charge will undoubtedly create more difficulty for less well-off families, particularly when they are faced with multiple prescriptions for a single medical incident or prescriptions for various members of the family at the same time. Mr Everingham —Who said that? Mr DONALD CAMERON —The present Minister for Health said that on 20 October 1982. On the same day, in this very chamber, he said: . . . we believe there is no justification for any further increase- I emphasise that- in the general rate for pharmaceutical benefits from the present $3.20 to $4.00 per item as proposed in this Bill. How the mighty Goliath has been reduced by the little David, the Treasurer, (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). How the Prime Minister picks on the weak when he looks around his ministry and wants to make a billion dollar saving. The Prime Minister knew that he could pick the Minister for Health and find at least $40m. I can imagine what happened. The Minister, having been trounced in recent weeks and having given in on section 17, was in no position to bargain. He accepted meekly that all he had said before was history, and he knew he had to engineer an increase. I do not wish to spend any further time on that subject, except to say that this Government, which so professes its compassion and love for people in the lower income levels, does not seem to miss them when it fires its guns. I said earlier tonight that the middle income earner is fast being reduced to the level of those in the poverty belt. If the Australian Labor Party is seeking to put everybody on an equal rung on the ladder, it is doing very well with the countless changes it is bringing about by its legislation. I have only a little time left in this debate because of the imposition of the guillotine. However, I crave the Minister's indulgence to allow me to allude to a matter that I have known about for some months, but the difficulty in taking part in debates in this Parliament is so great that one must steal every opportunity to exploit the system to raise what issue one can while one can. Some months ago the Minister for Health approved the transfer of $22.3m from the Victorian branch of Medibank private and distributed that money right across Australia. For the life of me, I do not understand-when I look up at the Press Gallery tonight I probably do understand as there are only a few of them up there-how such a major step as this passed unnoticed. I was a critic of the Medibank system when my Party was in government, and I am now that the present Government is in power. I was even critical of my Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, who sadly had No. 1 membership of the Victorian division of Medibank. I though that was fairly disgraceful for somebody who believes in free enterprise. I believe that the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) even had No. 2 membership as the then Minister for Health. We remember the days of marks 1, 2, 3 and 4. The way the different models of Medibank came out reminded one of a Jaguar factory. The same applies today. It has not really changed as people grapple with making socialism work. The worst thing Malcolm Fraser did was to maintain Medibank. The point I am endeavouring to come to is that throughout the States of Australia Medibank has been a continuing mess. The only State where Medibank Private has worked properly is Victoria. I refer particularly to the requirement of government that medical health funds should have a certain level of reserves to cover occasions such as a sudden plague or something affecting the national interest. Certain requirements are involved. The Victorian people, for some reason or another, have been very successful. The Fraser Government had to pump in $21m to keep Medibank Private going, because it was always on the verge of going down the drain and becoming bankrupt. However, in recent times the Government has been able to retrieve $10m of that $21m, so it might be said that Medibank is doing well now. The Minister for Health is shaking his head saying 'You are right, Cameron, it is really not' or have I misread the shake of his head? Well, the Minister is being neutral and does not wish to comment. The fact is that what the Minister has done, very cleverly, for the first time in history, is to go into Victoria for funds. Victoria has never had one cent from the Fraser Government or any other Government in this respect; it has operated in its own right from the very beginning, and all the funds in Victoria are completely those of Victorian contributors. The Minister has signed an authority-I believe that the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) both refused when it was bounced on them-allowing the management of Medibank Private, and I use the words carefully, to thieve and steal the funds of Victorian contributors and to hand them out to all the other States which are struggling to compete in a competitive system. I wonder how Malcolm Fraser now feels about his No. 1 membership, because all the money he has forked out over the years has merely given him a number. Every Victorian who is listening tonight who is a member of Medibank Private has every justification to writhe in disgust at the fact that he has been called upon to prop up that organisation throughout the rest of Australia. There are restrictions on how long one is allowed to speak tonight, and that is regrettable. At last I have been able to get that one off my chest. I confess to being a Medibank Private watcher. Mr Lloyd —Bumbling bureaucrats. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Bumbling bureaucrats, I agree. Whether that body be in the hands of a pseudo private sector or in the hands of public servants, I make clear that while the honourable member for Moreton has breath in his body he will continue to watch the Medibank organisation with great interest. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(9.27) —I thank the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) for his courtesy in allowing me a few minutes to speak. I appreciate it very much. A lot has been said tonight-(Quorum formed) What was the miserable record of the Fraser Government? Why did the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), make those comments? He did so because the Opposition, when in government, had increased the fees by 167 per cent in seven miserable years. What did honourable members opposite want to do-increase them by 200 per cent or 300 per cent? Is that what their policy is? Why would not the shadow Minister, Neal Blewett, object to such outrageous increases in the Fraser Government's period in office? What a miserable record. I say to the pensioners and the people of Australia: You will say heaps more under the Opposition-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Chifley will resume his seat. The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Uren: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(9.31) —It is disgraceful that the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill, a Bill which is of such significance to over 900 local authorities in this country, is to be dealt with in three-quarters of an hour. It is disgraceful that a matter of such significant import to the finances of all those local authorities which serve all the people of this country should be disposed of in such short order in this House this evening. There are disputes as to whether the Whitlam Government or the Fraser Government first introduced the original general revenue funding scheme whereby 1.52 per cent of revenue from personal income tax would be distributed to local government. Nonetheless, it was done. The introduction of general revenue funding was seen as a breakthrough in resourcing of local government and was widely supported by local government bodies. The Government does not have much to say to local government or local government authorities about this matter. This policy was seen by the third tier of government as tangible evidence that the Commonwealth recognised the important role of local government in the delivery of a wide range of public services. We are dealing with a Bill which puts the freeze on the promises this Government has made to local government over a period of more than 15 years. The flexibility in the scheme was welcomed by local government as it allowed councils either to expand services or projects-especially those which may have been unacceptable if they had to be financed via increases to property rates-or to use the grants to supplement expenditure on existing functions, thereby alleviating increasing rate burdens. Despite minor changes to levels and details of the scheme over the years, since 1975 councils have been able to rely on a fairly steady proportion of their annual revenue being provided via personal income tax sharing grants. These grants have, in fact, become an important part of the fiscal processes of local government and councils have come to depend on their continuation, maintenance in real terms and increases from time to time to allow for the extension of services in line with emerging community demands. After all, after 10 years of payments, some dependence is likely to develop. It is surprising that all the people from local government who sit on the other side of the House have nothing to say about this measure tonight. As a result of the equalisation principles, some councils, of course, rely on this income source far more heavily than others. As a result of the flexible, untied nature of the grants, councils also rely on them for different reasons-some to subsidise rates heavily and others to provide a whole new range of services. The equity principles in distribution of the grants are also most important and via this system councils which score highly on a degree of need scale should receive larger grants. The Government's actions will therefore hit hardest those communities with the greatest need. So much for the Government of the people! This point is especially significant, given that local government bears a substantial part of the human cost of the present high unemployment levels. While the Commonwealth distributes social security, local government is responding to increased demand on its social services and demand for new services. The fact that councils have been able to rely on a steady proportion of their annual revenue being provided via the PITS grants has created a deal of expectation. Many councils which have undertaken forward planning of both services and facilities, assuming a continuing allocation of the 2 per cent grant, will be thrown into considerable disarray. In fact, virtually every council in Australia will suffer as a result of this measure. The impact upon metropolitan municipalities providing a wide range of human services will be particularly severe, especially for those which are already carrying substantial deficits. This applies especially in New South Wales where the State Government has introduced rate capping as well as reducing in real terms the level of support by the State Government to local government. New South Wales has a particularly bad record in that regard. Personal income tax sharing grants represent perhaps an average of about 10 per cent of total rate revenue of councils, although for some councils it is much higher. The low growth in personal income tax over the last two years has resulted in minimal growth in these grants. The rate of increase in grants has dropped so significantly over the last two years that it has not been keeping pace with inflation. Anticipated increases in the forthcoming year led local authorities to be hopeful that they would have a chance to make up for the two years of near negative growth by an increase in real terms. Councils all around this country are facing rapidly increasing demand for new services which must be resourced by a largely static revenue base. This Government says: So what? A review of the local government finance base is long overdue. The Government, by this measure, is pre-empting the outcome of the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance, which the Government set up itself. It is Australian Labor Party policy to maintain the allocation at at least 2 per cent and to maintain its value in real terms. This Bill is a complete turnabout on stated policy and a blatant breach of an election promise. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) has been telling anyone in local government who will listen to him that he does not agree with these cuts. If the Minister has been supporting the full allocation of personal income tax sharing grants that shows the level of support for local government in the Cabinet of this Government. Local government has very little scope to increase revenue from its own sources. Rate increases in recent years are already, in most cases, in excess of the consumer price index. Other options such as raising revenue via entrepreneurial activity are possible to a significant extent only for a relatively small number of councils. The present Government did not go to the last election with a policy for increasing the rate burden on property owners. The present Government did not go to the last election with a policy for decreasing local government revenue. The Government most certainly did not say that it would not abide by its platform of continuing the payment to local government of 2 per cent of personal income tax receipts. It did not say that it would cut local government revenue and it did not say that it would grab for itself any windfall that might arise, rather than pass it on in accordance with its policy and in accordance with the practice which had been established and which local government had every reason to expect would continue. The Government says: 'We will pocket the lot. We will plunder the public purse but we will not let local government have its agreed share. We will pocket the windfall gain which we would otherwise have paid to local government'. The Government in May 1984 established under Professor Self the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance which is due to report in September. This breach of the Government's current policy casts doubt on the worthwhileness of that exercise which has involved an enormous amount of effort at all levels of local government throughout this country. Now it seems that the massive effort expended by local government to co-operate with this Government may well be totally wasted. I certainly hope not. The Minister has gone on at length about the Government's commitment to local government. He went on about the symbolic gestures that this Government has made. It is a shame that the Government could not have stayed the distance. It fell apart when the going got tough. This is the biggest spending and the highest taxing Government since Federation, yet it is now attacking veterans, the people who need medical prescriptions, local government, the weak and the poor. Now this Government is prepared to act in direct breach of the firm and uncompromising commitments which it made in its policy platform and repeated in its election campaign and in assurances given to local government. I formally move the following in principle 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 this legislation represents a further breach of the Government's election commitments'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Lloyd —Yes, I second the amendment. