Wednesday, 9 October 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies) —Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr N. A. BROWN —I am indebted to you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this matter at this stage. I wish to raise a matter of privilege relating to the Freedom of Information Act and the way it is being administered by the Government. My submission is that there is a potential breach of privilege constituted by four matters. At the outset I shall simply list those matters and then go on to explain as briefly as I can why they constitute a breach of privilege. The first is a letter I have received from the Department of Territories, a letter addressed to me dated 25 September 1985. The second is a letter from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet dated 2 October 1985. I shall say two things about those letters at the outset. The first is that I have made photostat copies of them with which I will provide you when I have finished my remarks. The second thing I shall say about those letters is that they are only examples, because a number of members of parliament have received letters from Ministers and departments which in substance say that applications or requests under the Freedom of Information Act will not be processed until the members of parliament have paid fees which have been charged and levied on the members of parliament. That is the substance of the complaint I have. The third matter of privilege relates to a Freedom of Information Act memorandum, known as revised memorandum No. 41. Those letters I have referred to and revised FOI memorandum No. 41 in effect in substance, to put it as briefly and concisely as possible, maintain the right of the Government to levy charges on members of parliament and on journalists, and indeed on others, for compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests. The fourth matter which I maintain constitutes a potential breach of privilege is the whole Government attitude which is now being implemented by departments and Ministers with respect to processing requests under the Freedom of Information Act lodged by members of this Parliament. Perhaps I can illustrate the matter further by quoting briefly from both the letters to which I have referred. With respect to the letter from the Department of Territories, the FOI Co-ordinator has said in substance that a charge must be made before my request under the Freedom of Information Act will be proceeded with further. He then goes on to say: No further action will be taken on your request until the deposit notified in the enclosed leaflet has been received. With respect to the letter from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the author of the letter, who describes himself as the Deputy Director of the Policy Development Branch, Office of Youth Affairs, says, among other things: I am writing to advise you, however, that I have decided that a charge should apply in your case and that I estimate that it will take half an hour to locate all the documents. He then goes on at a later stage in the letter to say: You are now required to pay an amount of $27.50 before your request can be processed further. He goes on over the page to say: Under section 19 (3) (b) of the F.O.I. Act, we have 45 days from receipt of your request within which to notify you of a decision. Counting of the 45 days will be suspended from tomorrow's date (ie, 3 October) and will resume on the day on which your payment of $27.50 is received. So, in other words, the substance of all that correspondence and other correspondence that we have received is, first of all, one must pay a charge before the application will be processed under the Freedom of Information Act, and, secondly, the time will not run until one sends the money in. The Department is saying: `When you send the money in, we will continue to look for these documents and consider then, in our magnanimity, whether we will provide them to you'. A number of points need to be made. First, a charge is being made on members of parliament to provide them with information to which they are entitled and to which they should be entitled without paying that charge or without having any impediments put in their way. The second point is that departments and Ministers are now adopting an attitude that no further work will be done under the Act-this is work which, incidentally, they are obliged to do under the law-until payment is made. The argument can be put very concisely and it goes along these lines. The first point is that members of parliament, in a proper pursuit of their responsibility and role are, in our submission, entitled to government information. What we see here in the totality is an attempt to frustrate this work, to frustrate members of parliament in their attempt to obtain legitimate government information which they need to fulfil their role and to do their job properly. An attempt is being made to impose charges and to dealy work under the Act until payment is made. This is an interference with the proper and legitimate work of a member of parliament and it should be stopped. Secondly, it is very clear that what we have here is a delaying tactic which is designed solely to defer and postpone the revealing of sensitive material which the Government has. The Government will put every obstacle in the way of members of parliament to prevent them from receiving this material. Thirdly, I must concede that there is a right to apply for a remission. However, in reply to that, we say that this is no defence whatsoever for the simple reason that members of parliament should not have obstacles and delaying tactics placed in their way when they are simply doing nothing but seeking information. All members of this Parliament on both sides of the House should be concerned with that as the primary objective, that is, the member of parliament is entitled to obtain information from the Government if he is to perform his job properly. He should not be subject to delaying tactics, appeal procedures, a trip to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or perhaps a trip to the Federal Court before he can obtain information to which he is properly and legitimately entitled. The fourth point that should be made briefly is that it might well be said that the charges are comparatively slight but I am aware of other cases where the Government has sought to levy very substantial charges on members of parliament before applications under the Act are complied with. For instance, I know of one case where a senator has been asked for $900 cash on the knocker before- Mr Tuckey — I know of one involving $2,000. Mr N. A. BROWN —The honourable member for O'Connor informs me of another case of apparently $2,000. This simply emphasises the magnanimity and the enormity of the obstacle which is being placed in the way of members of parliament. It may be only $27.50 in my case. However, as the amount increases, the obstacles that are being put deliberately in the way of members of parliament pursuing their proper task are increased. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition should realise that he is entitled to put his matter of privilege. I think he is now reaching the stage of debating the matter which would carry on if I happen to rule that there was a prima facie case. I would ask him to round off his remarks. Mr N. A. BROWN —I will, indeed, Mr Speaker. I will simply make one final point. I have referred to the Freedom of Information Act memorandum No. 41. Mr Speaker, again I have made a copy of the relevant page for you so that you can read it as a whole. Without wishing to delay the House, I simply say that it contains this sentence: There is no automatic remission of charges in the public interest for Members of Parliament or journalists. We maintain that it is clear beyond any argument at all that it is in the public interest for members of parliament to have access to this information. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should realise that he is now debating the point. Mr N. A. BROWN —Mr Speaker, when you read that document you will see just how strong that point is. Finally, I say simply that the matter of privilege is that obstacles are being placed in the way of members of parliament performing their tasks. They are not simply obstacles which apply to the community at large, but are confined to members of parliament because, in this case, the letters are addressed to a member of parliament. The FOI memorandum specifically relates to members of parliament and rules for members of parliament which are specifically designed to frustrate the proper work of a member of parliament. The Government should not cover up. It should come clean. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is now debating this issue. Mr N. A. BROWN —I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I do feel strongly about this matter. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that but I am required to run the House in accordance with its Standing Orders. Mr N. A. BROWN —Yes. I simply conclude by saying, Mr Speaker, that to assist your deliberations on this matter I have made some copies of the appropriate correspondence and of the appropriate page of that memorandum. Mr Speaker, I will provide them to the Clerk so that you can read them and consider your decision on what we regard as a grievous abuse of the privileges of members of parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has certainly raised the matter at the earliest opportunity. I must accept that he has raised a matter of privilege. He has raised it under several heads. I think it would serve the interests of the House if I considered the letters and material he has placed before the House and made a statement to the House at a later hour this day. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney General) —by leave-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), was kind enough to phone my office and say that he was going to raise the matter of privilege. I did not know what the matter was and I make no comment about it. I just ask you, Mr Speaker, when considering the matter to recognise that the question of freedom of information is covered by way of statute of 1982. The statute provides for exemption from any fees in certain circumstances. Of course, fees had to be charged, as announced, because of the cost of administering the Freedom of Information Act, but there can be discretion exercised so that no fees are charged. Mr Speaker, I ask you to identify the matters which relate to what the honourable gentleman has said about the matter of privilege. Also, Mr Speaker, one of the other matters which you will no doubt take into consideration, of course, is that members of parliament are entitled to get information other than by the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Mr SPEAKER —I think there is no need for me to comment on the statement made by the Attorney-General. I will make a statement to the House at a later hour this day. Debate resumed from 19 September, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this Bill concurrently with the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill, the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill and the Medicare Levy Bill. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(10.14) —A package of four Bills is being debated. They are the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill, the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill and the Medicare Levy Bill. Some of the measures derive from the Budget statement of August by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Other measures come from other statements on taxation matters, for example, which were made some considerable time ago. The Opposition will not be opposing these taxation measures but we will have something to say about some of them with which we are in disagreement partially or wholly. I refer firstly to the two straightforward income tax measures which derive from the Budget-the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1985 and the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1985. Those two Bills put into effect the tax arrangements in the 1985 Budget for the current financial year. It is hard to remember the Budget to which these matters refer because it was sandwiched in between a May statement, a July set of changes and the tax measures which were brought in in September. The Budget is almost a matter of stale history, given the nature of the tax announcements made subsequently. So the Opposition will not pass any particular comment on these two measures; it merely notes that they form part of that forgotten Budget. The next measure I would like to refer to is the Medicare Levy Bill 1985. It sets the Medicare levy rates for this financial year and, unless Parliament otherwise decides, for the next financial year. It removes the ceiling on incomes on which the levy is chargeable from $70,000-the amount at which it was set when the Medicare scheme was set up-and makes the levy more like an addition to income tax. This is yet another promise that has been broken by the Government. When Medicare first came in it was claimed that the Medicare levy was, in effect, an insurance payment and that it would have a ceiling. That ceiling has been removed and, therefore, the levy is no different from income tax. In a few moments I will talk about some of the anomalies that that raises. Just as the Government has broken its promise on the Medicare levy, it has also broken its promise on the privacy questions of Medicare by leaking doctors' incomes to the Press. We have no guarantee that there will not be further changes upwards in the Medicare levy in order to meet rising costs in hospitals and in overservicing through bulk billing. I draw particular attention to anomalies in the levy arrangements. All my comments will be based on the 1984-85 figures because they are the ones I have had analysed. The changes of August 1985 do not materially alter the situation. Obviously some of the figures will change but there is no real change to the points I wish to make. The regulations have been framed in such an inept manner that intrinsically the levy is raised equitably only in the case of single persons whose incomes are greater than the levy threshold. It is sheer coincidence that in a non-prescribed or standard family-by a non-prescribed family I mean a family which does not have, for example, a veteran who is entitled to free medical treatment and should be called a prescribed person-both breadwinners pay an equitable levy when each has an income higher than the upper limit of the single person's levy threshold. In setting the family levy threshold at 1.66 times the single person's threshold-in 1984-85 the figures were $11,803 and $7,110 respectively-there is clear and specific recognition that an equitable means basis for family partners is significantly lower than that for single persons. We say that that is fair enough. However, by then raising the family levy contributions on an individual income earner's basis-in this sense the levy is really a tax; it is not an insurance contribution-one gets the following extraordinary outcome: Firstly, where either partner earns $7,110 or less, that part of the family income remains levy free, however much of the income of the other family partner exceeds $7,110. Secondly, where each partner earns not less than $7,111 and not more than $7,483, each pays less than the full levy up to a total family income of $14,966 per annum. Thirdly, where each partner earns $7,110 or less, both are completely exempt from the levy up to a total family income of $14,220 per annum. But if one partner earns more than $7,110 and the other partner's income is so low that the family's total income falls in the range of $11,804 to $12,424 the regulations require that the levy be raised on the basis of the aggregated family income. So virtually the full levy may be paid on a total family income of $12,424. These rules create enormous anomalies. To illustrate the anomalies I will cite some examples of possible configurations of family incomes on which totally anomalous levies are raised for Medicare. The first example is where the first family partnership income is $30,000 and the second partner has a nil income. The one per cent levy raises $300. However, if the family income is split up with one partner earning $25,405 and the second partner earning at the then income tax threshold of $4,595, again giving a total income of $30,000, the levy is only $254.05. So the family income in both cases is $30,000 but the levy in the first case is $300 and in the second case is $254.05. My second example