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(9.42) —I am astounded by the hypocrisy of honourable members opposite, particularly the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), with respect to the treatment this Bill has received so far. I well remember that last Tuesday evening when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) got to the section of the May economic statement dealing with the amount of revenue that would accrue to local government under this proposal there was wild cheering and screaming from those opposite, suggesting that the cuts should have been far greater. Mr Everingham —Rot! Mr MARTIN —Perhaps the honourable member was not even here. He should certainly listen to some of his colleagues who were. I think it important to get a true perspective of what this Bill will mean for local government. If honourable members opposite got out into the community and talked to their local government representatives they would find that the situation is not as bad or as horrific as everybody else is suggesting. To illustrate that, let me give some figures in respect of the area I represent and also quote from the local newspaper. If one takes the proposed Commonwealth general purpose grants-that is, an indication from the figures for the coming financial year, 1985-86, under the proposal before us this evening-we see that Wollongong City Council, the eighth largest city council in Australia, expects to receive of the order of $5,050,600. Yet its forward estimate for that period was only of the order of $4.766m. So on the basis of the figures it worked out compared with the amount it will get, it is to get an increase of $284,600. The same applies to the Wollondilly Council. The estimate for 1985-86 is $823,000, while it expected to get only $772,000. That is an increase of over $50,000. There are many other examples. To say that local government does not do well out of this Government is absolute nonsense. With the advent of the community employment program and the JOLOR funds-the jobs on local roads funds-these councils in my area have done extremely well out of this Government. For example, Wollongong City Council has received over $5.25m for projects under those programs. Camden Council has received $381,000 and Wollondilly Council $131,500. Certainly they are not representative of councils which would appear to have lost out on the deal. In fact quite clearly they have benefited quite considerably. I turn to some further evidence of what has been said in the general community. Remembering that Wollongong is the eighth biggest city in Australia and one of its most important cities, I quote from the Illawarra Mercury: 'The Federal Government's decision to restrict tax revenue to local government was economically reasonable', Wollongong City Council Treasurer Mr Rod Oxley said last night. 'It's difficult to argue with Mr Keating's new formula and Wollongong will not be losing that much for a city of its size', he said . . . 'As it stands the new formula is not going to make any significant difference to our budget strategies'. Here we are talking about a city that has embarked upon a series of major development initiatives-redevelopment of its central business area, a commitment to the construction of new office complexes, the creation of malls, and so on. This is a city that is going to look at methods of financing, yet the city treasurer is saying that the Government's proposal will have no effect on those significant developments. Mr McGauran —He did not say that. Mr MARTIN —If the honourable member for Gippsland listened he might learn something. If he represented city areas, instead of mixing with the cows, he would know what it was all about. I turn to the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance which was touched on by the honourable member for the Northern Territory. This inquiry, under Professor Peter Self, has already been conducting a series of hearings and it is anticipated that its report will be given to the Government by the end of September. As has been clearly pointed out by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), this Bill will operate for 12 months only. Following the receipt of Professor Self's report, there will be the opportunity to review what is necessary for local government financing. Mr McGauran —But it is too late. Mr MARTIN —It is not too late; do not talk nonsense. Quite clearly all local government areas in Australia are benefiting from this because they will get an increase, they can continue their public works programs and they are getting JOLOR funds and CEP funds. Yet honourable members opposite are trying to tell me that they do not do well out of this Government. What a load of nonsense! The point is that the inquiry has not been pre-empted by this Bill-far from it. This Bill will provide the opportunity for local government authorities to continue to benefit from this Government's initiatives. The question of rating was also raised. I think a slur was passed on local government in that it was said that local government is incompetent to utilise the funds that go its way. That is far from the case. Having been a local government representative in Wollongong, I know that the officers are dedicated. With the money that comes forward they put together responsible budgets and stick to them in the main. With the sort of financial help that this Government is giving local government, I can see that that will continue into the future. I think the question of rates ought to be raised. In New South Wales in the last couple of years there has been rate pegging. Increases in rates have been held to a certain figure. Quite a substantial number of local government areas in New South Wales refused to take up that modest increase in rates. Then they scream and say: 'We do not have the money to do the work that we would like to do'. Yet the opportunity is there to put up their rates modestly. I think that last year the maximum rise allowable was 8 per cent and the year before it was 6 per cent. Those opposite cannot tell me that over 12 months that is not a reasonable increase in rates for any landholder to pay. Therefore, it is my strong conviction that this Government has been committed and continues to be committed to the provision of adequate finance for local government. We are faced with a period of economic restraint. The Government is committed to economic restraint and to good government. This is one further example of how that will take place. I commend the Minister and the Government for introducing such an important piece of legislation. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(9.50) —It is a great shame that the Australian Labor Party has broken yet another one of its promises with the introduction of this legislation to reduce the share of personal income tax committed to local government by successive Australian governments. The Whitlam Government introduced for the first time some form of assistance to local government. It was followed by the Fraser Government, which built in an absolute structure for a share of personal income tax as a regular thing Budget by Budget. At first it was a 1.5 per cent share of personal income tax, which was followed by a 2 per cent share of personal income tax. The record for the last three years shows that in 1981-82, $424m went to local government, followed by $459m in 1982-83 and $486m in 1983-84. The amount of $583m was predicted for this year. That amount was reduced by $62m as a result of cuts introduced in the mini-Budget. This change to the legislation means that local government will never again believe the Australian Labor Party when it makes commitments. It is quite in line with all the commitments it made before the 1983 and 1984 elections. Promise after promise has been broken. I refer honourable members opposite to statements made by their Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in a couple of key areas. Regarding aged care, the Prime Minister said: The other community group that is entitled to and will be given particular support by the Government is the aged. We know what has happened to programs for the aged. No nursing home programs have been approved, the assets test has been introduced, and there is the threat of other taxes, such as wealth duties and death duties being imposed. In regard to veterans' affairs, before the last election the Prime Minister made the following commitment: In veterans' affairs, the Government, in its second term, will take further initiatives to improve benefits and care for our war veterans community. Look at what the Government did in its mini-Budget. Within six months it has carved into those benefits. It has slashed them. To the Government's eternal shame it got stuck into those who sought to give their lives for this nation. The Prime Minister had the hide and temerity to conclude his speech before the last election by saying: No government in Australia's history has a prouder record of its faithful fulfilment of its mandate, despite inherited difficulties of almost unprecedented magnitude. Those were the Prime Minister's own words. Tonight we are debating legislation which reduces the tax share to local government by $62m. That is another firm commitment which the Government made before the last election and which it is breaking tonight, within six months of the election. The same thing happened before the last election. The Prime Minister promised tax cuts. They did not occur in the Government's term of office. He promised a 3c a litre reduction in the price of petrol and made countless other promises. Then he raised the furphy of the unexpected deficit. Tonight local government in New South Wales is in a state of chaos. Local government in New South Wales works on a calendar year basis. It is partway through its financial year on a budget that assumed the Government would keep its word. The Government made the promise before the elections and local government assumed that it would keep its word-- Mr Martin —Tell us about the authorities. Mr CADMAN —Let us look at some of the authorities and the way in which the legislation will affect them. For the Council for the City of Wollongong the reduction will be $550,000. Mr Martin —Nonsense. Mr CADMAN —That will be the effect on a council in the honourable member's electorate. Let him tell me that it will not affect his electorate and let him tell me that he will not read about it in his local newspapers. There is to be a reduction of $575,000 for the Blacktown City Council. All round New South Wales, local government, which is part way through its financial year, has to face an unexpected reduction in the income that it had planned on receiving. For the Shoalhaven Shire Council there is to be a reduction of $215,000; for Singleton a reduction of $120,000 and for Gosford, $330,000. If one refers to the reductions by electorates the situation gets even more interesting. The electorate of Hunter will have a cut of $1.54m. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), who is at the table, knows the sorts of factors that are necessary for local government to operate effectively in the Hunter area. He knows of the problems of local government in western Sydney. Let us look at the electorate of Calare, which is another marginal seat of the Labor Party. There is to be a total loss of $1m to the councils within Calare. Eden-Monaro is another one. There is to be a reduction of $1.4m to the councils in Eden-Monaro. Are honourable members opposite saying that this will not affect local government? Local government is part way through its year. It has planned with these increases in mind and now it is stuck with an unexpected reduction. A promise was made and a promise was broken. The shame of this whole matter is that the parties on this side of the House cannot assess what the gross effect will be because of the distortions that the Government is causing in the whole of the financial structures of the Commonwealth. We may not know until the Budget what the gross effect will be. The management of the economy and Government administration are in a shambles. Only this week, at short notice, a sales tax Bill to raise $436m was introduced. It was claimed to be a loophole closing process. In fact, it was a revenue gathering process. Time and again, the Government acts quickly to change things and people's expectations are changing with it. The city of Campbelltown in New South Wales was mentioned a short time ago. Campbelltown has a revenue sharing grant of $2.554m for 1984-85. Its general rate revenue for 1985-again, I stress that it is a calendar year-was $15.1m. It had been calculating the needs of its community on the basis of a 19 per cent increase in revenue. It may not be clear to honourable members opposite-members of the Australian Labor Party-that local government gets its share based on the previous year's revenue, not on the current year's revenue. The revenue to be received by local authorities around Australia is calculated on that big tax grab that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made last year. The Treasurer went out big after taxes last year. The Commonwealth and State governments received the benefits. When it is time for local government to get its share, the Government will not give it to local government. It will say: 'The retrospective approach that we have adopted is one that is fair and is accepted by local government'. No one will believe it. Let honourable members opposite try to explain it to their councils if they can. Let them try to explain to elected people who are responsible to their ratepayers for the financial management of their local affairs just how they are going to manage their budgets for the rest of the year. Let honourable members opposite try to explain that to them and explain how it fits in with the gross cuts and the gross changes made by the Labor Party after the two elections in which it has been successful. The credibility of this Government is at rock bottom. Its members are prepared to give away all principle if their Prime Minister asks them to do so. In two successive elections the Prime Minister has said things such as this: I believe the Australian people have had enough of election promises made only to be broken. I offer no fistfull of dollars to be snatched back after the election. Here we are tonight, within six months, carving into a commitment made by the Labor Party to local government during the election campaign. That is not the way to establish credibility. People have been invited to come here to attend a tax summit. The Government has a preconceived idea of what it is going to do. It has worked hard on a White Paper with its preferred options. No wonder people do not want to come. No wonder people are sending back their invitations. No wonder people do not believe the Government is serious about income tax. In the same policy speech the Prime Minister said: We of the Labor Party have already-well before the election, and well before the proposed summit-established the firmest possible basis for the necessary three-sided co-operation between governments, business and unions. That is breaking down all round the country. The business community does not want to come to the tax summit. The State governments do not want to come to the Premiers Conference. Local government will never speak to or trust the Government again. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(9.59) —Let me put the matter in perspective. It seems that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) did not bother to read my second reading speech. The situation is that last year we provided $486m to local government. According to the Treasury, the estimated figure for this year would have been $583m. That would have meant an increase of $97m. In fact, we will make available $531m, an increase of $45m. That is a shortfall of $52m, not $62m cited by the honourable member. I am asking the honourable member to read my second reading speech in which those figures were set out. Again, we have to ask why the Government made such a decision. The Government made the decision because it was deeply concerned about the Budget deficit of $9.6 billion which it inherited in March 1983. On present day terms that deficit is equivalent to over $10 billion. The servicing of that debt has cost us over $3 billion during that period. As the Minister closely in touch with local government, I am aware of the deep concerns of local government. I am aware of the concern of local government that it will lose this revenue. I point out to the House the fact that in the first two years of this Government we increased expenditure on both tied and untied grants. In context of this Bill we have been talking only about untied grants. However, if we take both tied and untied grants the amount of grant for the year just passed was in the vicinity of $976m. That represents an increase of nearly 50 per cent on grants provided in the last year of the Fraser Government. I give those figures for the benefit of honourable members who may have any doubts in regard to the Commonwealth contribution. It is true that we made the first money available to local government in untied grants in 1974-75. Then it was only $56.3m. The following year we increased that by 40 per cent to $79.9m. The Fraser Government, to its credit, in one of the very few election promises it really kept, met that commitment and within three years was paying 2 per cent of the previous year's income tax to local government. I am now dealing with both tied and untied grants to local government-the total amount of money going to local government. In the last year of the Whitlam Government we made $320m available. Even though the Fraser Government met its commitment of untied grants, in its first year its total of both tied and untied grants dropped from $320m to $260m. It was not until 1978-79 that the Fraser Government brought that up to $324m to equal in money terms the Whitlam Government's grant. However, in real terms it took at least another year, till 1979-80 to reach our level of expenditure. Let us not talk about how we make our financial commitments. We made our commitment to local government and it goes far beyond financial terms. This Government really does believe that if we are to make intelligent decisions we have to talk at the level of the Australian States and local government. That is what we try to do. We try to have that interrelationship between our officers, working in a spirit of co-operation, and local government. There has been a basis of trust and spirit of co-operation between the politicians and officers involved. I will outline some of the issues involved. I mentioned that in fact we had increased by 50 per cent the amount of grants, both tied and untied, to local government in our first two years in Government compared with the last year of the Fraser Government. When we came into government we introduced the community employment program which has instituted and developed an enormous number of programs in local government. We established the first Ministry of local government, which was then called the Department of Territories and Local Government. We strengthened that local government role after the 1984 election when we developed the new Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. In that Department we brought together local government, the regions that came under the Department of Industry and Commerce and also Commonwealth property. We were looking to develop areas and regions in a co-ordinated way with both local government and State government. (Quorum formed) As I was saying before the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) called a quorum, after the 1984 election this Government had developed a new Department of Local Government and Administrative Services bringing together the areas of local government, regions and Commonwealth properties. It is important to understand that by having control of Commonwealth properties it is possible to locate public servants strategically and therefore to have an important control over how the metropolises develop. Again, that represents a further commitment to local government. In this sphere we supported local government in regard to constitutional recognition both at a State level and at the Federal level. We arranged for, and supported the report of, the sub-committee of the Australian Constitutional Convention which will meet in July. We established the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finances because we found that while on one hand the Commonwealth had been paying money to local government, State governments had been siphoning it off on the other hand. Therefore, we have instituted this wide inquiry into local government finances. We also supported and strengthened the Local Government Ministers Conference. My Department is now servicing that Conference with a secretariat. We have begun the development of an information system to benefit local government. We have not tried to keep centralised the information acquired by local government but have tried to ensure that the transfer of information is a two-way affair. We also set up the natural areas enhancement scheme which we developed through local government, which aims to beautify the waterways of our capital cities. We have introduced a local government development program, which is designed to improve the efficiency and capability of local government and enable it to contribute to the restructuring of the economy. Mr Everingham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 85, which refers to irrelevance or tedious repetition. The Minister is speaking in reply and he is redelivering his second reading speech. He is going on with a load of old bunkum and codswallop. He is going on with a load of rot and he should be sat down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr UREN —As I have pointed out, the Government has an information exchange for research assistance. We also support regional co-operation and- Mr Everingham —Sit down. Mr UREN —We set up a local government housing program. The honourable member for Northern Territory is very vocal tonight. He has been a member of this House since the election of this Government, yet he has not asked one question on local government. Mr Everingham —Yes, since we knocked you off in the Northern Territory. Mr UREN —He has not asked one question during that period. When we were in opposition we would have raised matters of public importance if there was any threat of a cut. We have no Opposition; it is a phoney Opposition. That is the sad thing about this Opposition. The development of local government is important to the democracy of this country. If we have a strong local government we will have a strong democracy. I am totally opposed to centralised government. I want to see more decentralisation and more strength at the local government level. Unless we get that strength, that understanding and that co-operation with people at the local government level, democracy in this country will not function to the extent that it should. Since I have been a Minister, including the time between 1972 and 1975, I have had some understanding of and some contact with local government, and I have worked in a spirit of co-operation with the Australian, State and local governments. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —The original question was: That the Bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for the Northern Territory has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Mr McGauran —Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am sorry to advise the honourable member for Gippsland that the Minister has closed the debate. Mr McGauran —It has been guillotined. This is not a democracy at work. We have been guillotined throughout this important legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 14 May, on motion by Mr Scholes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.17) —It is a sad state of affairs when at a quarter past ten at night we have a Government which arbitrarily is running away from exercising its responsibilities. We have just had an aborted debate on local government, one of the most sensitive and important areas of government in Australia and we were allowed three quarters of an hour to debate it. At least local government is an area of government. As far as the defence forces are concerned, there is an entirely different responsibility. In this instance, yet again a Labor government is reducing the terms and conditions of employment of those who are permanent servicemen. The people of Australia need to know that this Government, supposedly elected because of its affinity with the trade unions and the workers of Australia, has taken a series of distinctive actions designed to reduce the terms and conditions of employment of every serviceman and servicewoman in Australia. Honourable members will recall that we started off with the defence force retirement and death benefits scheme, the superannuation scheme of the defence forces. Under the DFRDB members of the Services, who pay into the scheme during their service life, at the end of their service receive either a lump sum or a recurrent payment. The practice has been for a lump sum payment to be taken at the end of a person's service in order that he can establish a business or perhaps acquire a house, something that many of them have not been able to do in the course of their service life. The result of the tax changes introduced by the Australian Labor Party was to reduce the benefit of that commutation entitlement. That is the first action the Government took. Earlier today a Bill was passed through this House, again without the amendment we intended to move even being able to be considered, whereby the pay of servicemen could be garnisheed. Up to this point those who are in the Services have had neither a right to sue nor the liability of having their pay garnisheed because of the nature of their employment. The Government decided to make servicemen even Steven with other people in the Public Service. The difficulty with that is that the Government has not only done that to those who in peace time are serving in Australia; it has included those who are serving abroad. We have several elements of the Services that are serving either in the Sinai, some still in Kashmir and some still in the Middle East serving with the United Nations or multinational forces. Those servicemen and women are going to be liable to have their pay or salary garnisheed in circumstances which we do not believe are equitable. Had the opportunity arisen, it would have been our intention to move that there should be an exemption provided for those servicemen and women who are on active service. We believe that that again is an area where servicemen are having their terms and conditions of pay detrimentally affected by this Government. Another area is before us now. The Defence (Re-establishment) Amendment Bill was part of the mini-Budget of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) last Tuesday night. We find that the Government is again affecting the conditions of those who are working and seeking to try to establish themselves in civilian employment by eliminating the two areas where previously concessions had been available to them. There were two pretty minimal grants. One was for $10,000 to those seeking to establish themselves in rural business and the other was for $5,000 to those seeking to establish themselves in some type of small business operation. We are told in the second reading speech of the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) that the quantum of savings is going to be $1.3m. The Minister says it is not much because only 200 servicemen and women benefited last year. As small as it is and the fact that it has not been changed since 1975 in no way changes the principle. Until 14 May-the date that is provided in this Bill-there was an entitlement available for servicemen and women to receive loans at a concessional rate to enable them to established themselves on their retirement from the Services. It is that concession which this Bill eliminates. It is a concession, small though it was, which was important to many servicemen and servicewomen seeking to re-establish themselves. We on this side of the House are increasingly concerned that the Government seems persistently to be detracting from the opportunities availed to servicemen and women for them to lead something like a competitive existence with those in the civilian work force. We all know, for example, that pilots in the domestic airlines or perhaps in Qantas Airways Ltd and other overseas airlines receive a far higher salary than pilots in the Royal Australian Air Force. We know that there are comparable terms of difficulty in flying aircraft. In fact, if anything they are probably more difficult in the RAAF. However, the product of this legislation is to reduce the ability that they have to compete and to receive something like an equitable dead. If we look at the whole summary of mini-Budget measures in the defence area we find that in defence itself we already know that there is an $83.9m drop in real growth. We know that pharmaceutical benefits are to be provided to service pensioners henceforth on the same basis as to other pensioners. As far as service pensioners are concerned, a pension will be available only to those who have served in the Services. There is to be a change in entitlement which will cost them nearly $8m. We know that the revised arrangements for veterans in the dental, optometrical and mental health services will save $7.4m. We know that the disability and war widows pensions- Mr Griffiths —Stop reading your speech. Mr SINCLAIR —That is typical. Honourable members opposite are not even interested in war widows. The cost of the reductions in entitlements for war widows is $36.8m. Government members, who pretend to have souls, are laughing and joking. Most of them are not interested in the war widows and the fact that changes in this mini-Budget are reducing entitlements to those suffering disabilities by $36.8m. Disability and war widows' pensions are being reduced to that degree. Review of service pensions to reduce overpayments is going to save $6.2m. Veterans administration is going to save $4m. The termination of defence re-establishment loans-the Bill now before us-is going to save $1.3m. Revised arrangements for Defence Service home loans is going to save $60m. General reductions in the administration of Commonwealth housing and construction activities is going to save $11m. Disposal of surplus defence land and buildings is going to save $15m. The total of reductions in entitlements and reductions in the defence vote by this government this last week is $233.5m. Frankly, the people of Australia will soon realise that Labor does not care for defence, that Labor does not care for servicemen and women, that Labor does not concern itself about the well-being of veterans, that it is not worried about the plight of war widows, that it is quite concerned to protect those who will look after it and the trade union movement, that it is quite prepared, to listen to the Australian Council of Trade Unions to introduce special legislation in this House in a unique way to penalise those who seek to work through a contract system in the South-East Queensland Electricity Board, yet it is not prepared to show the concern that it should for those who are serving or have served in the armed forces of Australia. The purpose of this legislation is, frankly, to reduce yet again those terms and conditions of employment available to members of the armed services. It is important that we realise, small though it is, that it is a measure designed to help servicemen and women re-establish themselves in civilian life. No matter how honourable members in the Labor Party may laugh, it is important that at the end of a service career those who have offered to commit themselves in the way that a Service obligation requires, do have some assistance to transfer to civilian life. This scheme did not provide a generous form of assistance but it provided some assistance. Not only is the Government denying generosity, it is denying the existence of the scheme at all. I believe it is important that people in the community come to understand that Labor is a bad employer. Labor has no concern for people who work for wages if they work in uniforms. Labor has no concern for veterans. If it had some concern, this measure totally reverses the demonstration of that equity that was sought to be provided for them. We all accept that there need to be cuts in government sector spending. We accept that there needs to be responsibility in government, but we believe that when there is a change of this order people in the community need to know the consequences. It is for that reason that I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, this House condemns the further erosion in terms of service for servicemen and women that the Bill represents, and calls on the Government to act urgently to restore equity in those conditions of service and adequately reward servicemen and women for the service they render to Australia'. I move that amendment because there must be a registration by the Labor Party that there are very serious problems in maintaining recruitment in the services. The reserves are now at a very, very low ebb in terms of effective strength. We will say something in this place at an appropriate time on that subject. The Government is about to start a promotion campaign to try to attempt to recruit people to the Australian reserves. It is not going to do so if it does not provide equitable treatment for them. We know that through the successive measures it has taken the incentive for people to remain in the three armed services is being adversely affected. We know that each of these measures that reduces the terms and conditions of employment must affect morale. The measures cannot help the maintenance of numbers and they cannot help the very high standards that are necessary for those in the services to attain. I think we all know that the establishment of a Defence Forces Pay Tribunal is a measure that we accept, but now-nearly two years after the election of the Government-it still has not in fact heard the case for an improvement in pay of servicemen and servicewomen. It is no use the Government using rhetoric, pretending that it has a concern for these important members of our community. If it is concerned, it must demonstrate it in practice. I believe that unless this House passes a motion of this kind we are not going to register with the members of this heartless Government that there are people in the armed services, people who are veterans and people who are war widows, who deserve more sympathy than the raucous comments of the Labor Party in this place reflect. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr White —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(10.30) —The speech of the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) was full of sound and fury, oozing sympathy and signifying nothing. With tongue in cheek the right honourable member criticised responsible economic management of the type his cronies lacked both the ability and the courage to undertake. The purpose of the Defence (Re-establishment) Amendment Bill 1985 is to amend the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 in such a way that no further loans or guarantees will be granted after 14 May 1985. The defence re-establishment loans scheme was designed to assist eligible national servicemen to readjust and to re-establish. What a wonderful scheme it was. One can imagine national servicemen, weary of war, returning to a society which was largely foreign to them. Their world had been disrupted by the call to serve their country. They returned to find that career opportunities had passed them by. In that situation, of course, they needed help to make the transition to civilian life. Re-establishment loans were granted to those ex-servicemen who, prior to the call up, were engaged in business or agricultural occupations or who, because of the call up, were prevented from engaging in those occupations and who needed financial assistance to re-establish themselves in civilian life. In May 1965 the then Minister for Labour and National Service, Sir William McMahon, introduced the Defence Re-establishment Act. National servicemen were granted loans of $3,000 for business purposes and $6,000 for agricultural purposes repayable up to 10 years at 4 1/2 per cent interest. Let us look at the extent to which the conservative government which introduced this scheme in 1965 cared for such people. In 1966 there was no increase in these loans by a conservative government. In 1967 there was no increase. In 1968 there was no increase. In 1969 there was no increase by a conservative government. In 1970 and 1971 there was not a cent increase in the loans which were made available. The conservative government which at that time used a lottery to conscript young Australians to fight and die in Vietnam provided no increase in the re-establishment loans to national servicemen. No improvement occurred in the scheme until the advent of a Labor government. Let us have no more of the nonsense claims that Labor governments do not care and have concern for our armed forces personnel? Not only did the Whitlam Labor Government bring our gallant young men home from a barbarous war in Vietnam but also, in 1972-73, it made certain regular servicemen became eligible for the same re-establishment benefits as national servicemen. After seven years of no loan increases by conservative governments, what did the Whitlam Labor Government do? In 1974 the Whitlam Labor Government increased the re-establishment loans for business purposes from $3,000 to $5,000. Mr Peter Fisher —And increased inflation, too. Mr FITZGIBBON —There was inflation over the last seven years in which honourable members opposite were in government and they did nothing. The Whitlam Labor Government increased the re-establishment loans for agricultural purposes from $6,000 to $10,000. The Whitlam Government reorganised the defence forces in the most beneficial reorganisation in the Force's history. So impressed was the conservative Opposition that it did not even oppose the defence administration integration initiated by the Whitlam Labor Government. So it can be proved that Labor governments feed benefits to Australia's defence forces. This is far more preferable to the lies which conservative governments feed our defence forces. Let us examine a few more facts. After the increases in the re-establishment loans scheme provided by the Whitlam Labor Government, what did the Fraser Government do to improve the scheme? Honourable members have guessed correctly-a big fat nothing. I am a fair man; hypocrisy is not my way. I do not criticise the Fraser Government for not spending one cent to increase the defence re-establishment loans scheme. The court jester and every other fool would know the reasons why. The reasons why are elementary. Firstly, the scheme is antiquated. Secondly, today this nation has no national serviceman. Thirdly, today we do not have defence forces fighting overseas. Fourthly, today we have a voluntary, career defence force. Fifthly, today we have no conscripts. Sixthly, today a $5,000 or $10,000 loan would not re-establish a puppy dog in a respectable kennel. Seventhly, today the Defence (Re-establishment) Act is glaringly out of date, which is reflected in the fact that only about 200 piddling loans are approved each year. Clearly the scheme's objective as a re-establishment measure is not being met. The scheme is hopelessly expensive to administer and only a fool in matters financial would advocate its retention. The Hawke Labor Government will continue to work to ensure justice for the men and women, including veterans, of Australia's defence forces. But there are better schemes than this outdated one. This scheme, which was good, no longer serves a useful purpose. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.38) —I listened with some interest to what the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) had to say. I really am not sure whether to laugh or cry. Let me put this proposition: If honourable members opposite are so concerned about servicemen, whether they be national servicemen or regulars, why do they not do something about this scheme? Why do they stand up and say it is useless and therefore we must abolish it? Why do they not make something meaningful out of it? Why do they not do something for the servicemen of this country, instead of running them down and denigrating them at every chance they get? I wish to speak briefly to the Defence (Re-establishment) Amendment Bill 1985. This Legislation seeks to abolish a loan which has been available to ex-service men and women on leaving the Services. The second reading speech of the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) states: The defence re-establishment loans scheme was designed to assist eligible veterans to make the transition to civilian life by providing finance for them to establish business or agricultural ventures. It would seem to me and it would seem to any fair-minded person that helping servicemen to re-establish themselves in civilian life is an estimable aim. That was the aim when the scheme was established; as the Minister said, that is still the aim of the principal Act. So why are we cutting it out? It is because, it is claimed, it is not worth while. I think that is a matter for dispute. Whether $5,000 or $10,000 is worth while would be a matter for considerable dispute. I know many servicemen who have taken up the loan over the years and some 200 a year who are still taking it up. What has changed since the scheme was introduced? Why do servicemen no longer need to be re-established in civilian life? They are subject to many pressures to which civilians are not subject, mainly the constant movement during their service life, on an average every two years or so and many times more frequently. In the 15 years in which I was married and in the services I lived in something like 20 homes. I can assure the House that at the end of that period I was looking for some assistance, as do many servicemen, in getting myself re-established in civilian life. The most important thing to realise right now is that most servicemen and women are leaving the Services before they are eligible for a pension. The pension that one receives upon leaving after a period of 20 years is of considerable benefit but for those who leave before the expiration of that period, surely to goodness a loan or some assistance in getting re-established in civilian life is very important. The need still exists. There is no change to the need that existed when this loan was first established. As I have said time and again, the Government, for some reason which is not clear to me, is engaged in a continuing war against servicemen. Why does it keep attacking them? Why for the last two and a half years has it continued to attack the service men and women of this country and to erode their conditions, as though they are no longer relevant, as though Australia does not need any defence, as though we do not want professional people in our armed forces? That is the thing that the Government has to face up to. Why does it make this continual attack on them and continue to erode their conditions of service? There have been no pay increases for four years. I grant that is not