concerns family incomes which are different but on which exactly the same total levy is paid. The first family has a single income earner who earns $12,425. The other person has a nil income. The total income is $12,425, which is the family upper limit. The levy is $124.25. The other family earns a total, not of $12,000-odd, but of $19,000-odd, consisting of an income of $12,425 for the first partner and $7,110, which is the single levy threshold, for the second partner. The total income is $19,535. The levy is identical with that of the first family, $124.25. One family earns a total of $12,425 and pays a levy of $124.25 whereas the second family earns $19,535 and pays exactly the same levy of $124.25. If this were purely an income tax the amounts would follow automatically but this levy for health insurance purposes was claimed to be equitable. Yet we get these extraordinary anomalies. I cite another example in which almost identical payments are made on the family incomes. In the first case, the income is $11,803 for the first partner and $621 for the second partner, totalling $12,424. The levy is $117.99. In this case there is a family reduction clause, which I mentioned earlier, and which was applied to the levy paid by the first partner. In the second case the first partner earns $11,803 and the second earns $7,110, which is the single levy threshold for the second partner, so there is no family reduction. They have a total income of $18,913 and pay a levy almost identical to that in the first case, $118.03. So the first family income is just over $12,000 and the levy is $117 and the second family earns nearly $19,000 and virtually the same levy is paid. I will now consider a non-standard family where one partner is a prescribed person; that is, a person who is entitled to all medical and hospital treatment at public expense-such as a veteran under certain circumstances. We also find astonishing anomalies in this category. The first example is of a single income family where the prescribed partner earns $28,000 and the non-prescribed partner has no income. The total family income is $28,000 and the total family levy is $140. The second example is where the prescribed partner's income is $20,890 and the non-prescribed partner's income is $7,110, the single levy threshold. The total family income is exactly the same as that cited earlier, $28,000. The levy paid is $104.45. Here we have two families, each one with a pensioner entitled to free medical benefits. The levy which has to be paid by the pensioners for their partners is half the standard levy rate, regardless of what those partners earn. In the cases I have mentioned both families have incomes of $28,000 but the first family pays a levy of $140 and the second family pays a levy of $104.45. I mention also a third case in which each partner earns $14,000. Again, although that is the same $28,000 in total, $210 is paid in levy-over twice the levy payment of the previous example. Finally, I mention a family where the income of the prescribed partner is nil and the non-prescribed partner's income is $28,000. In other words, the spouse of the pensioner gets an income of $28,000. In this case the levy is paid at the full rate of $280. In the lowest case of a family with an income of $28,000 a levy of $104.45 is paid. In the highest case the family with the same income of $28,000 pays $280 in Medicare levy. I know it is tedious for the House to hear such detailed figures but these matters affect families in a very definite way. I have also had research done which seems to indicate that if these levies were all applied on a family income basis and on a totally equitable basis probably there would be an extra revenue component to the Commonwealth of about $24m. That revenue could be used for other purposes, for example, reducing the levy so that people would not have to pay any more overall. If the anomalies were removed that would mean an extra $24m in revenue for the Commonwealth and a more equitable situation for families in similar circumstances. What these examples point out is that the whole business of the Medicare levy is a nonsense. It was never intended to be a real payment for medical and hospital services; it was always just a tax. However much the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) tried to make out at the time of the introduction of Medicare that it was an identified payment towards one's health costs and health insurance, they have never been able to sustain that argument either as to the total amount raised by way of the levy, in relation to the total health costs of the nation, nor have they been able to distinguish it in any way from a simple tax collection. Therefore, the removal of the $70,000 limit is one factor which proves that it is merely a tax. Also the totally anomalous cost to families in the same overall circumstances shows again that it is merely a tax that has nothing to do with health costs at all. I now move to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 which is a grab-bag of a large number of measures of various kinds. I will deal with those measures in turn. The first measure relates to non-leveraged finance leasing and similar arrangements. Announcements were made on 15 May and 16 December 1984 which were designed to clamp down on certain taxation arrangements whereby taxation exempt bodies such as State statutory corporations were able to make arrangements with people who would otherwise pay tax so that those people did not pay the full measure of tax. Earlier legislation was introduced in 1984 to deal with leveraged