entirely the Government's fault. A recent survey revealed that in Canberra alone some 400 junior service men and women are on supplementary welfare payments-that is, over and above their pay-to keep them and their families living in reasonable conditions. That is the state to which the Government has allowed members of the armed forces to sink. They have to get supplementary incomes in order to live. What sort of a system is the Government entrenching in the Australian community? These proud men and women volunteer to enter and serve in the defence forces of this country. They can volunteer to do anything else, of course; they do not have to be there. Yet the Government is continually driving them down and eroding their standing and status in the community until they become, in some cases, almost beggars. It has been a very long process which has continued over the last couple of years. The run-down has been taking place in some cases since the end of the Vietnam war in 1972. After the war, when peace prevailed, obviously there had to be a rundown in the peak of the Services and the support given to them during the war years. But there has to be an end to the run-down. The Minister for Territories, who is at the table, was responsible for it for some two years. He knows what I am talking about. He was not able to convince his Cabinet to stop this run-down in the defence forces of this country. It has been accelerated this year by the decision not to provide very limited support for the Americans in the MX missile debacle. That indicated quite clearly to Australians and to servicemen in particular that the Government was not concerned about the role of servicemen in the defence of this country. Let us look at what has happened to the Royal Australian Navy in the last two years. The Fleet Air Arm, after 40 years of proud history, has been abolished with the stroke of a pen. The Navy's No. 1 priority now is simply to get its helicopters to sea and to provide some manpower to allow the ships it has left to keep moving. There has been no real consideration of the nuclear submarine capability of this country. I do not know whether that is the real option but there has been no consideration of it, and the Navy has never pressed the issue. Do honourable members know why? It is not because the Navy does not want nuclear submarines. We are talking about submarines that will go on operating for the next 40 years. It is because it knows that the Government will delay the decision for years to come. So the Navy has been reduced to a brown water coastal patrol navy. Mr Scholes —You might ask the Navy. That is not its view. Mr WHITE —I know what the Navy thinks, and I suspect that the Minister does too. The Army has been reduced to manpower units without teeth, with old equipment and limited mobility. The Royal Australian Air Force has modern aircraft but no armaments. The F111 has been with us for 10 years and is still carrying World War II armaments. The FA18, which is now being introduced into the Australian Air Force, has no Australian aerial refuelling capacity. That was demonstrated the other day in the flight out from the United States of America with American tanker aircraft. If we put the FA18s into Weipa, our most northerly sealed airstrip, they could not fly to New Guinea and back. What sort of capability is that when the Air Force is being given every job under the sun? It is given all the jobs and none of the capabilities to meet its responsibilities. The feeling in the Services is that nobody cares any more. That is being reflected in the increasing number of resignations. The Government's changes to the superannuation scheme badly affected the Services. Most people retire from the Services at a young age, and they need that superannuation and grants such as this to get back on their feet. The decision to tax reserve pay was a disastrous one. The Minister has had the grace to say-I am not sure whether it was publicly, but it was certainly reported-that it was possibly the worst decision that he ever took part in. He knows better than anyone else the effect that that has had on the reserve forces of this country. We have been given a nominal number of 26,000. If the Government can find 10,000 effective reserve force service men and women in this country it will be very lucky indeed. We are about to see in another Bill to come before the House shortly the removal of the Defence Service home grant to those who enlist in the Services from now on. In the very next Bill that is to come into this House we are about to see a move against veterans in a whole range of issues. Some of those moves may well be justified but the Government, having promised for months on end that there would be a full range of consultation with all ex-service organisations before the entitlements Bill was brought in, has whipped in a Bill which pre-empts most of the provisions of the entitlements Bill and announced the changes as a fait accompli. Let me come back to the legislation before the House. There does not appear to me to be any reasonable excuse for abolishing the re-establishment loan for ex-service men and women. Certainly, the loan is very low but it is still valuable to them. If the Government is serious about halting the slide in the defence forces of this country and providing some meaningful and viable defence for a country which is largely isolated, particularly when some of our long-standing alliances have fallen into disrepair, perhaps not entirely through our fault-it is a time when we should be looking to building up the defence forces of this country to make it dangerous for anyone who may be tempted in due course to take some of what is ours-now is the time to do it. It is claimed that Budget restrictions will not permit an increase in our defence forces, and that is why the loan is being taken away. But what is more important-the defence of this country or the saving of a miserable $1m? Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.50) — I sometimes despair at the types of comments we hear from the flag wavers on the Opposition benches in the attention they give to matters of defence and service and ex-service men and women. Mr Scholes —They do it to cover the bareness of their record. Mr ROBERT BROWN —They have an appalling record. The reality is that increasingly the people of Australia, and particularly people in the Services and ex-servicemen and women, are becoming aware of the fact that to a large extent what is said by Opposition members, said traditionally and historically by the forces of conservatism, the Tories of Australia, has simply been rhetoric. There are some Opposition members who should have been a little less strong on rhetoric and a little stronger on substance. They know the situation of ex-service men and women and they could have taken a more constructive role and been a little more positive on this matter, instead of getting up in debates of this kind and talking a lot of nonsense about a scheme which quite clearly has outlived its usefulness. The only improvements which took place in the scheme, I remind the House, were brought about by Labor governments. What did honourable members opposite do, from 1975 until they were finally cast out of government, to increase the value of the scheme? We are talking about the present Government increasing the value of the present scheme to give it some substance and some base. What did those Opposition members do when they were in government? They did not increase that scheme by one cent. They allowed the real value to be eroded by inflation because that was the precise situation they wanted to bring about. Opposition members should not come into this chamber and talk about their concern for ex-servicemen and women or for servicemen and women. When the person who led the debate for the Opposition, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), was Minister for Defence he was the person who, as Australian service men well know, refused a reference on the pay of service men and women because he claimed that they were already receiving too much pay. We saw tonight the tears in the eyes of the right honourable member in his contribution to this debate-the same man who refused that reference on the pay of servicemen and women because he claimed when he was Minister for Defence that they were already receiving too much pay. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) knows that to be so. Mr Sinclair —I'll bet he does not, because you are wrong. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am not wrong. The right honourable member for New England knows I am not wrong, and so do all the people in Australia, particularly the servicemen and women who were betrayed by him. He should be ashamed of himself. He is like all Tories. All he is interested in so far as wars are concerned are the profits of war, and everyone knows it. All he is interested in is profits to do with anything, war or peace. Mr Sinclair —Where the hell have you been. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I have been here listening to claims that the right honourable member has made in this Parliament that servicemen and women in Australia were already receiving too much pay. For that reason, as Minister for Defence he refused a reference to inquire into their standards and their conditions of pay. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself. The next time the people in cockies corner are given an opportunity to determine the quality of the person who is to provide them with leadership in this place they should examine the qualities of the people they are considering. If they had considered those qualities before, it might have been Lusher who was leading them today. It would not have been the right honourable member for New England. Plenty of lip service has been given by Opposition members to the conditions of servicemen and women. The honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) gave a remarkable exposition of the issues involved in this question. He referred to the fact that after this scheme was first introduced, the value of those loans was not increased until a Labor government came to power on 2 December 1972. The honourable member for McPherson knows that to be so. He also knows that it was a Labor government which extended the application of that scheme from national service men to returned servicemen and women. It was a Labor government in both cases. The honourable member for McPherson came into the Parliament later, and I am not blaming him. As I have said before, he has cause to be proud of some aspects of his record. I wish, though, that the honourable member would continue that record in here in connection with those people for whom he should feel personal concern. He has not taken that course enough. He should not debate questions of this kind unless he can provide substance in other directions. There are men who served with the honourable member for McPherson who look to him for leadership and protection, for safeguarding from the sorts of interests that people on the Opposition benches represent. The honourable member has not been taking that course sufficiently yet. The honourable member knows that and so does everybody else. I am waiting; I still have some confidence in the honourable member. I believe that he will come good finally. I do not believe that the Leader of the National Party will come good. He has been given too many opportunities and he has failed every time. He has been tried and found wanting. The value of the Defence Force re-establishment loans under this scheme has been $5,000 for businesses and $10,000 for agricultural purposes. If a person were to use a loan of those values when going into civilian occupations, the businesses into which he was going or the agricultural or rural pursuits he was taking up would not be businesses or rural pursuits into which he should be encouraged. What type of business could be provided or assisted with a loan of $5,000? (Quorum formed) I am glad that all my colleagues have come into the House because I have something to say and I need an audience to tell it to. Earlier this evening the Leader of the National Party got up in this place, and my colleagues who have just come into the chamber should have heard the concern and compassion he directed towards ex-service men and women because a Labor government was removing a scheme which had become an insult to them. The same person, the Leader of the National Party, when he was Minister for Defence during the term of that tory government from 1975 until it was finally cast out of office by us in March 1983, refused a reference to consider the conditions of pay in the services- Government members-Shame, shame! Mr ROBERT BROWN —Honourable members may not believe it, but it is true. Mr Cohen —If you say it, Bob, we believe you. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Honourable members do believe me. In fact some of them know it is true because- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member for Charlton will resume his seat. It being 11 p.m., the time allocated for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 16 May, on motion by Mr Scholes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.01) —This lying Judas Government tonight betrays 650,000 Australian ex-servicemen and women. It is no surprise that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has deliberately chosen that the Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill will be sneaked through the House at 11 o'clock at night with a time limit of 45 minutes debate while the Government changes the law relating to the entitlements of every ex-serviceman and woman in Australia and their dependants. It is a scandal and a disgrace. The Government's chickens will come home to roost. I can assure honourable members opposite that when members of the Returned Services League clubs right around Australia see the names of those who vote tonight to put the guillotine on this Bill and to restrict debate on it to a mere 45 minutes, they will remember those names very clearly at the next election. It is well known-one has only to read Shakespeare to know this-that foul deeds are frequently done in the dark of the night. Tonight this Government, the Hawke socialist Government, has decided that it will change forever the rights and entitlements of 650,000 Australian ex-servicemen and women. This Bill can be described only as a disgrace. The action of the Government in bringing this legislation into this Parliament in this manner is disgraceful because this is the Government which preached full consultation with the RSL and the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council. This is the Government which promised that any major amendment to section 47 would be clearly discussed, that there would be consultation and that any such amendment would be included in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. But what has this dishonest Government done? It has sneaked in this measure as part of the mini-Budget. It has breached a tradition of 65 years of consultation with the Returned Services League. The Prime Minister and those who support him on this matter, having broken their word, have now created a situation where, quite frankly, they are scared stiff to debate this Bill in broad daylight. As a matter of fact, it is significant to recall, because many of the Vietnam veterans will be affected by the amendments proposed in this Bill, that it was this Prime Minister who was rebuked by the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, in 1969 for having attended a meeting, chaired by the pro-communist Left's Mr George Crawford, which called for a military victory for North Vietnam. No wonder the Prime Minister will not be in the chamber to debate this Bill. No wonder it is being snuck through at 11 o'clock at night. Does this Government not care for the 6,000 World War I veterans who are still alive, for the 490,000 World War II veterans, for the 15,000 Korean War veterans, for the 40,000 Vietnam War veterans, for the 60,000 war widows and for the 100,000 serving members? Does this Government not care for their rights? This Government, in this Bill, will reverse the onus of proof in relation to section 47 of the Repatriation Act. I will give Government members a little lesson in history because tonight they will be destroying something which one of the greatest leaders of the Australian Labor Party fought for 30 years to achieve. I would like honourable members opposite, particularly those who have a conscience, to look at the Hansard of the House of Representatives for 1 June 1977 at page 2373. They will see there a speech by a distinguished former Deputy Speaker of this Parliament, the Hon. Les Johnson. In that speech the Hon. Les Johnson, MP pointed out how there were three great freedom fighters for section 47 to be amended. In fact, that section was amended by the Fraser Government. Mr Cohen —Who were they? Mr HODGMAN —Mr Johnson refers in his speech to the three men who fought all their lives to get section 47 amended. My colleague asks: 'Who were they'? I will tell him that two of them were Sir Percy Joske and Senator Spicer. But most importantly, the third member of that trio, as the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) would remember, was Dr H. V. Evatt, one of the greatest leaders of the Australian Labor Party. I will tell honourable members what Dr H. V. Evatt said in this Parliament in 1955, just 30 years ago. I want honourable members opposite to listen very carefully to what Dr Evatt said because by their vote tonight they will be destroying something for which one of their greatest leaders fought for 30 years. Dr Evatt said: Where the cause of the case is unknown or imperfectly known the only proper conclusion is that the Minister cannot discharge the burden of proof, because the unknown cause may be a cause incidental to war service, and for that purpose the evidence must reach the same degree of cogency as is required in a criminal case before the accused is found guilty. He means that it must be accepted unless one can say, as a jury must say before convicting a person, that the condition could not have had anything to do with war service, and be sure of that beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the statement of the principle. In 1985, I respectfully concur with every word uttered in this Parliament in 1955 by Dr H. V. Evatt. He bluntly said: That is the statement of the principle. That is the principle which the Government, to its eternal shame, is destroying tonight. Had this legislation not been guillotined we would have moved a number of amendments. So that the ex-service men and women of Australia can see what we would have moved in this place I intend to read the amendments into the record. It is a very cunning device to treat this provision as part of the mini-Budget. The Government has breached its word with the RSL: It has breached its commitment to consultation. In a moment I will quote what the Prime Minister has said about consultation. In the Senate the Government's chickens will come home to roost. Had we had a proper debate I would have moved this amendment: Page 1, after clause 2, insert the following new clause: Cessation of operation of certain provisions '2A. (1) Section 16, sub-sections 17 (2), 19 (2), 21 (2), 23 (2) and 24 (2), sections 25 and 32, Part IV, sub-sections 54 (2) and 61 (2), and sections 69, 70 and 71 shall cease to be in force at the expiration of 6 months after the commencement of this Act. '(2) Subject to sub-section (3), for the purposes of section 8 of the Act, Interpretation Act 1901, when provisions of this Act cease to be in force by virtue of sub-section (1), those provisions shall be deemed to have been repealed by an Act other than this Act. '(3) When provisions of this Act cease to be in force by virtue of sub-section (1), the relevant Acts shall have effect as if those Acts had not been amended by those provisions. '(4) In this section, 'relevant Acts' means the Acts referred to in section 65.'. That is what we would have moved and that is what the Opposition will be moving in the Senate. Those amendments mean that in six months time the provisions amending section 47 and, to an extent, section 107 will die unless in the meantime this Government recovers its honour and consults with the RSL. Let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister of Australia said about consultation: I can also reiterate this Government's commitment to full consultation with the ex-service community and the promise that a draft of the new veterans' entitlement legislation will be provided to the ex-service community for comment and discussion as soon as it is finalised. The Government has broken faith with members of the defence community and we see headlines such as this: Potential political time bomb ticking away until the election. Those opposite can laugh tonight, but I assure them that the words of Peter Young are true. I am now forced because of the guillotine that the Government has applied, to conclude my remarks in one and a half minutes. Let me read what Peter Young wrote in the Australian on 16 May this year: What the Government appears to have forgotten is that the near-total one million surviving veterans from all wars around Australia, with their estimated one-and-a-half million dependants who will be directly affected by the new regulations, constitute a formidable political grouping-a potential political time bomb quietly ticking away until the next election. Shame on the Government for betraying 650,000 veterans. Shame on it for changing and reversing the onus of proof. Shame on it for taking away dependants' pensions. Shame on it for altering the categories upon which disability pensions will be assessed. Those opposite might laugh tonight, but I assure them that on this one they have engaged in one of the most dishonourable and despicable acts of any Federal Government in history. Above all, they have torn away a principle of repatriation legislation which was the product of Dr H. V. Evatt. Their chickens will come home to roost. They will live to rue this day. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(11.12) —If there is any laughter in this House tonight it is not about what this Government has done in legislation but from the back bench opposite at the contribution of the last speaker, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He is the same person who at the last election ran up and down this country trying to tell pensioners that the gold fillings in their teeth were to be counted in the assets test. He is the same member who at the last election went up and down the country trying to scare the wits out of Australians by saying that Asian hordes were about to invade their nation. He is the same member who repeatedly in this House kicks the commie can, to the amusement even of those behind him. Now he is trying to frighten the socks off veterans across this country. It is time to question his credibility, for he has none. Let me amplify that. A few moments ago he spoke about this Government betraying 650,000 ex-servicemen. Let me point out just one very pertinent fact. This legislation affects very marginally, at the outside, 155,000 World War II veterans who saw only home service, their widows and former defence personnel from 1972-nowhere near the 655,000 people, the honourable member cited in this House a few moments ago. He has misled the House yet again. He should resign. For the record, his figure of 655,000 is the total number of survivors of all wars still living in this country. Lest the hysteria from those opposite get in the way of the truth, let us further set the record straight. This legislation is part of broad Budget measures deemed necessary by this Government, the financial community, the trade union movement and just about everybody in this country with any commonsense- - Mr Scholes —And John Howard. Mr PUNCH —And John Howard, to prune back government expenditure that blew out disproportionately over and above what was even imaginable some years ago when those opposite were in government. In last week's mini-Budget 101 areas were cut. Let us be perfectly frank. Veterans were not singled out and this country's veterans legislation and their entitlements are still the most generous in the world and will remain so while I and others on this side are in government. These measures are responsible economic measures that needed to be taken. These minor measures in the area of veterans' affairs in fact secure the current entitlements for veterans-past, present and future-and the aspirations they have for a rise in real terms in those benefits over the next few years. Let me deal with the standard of proof argument. Section 47 was inserted in the Repatriation Act in 1977 largely as a result of the then Liberal Government, by way of legislation introduced by Senator Durack, attempting to cut back veterans' expenditure in much the same vein as this Government has deemed necessary. Currently the legislation provides that a claim for a pension must be granted unless the Repatriation Commission is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there are insufficient grounds for granting the claim. In light of the High Court's interpretation of section 47, especially in the O'Brien case in February this year, a pension must now be granted in respect of a veteran's incapacity or death even if there is no evidence raising a reasonable possibility of a link between the incapacity or death claimed and the veteran's period of eligible war service. Consequently, there is now almost automatic acceptance of disability pension claims. This amendment Bill provides, in respect of all claims for pensions, that, where the Repatriation Commission is reasonably satisfied that the material before it does not raise a reasonable hypothesis of a connection between the death or incapacity of a veteran and the veteran's war service, a pension shall not be granted. Why has it been necessary to do this? Firstly, it will not affect one current beneficiary. I ask the honourable member for Denison to take note of that. It has been necessary because of the high cost that would be involved in the no action option. I point out that in the case of British veterans the civil standard of proof applies after only seven years post-service, not the 40 years that this legislation maintains. It is clearly an act of common sense. The present legislation says that the special rate will be granted where the veteran has, as a result of service, been blinded or is totally and permanently incapacitated. This legislation has not changed since 1920 and the terms used-for example, a living wage-are outmoded and imprecise. The legislation will be amended to provide that a TPI pension will be payable only to those veterans who are eligible to receive a 1000 per cent general rate pension and who are totally incapacited and suffering loss of wages or salary by reason of the service-related incapacity alone preventing the veteran from continuing to undertake remunerative activity. Why is this legislation necessary? Again, it does not affect one current beneficiary. The TPI pension was never intended to benefit those who work a full life and after retirement suffer age-related disabilities which they claim as war related. After this legislation is passed, the TPI situation will remain extremely generous, with adequate determination. The provisions for dependants are clearly overdue for change. There has been no change in the level of remuneration for veterans' wives since 1963 or for children since 1952. They are instances of out of date legislation where administrative costs are very high relative to the benefit paid out. It is a fact that even those opposite acknowledge that this legislation is long overdue. The honourable member for Denison, amongst others, is simply grandstanding and talking with his tongue in his cheek. This Australian Government has done more for veterans in the short time that it has been in government than the Opposition did in all the years it was in government. (Quorum formed) While I and others on this side of the House remain in government veterans in this country can remain secure in the knowledge that this Government cares about them and is taking realistic steps to make sure that they are looked after, unlike the illusory patriotism from those opposite, wrapping themselves in the flag and their own self-aggrandisement. In Government, they sat around while real benefits declined. We have done something about increasing the level of activity by government for veterans in this country. In our last two Budgets we have increased expenditure for veterans by 14.4 per cent and 14.5 per cent respectively. In capital works, for instance in the repatriation hospitals system, we have increased expenditure by 96 per cent and 50 per cent respectively. It is all right for those opposite, such as the honourable member for Denison, to come into this House and try to scare the socks off veterans because there are no considered arguments or reasonably rational policies from the other side, but the members of the veteran community of this country are experienced and intelligent people and they will recognise policies that benefit them and a Government that supports them. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(11.23) —I utterly condemn the manner in which the Government has approached and presented this legislation. It represents three specific betrayals, three blatantly dishonoured promises, to members of the veteran community and their dependants. Let me elaborate on this. Firstly, when our nation was under dreadful threat in war, we had both conscription and a call for volunteers. Many assurances were given to men and women who joined the Services that the government would be compassionate and generous where the effects of service or death hurt them or their widows. I believe that the manner in which the Government has approached this legislation represents a drawing back on commitments made then and honoured by succeeding governments. Secondly, veterans were assured, and the Fraser Government honoured this commitment, that in the pre-Budget discussions veterans' organisations would have opportunity, as other organisations do, to meet the Budget Cabinet, elucidate their problems and put submissions. The Hawke Government broke that understanding and locked them out of such pre-Budget Cabinet consultation. Not surprisingly, the Australian Council of Trade Unions can get in but the veterans have been evicted. Thirdly, the veterans were assured that no changes would be made in legislation affecting veterans and entitlements without prior consultation with veterans' organisations. There was no consultation on these matters. The first the veterans knew about the legislation was when it was introduced in this House. That is disgraceful and unpardonable. I utterly condemn the Government's approach for another reason. It is true that cases such as the O'Brien case threatened to open up a number of unforeseen and possibly unwarranted precedents. That situation in the past did not bring about secret, hasty legislation. The veteran community has always shown great responsibility. It has not sought entitlements which it could not justify. Consultation between government and veterans' organisations addressed to such concerns has educed an approach which has been satisfactory to government and fair to veterans. On this occasion the Government has not only ignored the veterans' organisations, but also shown distrust and insult by refusing to meet them to discuss the problems and arrive at a sensible remedy. The reason this was done is that the Government has not sensibly and properly sought to examine and solve difficulties in the entitlement legislation. It has merely entered into a violent cost cutting exercise and the veterans are the target. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has made much of the big percentage increase in claims now being accepted. That alone is not sufficient justification for what has been done. When we were in government we had another problem. As few as 10 per cent or less were successful in appeals against decisions rejecting claims for disability. There was much well-justified objection that some cases which were rejected were grievously wronged and that, despite the Repatriation Act, the onus of proof was heavily on the veteran and the veteran was not getting the benefit of reasonable doubt. After consultation with veterans, the Act was amended. Obviously claims were being rejected that ought not to have been rejected. The percentage of successful appeals was lower than it ought to have been. It may well be that successful appeals now have reached a percentage which is too high and that some successful appeals are questionable. But I refuse to be bedazzled by the tossing about of percentage comparisons. The Government had a right to talk to veterans about it, but instead it changed the rules unilaterally. I believe that it has once again made the onus of proof for veterans too severe and too unjust. If the rate of successful appeal drops to 5 or 10 per cent it does not necessarily mean that the Government's legislation was warranted or correct. It could equally mean that veterans who should receive the disability pension are being denied it. I know that legislation supposedly makes provision for consideration of the fact that, so long after the war, records may have been lost, witnesses may be long dead and doctors who have long tended veterans are no longer contactable. But seriously, to make the veteran virtually have to prove his disability is related to war service when records are lost and witnesses are dead, seems to me to be a denial of justice absolutely. It almost guarantees that every appeal hereafter will fail. It is tragic indeed when the National President of the Returned Services League, a reasonable man, respected throughout the nation, has to describe this move as a 'confidence trick'. It makes an absolute farce of the Government's claim to espouse consensus when Sir William Keys is constrained to write to the Acting Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Scholes) in these terms: I would express the League's very real concern at the way in which this whole matter has been handled. It gives the impression of agreements being repudiated and greatly affects the confidence veterans have in the Government. To turn to some particular aspects of the Bill, it is again instructive to note what Sir William Keys wrote: Re Section 47 and the benefit of doubt provisions of the Act it was appreciated that following the 'O'Brien Case' moves were afoot to introduce some exclusion relating to section 47. Sir William goes on: The proposals contained go well beyond what the RSL would consider in any way responsible. I agree with that. Section 47 will be amended to provide that a pension will not be granted unless there is a reasonable 'hypothesis' linking a claim for incapacity or death. This certainly and definitely puts the onus on the veteran or widow to establish proof of a case. Never has that been the thrust of the Act. This is a complete change of the rules-40 years after the war-to an Act which has served for so well and so long. The Government seems to find some magic and some significance in setting a term of 40 years, for it says that where a veteran dies 40 years or more after his last day of service, section 47 will not apply to a widow's claim. It is without a doubt a cynical exercise for it is no coincidence that this year, 1985, is 40 years from the end of World War II. So the reality is that this is a cost cutting exercise; nothing more, nothing less. That is why 40 years is chosen and it is no wonder that Sir William Keys believes this is a miserable act of penny pinching which imposes a burden on the widow without any logic or reason. Those were his words. Certainly the new provisions on the award of pensions for totally and permanently incapacitated veterans will not just eliminate some anomalies. More seriously, they will impose considerable hardship and distress on many veterans. All of a sudden we face a new complexity, a new twist. The Minister has, I believe for the first time, stated a new hypothesis-that a TPI pension is a remuneration for a veteran who cannot work. Let me state that this view is unacceptable. Disability pensions are not remuneration; they are compensation. That is why in income testing service pensions, disability pensions are discounted. It is because they are compensation. To the Government they are now remuneration, which makes me and the veterans very concerned that this is the first move towards regarding disability pensions as income so that service pensions can be reduced or eliminated. TPI and disability pensions are compensation, and the benefits of treatment at repatriation hospitals by repatriation doctors are part of that compensation. No wonder the veterans, unconsulted and ignored, are stunned. Sir William Keys further correctly says: To introduce this limitation now means that the unemployed under 65 could be rejected because he is unemployed. The veteran over 65 who is retired and on a 100 per cent pension for a heart condition for example cannot obtain the higher level compensation because he, too, is not receiving earned income or remuneration. Veterans now are in the position where the Government says: 'Heads I win, tails you lose'. The veteran organisations were given to understand that a new veterans' entitlements Bill would be introduced following consultation with them and lie on the table until the Budget session so that consultation and consideration could be adequate. Any measures affecting veterans or directed to amendments to the Act were to be so approached. That was the Government's commitment. In a cynical cost cutting exercise, that assurance has been dishonoured, and the whole exercise pre-empted. Mr Cowan —Did they talk to the Government? Mr ADERMANN —No, they did not. This is a blatant sectional discrimination against an honoured and honourable section of the community who put their lives and future at risk to defend the freedoms and privileges that we, as a later generation, enjoy today and take for granted. Mr Slipper —Why do the socialists hate ex-servicemen? Mr ADERMANN —I do not know. I am extremely concerned to see sections such as proposed new section 47(3)(b) which states that the Repatriation Commission is empowered, in cases not covered by the previous sub-section, to grant a claim for pension only where it is satisfied on the civil standard of proof, that sufficient grounds exist for granting the claim. So the benefit of reasonable doubt is diluted, the onus of proof shifted more to the veteran. Mr Deputy Speaker, did you ever expect to see a Minister for Veterans' Affairs stand up in this Parliament and boast that it would be in only very rare cases that a veteran beyond the normal retirement age would be eligible for TPI pension? The Minister at the table made that boast. As war widows' pensions depend frequently on their spouse having been totally and permanently incapacitated, the Minister can, if he is not ashamed, also boast that there will be precious few new war widows' pensions either. That is a disgrace. The time for this debate has been cut far too short. I now have to content myself with sparing the Minister a little and asking him a couple of questions. I hope he will pay attention to these questions and that he will answer them. Firstly, we know that a war widow loses her pension if she remarries, and a de facto widow loses her pension if she marries. What happens if a de facto war widow does not remarry, but merely enters into a de facto relationship with another partner? Is the pension lost only if there is a Christian, respectable marriage, but retained provided the subsequent liaison is not sanctified by marriage? Secondly, the Minister knows that disability claims can go back and forth in the appeals system for years and years. Many claimants die before their claim is finally decided. It can take five or seven years. What is the position of an applicant for TPI pension who has been in the appeals procedure for years, whose claim cannot be decided for some time yet but who, however, under present rules has a good prospect of success? Is his claim to be subject to new rules, a whole new ball game when this Bill receives royal assent? If so, where is the justice in that? Mr Deputy Speaker, I am disgusted with the manner in which the Government has undertaken this exercise. I abhor the broken commitments to and betrayal of our veterans. It is fitting that this debate is occurring in the midnight hours for this action by the Government should never see or have seen the light of day. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(11.35) —The Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill arises from the May economic statement. I do not believe it will save any money at all. It merely represents a tidying up of the repatriation legislation and the modernising, shall we say, of a lot of measures which have got out of kilter. I was interested in the contribution of other honourable members to this debate. The honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) made a lot of points but I feel that he really cannot blame the present Government for a five to seven year delay in the appellant system. The Hawke Labor Government just has not been in office for five or seven years. Therefore, it is not possible to blame this Government if there is a five or seven year delay. The previous speakers for the Opposition referred to a Major Peter Young, a former candidate for the seat of Lowe. I am certainly not prepared to criticise that gentleman. However, I feel that Peter Young's comments were really exaggerated journalism. I know Peter Young and I feel that his comments were caused somewhat by an emotional rush of blood to the head. When one looks objectively at the legislation one will see that the Government has merely tidied up a large number of measures. Of course, I believe that in the May statement the Government extended expenditure to returned personnel and veterans. For example, veterans now can attend dental prosthetists-dental technicians in common parlance. However, they have to be referred by a dentist. I believe this measure will increase the cost of dental services to the Government. Nevertheless, tonight we have been dealing with a number of matters. One relates to the standard of proof for determining eligibility for all the benefits under the Act. That is really the most important part of the Bill. The whole matter arose out of a decision in the O'Brien case before the High Court of Australia. O'Brien had never been overseas on war service; he was not a returned serviceman. However, he claimed that 40 years after the war he developed hypertension because during the war he was separated from his wife when he was in service at Temora. She was having babies and he was worried. He claimed that he had hypertension so many years afterwards. Really there has to be some rational nexus before one is paid a pension. Anyway that gentleman won his case under the legislation introduced by the Opposition, and good luck to him. The legislation was amended in 1977 to bring in a criminal onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Department of Veterans' Affairs had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the veteran could not relate his disability to his war service. That was meant to cut back the number of people getting pensions. However, it backfired completely. Therefore, O'Brien, a man who had no evidence at all to prove that his hypertension was caused by war service, was able to establish his case. That is why tonight the Government is amending the legislation to keep the criminal onus, particularly where an applicant-or applicant's spouse, in the case of a widow-has had overseas service-for example, in Malaysia, Korea, Vietnam or in peace-keeping forces. That would involve half a million people. The Government is introducing a 40-year rule. After 30 October 1985-40 years after the last of the Japanese forces surrendered in Borneo-a civil standard of proof will be required which means proof