leasing. Those measures contained in that legislation deny to lessors tax deductions attributable to ownership of plant where the leveraged arrangements involve plant leased or in real end-use in tax exempt activities, including by tax-exempt public authorities. In fact that arose out of the Eraring power station lurk introduced by the Wran Government in which leasing arrangements relating to power stations in New South Wales were put into place by the State Government with the obvious intention of defrauding the Commonwealth of taxation revenues. The Federal Labor Government in effect had to legislate against the actions of its State counterparts. The legislation also related to leveraged leasing arrangements involving overseas plant used by non-residents, such as aircraft leased by foreign airlines and the sale and lease-back of existing plant already in use by the lessee or real end-user. The reason for introducing the measures was that the arrangements involved financial benefits to the lessee and lessor which led to a substantial cost to the Commonwealth revenue. We supported those measures. It had become clear following that that the problems did not stop at leverage leasing, but also extended to ordinary finance leasing by governments and tax exempt government authorities. This measure extends the prohibitions to non-leverage finance leasing and similar arrangements. The Opposition supports these measures, which are said to involve savings to the revenue of $100m or so in 1985-86 and larger amounts in subsequent years depending, of course, on what will happen by the extension of those arrangements. The next item in this Bill is the statutory loan back rules. There was an announcement on 11 March 1985 relating to the rules for investment by a superannuation fund in a sponsoring employer's business. This Bill sets a maximum of 10 per cent for such investments by the trustees of the superannuation fund in the business to which the superannuation fund is related. There are transitional arrangements over 10 years to enable existing funds to adjust by the effluxion of time and the moving in of new people so that they meet this requirement at the end of 10 years. If they do not, there is a 30 per cent tax rate penalty. The Opposition has some reservations about this. The purpose of it, presumably, and this is a reasonable argument, is that there should not be investments by the trustees to any great extent in the business in which the beneficiaries are working because it might tie the resultant benefits too much to the fortunes of that business. There might also be concerns about the manner in which the directors of a business might proceed with such funds if they had ill intentions of some kind. There are some genuine concerns there. Our concern about this measure is that such arrangements do give the employees of a smallish concern a chance to participate in the profitable growth of the company within which they work. It is another form of incentive for people to feel that they are very much part of a business. In good situations where there is a good relationship between the management and the work force, arrangements of this kind, if not taken too far, can be quite beneficial both to employees and to management. We are a little concerned about the degree of regulation being introduced. We are not going to vote against this measure but we would like to register our concern over that aspect of it. The next part of the Bill relates to superannuation arrangements for the self-employed and proposed an increase in the deduction from $1,200 to $1,500 a year from 1985-86. We welcome this measure. When we were in government we introduced this deduction. I might say that it was opposed by the then Leader of the Opposition, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). He did not approve of it. We are pleased that the Government seems at least to have recognised some of the error of its ways at that time and has increased the deduction. However, it is still at a very modest level. When one also takes into account the fact that the Government is bringing in a capitals gains tax which will be in effect a very severe reduction on the capital accumulation for retirement of small business people, we think that this gesture will be dwarfed by that other measure. There is absolutely no doubt that in a very large number of family businesses, individual businesses, the capital accumulation and the build up of good will owing to the skills and the entrepreneurial talent of the proprietors is seen as a contribution by them towards a retirement benefit. An asset is being built up and, indeed, often throughout their working lives to a very large extent they deny themselves week by week income in order to build up that asset for their retirement. The capital gains tax that has been foreshadowed by the Treasurer strikes at the very heart of that process. It is one of the reasons why we are utterly opposed to that capital gains tax, why we will oppose it in this House, why we will vote against it in both Houses, and why we will repeal it when we get back into government. There is also a change in the lump sum termination payments. For people aged 55 or more the first $50,000 in superannuation payments is currently taxed at 15 per cent. This sum is being raised to $55,000 to take account of inflation. Rather, it is not directly for inflation, it is a measure which more or less makes up for inflation. We support that. The next matter is much more controversial. I refer to the removal of the $2,000 concessional expenditure rebate. A medical