on the balance of probability. There has to be some tying up of evidence. We know of Law's case. Law started smoking in Changi prison camp because there was no food. His widow was able to prove when he died of lung cancer that this was a war caused disability. That type of situation could continue. I do not wish to delay the House, but the whole gist of this legislation is that no existing beneficiary will be affected in any way. All pensions will continue to be paid. If a war widow is getting benefits they will continue to be paid. This measure will affect only a tiny handful of people who will claim benefits in the future. One other provision is being changed. The existing level of disability pensions to spouses and dependants will be frozen. Honourable members may be aware from their electoral work that a small amount is paid to a spouse and each child if a father or a mother who was a service person has a disability. This is a hangover from the days of the allotment made during the war, when part of the wages of a serviceman or servicewoman was allotted to the spouse. On a 100 per cent totally and permanently incapacitated pension, the spouse receives $4.05 a week and each child gets $1.38. If a person is on only 10 per cent TPI pension the payment might go down to as low as 28c a week. No matter what happens those payments will be frozen. The previous Government had not changed the child's allowance since 1952 and the spouse's allowance was pegged in 1963. This is a 1920 benefit, but it is being frozen. Another anachronism from the past is that money is paid for adequate support to mothers, grandmothers and aunts of someone who was killed in the war. The whole social service mechanism has overtaken those types of payments and they are also being frozen. About 1,000 people in Australia are receiving benefits under that legislation. The assessment rate for disability pensions has been touched on briefly, particularly by Opposition speakers. The whole idea of the TPI pension was that it should be related to a living wage, to the notion that a digger could not work any longer and was entitled to a totally and permanently incapacitated pension. It is not a pension for someone just because he has turned 85 and was in the First World War. It is a pension for a man or a woman who cannot work because of war service. The whole notion is that such a person cannot work more than eight hours a week. It is to compensate a returned serviceman for an economic loss. Bowman's case in the High Court-(Quorum formed) Some of my colleagues do not understand O'Brien's case, which involved an ex-service person who had never been overseas. His wife was in Sydney, having children and he was at Temora and was worried about her during her pregnancies. Forty years later he claimed that his hypertension was due to worry. The High Court upheld that claim. It is impossible to reject any claim where a person can establish his right to a disability pension along those lines. I said earlier that I fully sympathise with such people. We all see people in our electorate offices who need war pensions and who, perhaps, are not eligible to receive the service pension because, by chance, they were not in Darwin on a certain day or in Cowra rounding up Japanese. However, like everyone else, they volunteered. We have great sympathy for these people. I trust that in the fullness of time, when the economy is fixed, as it soon will be, and as our nation gets going again, we will be able to pay these service pensions to people who by chance did not go overseas. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The time is 11.45 p.m. The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Bill-by leave-presented by Mr Spender, and read a first time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.46) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 3 October last year, I presented to the House the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. Established under the Fraser Government, re-established under the present Government, the Committee's charter was to examine the whole of the law, the practices, and the procedures of parliamentary privilege, and the penalties that may be imposed by the Houses for breaches of privilege, and to determine and to report on whether changes were desirable. The Committee had substantial continuity of membership. I was elected the original Chairman and re-appointed Chairman under the Hawke Government, and eight of the original 10 members remained on the Committee throughout its life. The Committee's final report contained some 35 major recommendations-28 were unanimous and on the remaining seven Senators Rae and Jessop expressed a joint dissent. Honourable members will recall that on Federation we inherited, until this Parliament should otherwise declare pursuant to the power vested in it by section 49 of the Constitution, the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons as they existed at the time of Federation. Those powers, privileges and immunities-privileges as I shall for the sake of brevity call them-were of ancient lineage. As long ago as 1704 the House of Commons recognised that it could not alter, except by statute, any of its privileges. In sum, the privileges of our Parliament go back to laws and to practices that were established around three centuries or more ago. The questions that immediately arise are these: Are those laws and practices suited to the needs of the Australian Parliament in the late twentieth century; if changes are to be made what should they be; what, in short, are the privileges needed by today's Parliament and its members to ensure the independent, efficient and fearless operation of parliament as the body responsible for governing the affairs of the Australian nation? It was in this spirit of inquiry that the Committee conducted its work. The internal debate within the Committee was strong but never partisan, and the result-after first placing before the Houses an exposure report so that members of parliament could comment on, challenge, prepare amendments to, or reject the preliminary findings of the Committee-was the report on which this Bill is grounded. Before outlining in broad terms the changes the Bill proposes, there are three things I should make clear. First, the Committee's recommendations fell into three groups. They are recommendations which, because of their nature are required to be implemented by statute; recommendations which should be implemented by changes to Standing Orders; and recommendations which should be implemented by resolutions of the Houses. Naturally, this Bill concerns itself only with those recommendations which require to be implemented by statute. Second, it is my intention-one which I believe the Leader of the House (Mr Young) shares-that debate on this Bill should remain adjourned for a fairly long period so that honourable members and honourable senators will have an opportunity to examine it in detail, and to propose such amendments as they may think necessary or useful. I look forward to hearing their views, and I wish to make it clear that I am not seeking in any way to pre-empt matters by bringing this Bill before the House at this time. I do not look on this Bill as the final draft but more as an exposure draft. Indeed, there are one or two refinements which in my view would improve it. However, I regard it as a very sound basis on which to begin a debate which I believe to be of great importance to this Parliament. I strongly believe that reform is needed. Equally, I am certain that if we achieve nothing this time, we can give the game away. Third, I propose to circulate to senators and members before the Budget session an explanatory memorandum which will clearly explain the reasons underlying each or the Bill's provisions. I shall now outline in general terms the effect of the chief provisions of the Bill. The first effect is to put beyond argument the protection given to members and officers of the Houses and witnesses before committees against liability for defamation in what may be described as the grey areas of doubt. For example, a member seeking advice from others in the draft of a speech containing defamatory matter and hence publishing it in the eye of the law, may find himself in the position that the speech is never made. We might need to look to the consequences following on that. The second effect is to limit the duration of the protection given by two ancient privileges: Immunity from arrest on civil process-a matter of great importance when a debtor could be incarcerated by his creditors-and immunity from compulsory attendance as a witness. At present these immunities extend through all adjournments to 40 days before and after the life of a House-a period appropriate, perhaps, to eighteenth century England when travel was slow and arduous, but not to twentieth century Australia. Accordingly, the Bill proposes to limit these immunities to five days before and after the sitting of a House or a committee. The third effect is to abolish as a head of contempt, and hence of punishment, the offence known as libels on parliament or defamatory contempts. This description is itself somewhat of a misnomer as parliament may, for example, treat an abusive but technically not defamatory attack on its members as a contempt. This proposal in no way affects parliament's power to deal with someone for a contempt where his actions may also include an element of defamation-for example, intimidation coupled with defamatory comment. Of course, the rights of individual members of parliament to sue will remain just as they presently are, as will that most telling of rebuttals, the right to answer from the floor of the House. The fourth effect is that the Bill removes the power of the Houses to expel members. This power has been availed of on one occasion only since Federation. That was the Mahon case-the House was this House-and the power was demonstrably abused. It should be recalled that the Australian Constitution lays down a fairly elaborate set of rules as to the eligibility of a person to become and to remain a member of parliament. In all other respects the power of the Houses to discipline members will remain. The fifth effect is that the Bill confers a power to fine persons or corporations guilty of offences against a House. The weight of opinion, although it is not unanimous, is that the power to fine does not presently exist. The Bill also substitutes a maximum term of six months imprisonment for the present power of the Houses to commit for no longer than the duration of the life of a House and to recommit when the House is re-formed. A fine will often be a more appropriate penalty than imprisonment and it is absurd that the length of commitment for an offence against a House should depend on the time in the House's life when the offence is committed. The sixth effect is that the Bill confers a very limited and highly circumscribed power in the full High Court of Australia to express an opinion that a resolution by a House to commit an offender to prison is in some ways deficient. I emphasise the very limited nature of this power and the underlying objective of avoiding clashes between the courts and parliament. The Court may, for example, declare that the particulars stated in a resolution to commit would not be capable in law of constituting the offence specified in the resolution. However, the Court cannot go behind the facts stated in the resolution and regardless of the Court's views, the decision remains entirely that of the House concerned, which may entirely reject those views. I hope, however, by the inclusion of even such a very limited right of review, that its mere existence will act as a brake, should one be needed, on the capricious use by the Houses of their penal powers. The final effect is that the Bill clarifies the protection of witnesses before committees and creates a statutory offence of interfering with witnesses, with consequent penal provisions, and gives to witnesses injured by reason of giving evidence before committees or being willing to do so, the right to claim civil damages against those responsible for injuring them. There are other matters which are less important. The second reading speech is by no means as complete as I would have liked it to be, but I am very grateful for the time that has been given to me by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) to present the Bill. It is an important Bill for Parliament and for all of us. If of necessity there has been some over simplification by me in explaining the Bill, that will be rectified when a detailed explanatory memorandum is prepared and circulated to all honourable members and all honourable senators. I conclude by saying that I wish to reassure honourable members that their rights remain; they are not eroded. The only changes to be made to the existing rights, power, privileges and immunities of Parliament are those which are specifically contained in the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Fife —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Debate (on motion by Mr Young) adjourned. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1984-85. Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(11.56) —Mr Deputy Speaker- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.57 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Young to move- That this House authorises- (1) the Speaker to make arrangements for the preliminary proceedings relating to the introduction of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985-86, all or part of the second reading speech of the Treasurer, and all or part of the reply to that speech by the Leader of the Opposition to be filmed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; (2) the direct, live, telecast of all or part of that film and the accompanying sound of the proceedings by any television station provided that a station telecasts both speeches live and gives approximately equal time to both speeches, and (3) the use by any television station of any part of the filmed proceedings and accompanying sound in subsequent news, current affairs and documentary programs. Mr West to 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: Refurbishment of Commonwealth Centre and associated major fitout works, Melbourne. Mr West to move- That in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of new Commonwealth Offices, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act relating to cheques and certain other negotiable instruments. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act 1909, and for related purposes. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 21 May 1985: Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determination-1985-No. 2.