expenses rebate is being put in its place but only medical expenses over $1,000 will merit a rebate. The $2,000 rebate has been completely abolished. This is the final nail in the coffin of this particular measure. Some years ago there was in the taxation system an incentive for families to provide for themselves in various ways. They were assisted by deductions for education, rates and so on and these deductions were seen as an essential part of a taxation system which aided families. Those benefits have gradually been removed by this Government. The ceiling below which one is not able to claim anything is rapidly being pushed up. It got up to $2,000 and now it is being removed altogether. The Government says that it affects only 6 per cent of taxpayers. After the various changes that have occurred, they are the only ones left who are able to take any advantage of it. The Opposition wishes to raise in the strongest possible terms its opposition to the way in which this has been done over a period and it does believe that there should be a proper incentive for families to provide, for example, for the education of their children and to pay rates on their homes. There ought to be some incentive within the system for such self-provision. Obviously this Government does not agree with that. In fact, there is hardly anything on the tax side of things in its various statements to aid the family. In contrast the Opposition maintains its policy on both optional income splitting within families for taxation purposes and child care rebates. The next item, which no doubt is close to the hearts of some government Ministers, is the exemption from tax of animal racing clubs. This formed part of a curious trilogy of measures in the Budget which included a wholesale tax exemption on imported thoroughbreds and more generous livestock valuation options. We wondered why these measures were brought in in an otherwise colourless Budget. There was speculation at the time as to whether the Treasurer had gone off antique clocks and on to racehorses, and there was speculation about the betting habits of the Cabinet. We now find, following the more recent measure involving the quarantining of farm losses, that the racing confraternity is up in arms with the Government for having taken measures which savagely affect it. Therefore we regard the two measures taken together as a very curious set. There is probably something behind it. Mr Robert Brown —Don't be suspicious, Jim. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member asks me not to be suspicious but after the last few days, with the Australian Bicentennial Auithority matter and how long it took us to find out what was behind that, we will be sniffing around to see whether there is anything suspicious about it. We might ask a few more questions. The next item concerns local government election expenses. The Government has generously allowed aldermen and councillors a $1,000 deduction for their election expenses. Expense deductions have been allowable to State and Federal members of parliament and it has been unfair that aldermen and councillors did not have at least some benefit in this respect. The Opposition does not oppose that. However, we will be quite interested to see how this will be used by the members of the Sydney City Council, which has been undergoing some turmoil recently with by-elections and the like, and whether after they are sacked it will be the same group of councillors who come back for the $1,000 deductions in the subsequent election when the Liberals get back into power and restore the City Council. I refer next to social security beneficiary rebates. The maximum tax rebates and taxable income levels at which the rebates begin to shade out for taxpayers in receipt of social security benefits, unemployment benefit, sickness benefit or special benefits is to be increased to ensure that people wholly or mainly dependent on these benefits pay no tax. We obviously agree with that sensible measure. The next item relates to gifts. Tax deductibility is extended for gifts to the Australian Academy of Humanities and also the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. We congratulate those two bodies on their success in getting past this extremely difficult hurdle and we wish them every success in their further fund raising endeavours. The measure relating to provisional tax sets the rate at which the income of taxpayers who pay provisional tax will be assumed to rise in 1985-86 over income levels in 1984-85 and increases it by 11 per cent. That is a fairly straightforward measure about which we will say nothing. People who pay provisional tax will be much more interested in the requirement to make quarterly provisional tax payments in the new tax package. That is of much more concern to them. The next part of the Bill relates to co-operation between revenue authorities. Measures were announced on 20 December 1983 but, presumably, there have been lengthy discussions with the State authorities. The purpose is to help State authorities counter avoidance and evasion of State and Territory taxes by authorising them to carry out investigations in the Australian Capital Territory. This will enable State tax office people to come into these hallowed precincts, perhaps not within this chamber, to check whether residents of the Australian Capital Territory are evading State taxes. There are also other reciprocal arrangements with the States and Territories which will bring in complementary legislation. We have no quarrel with that. It seems to be a sensible measure on the assumption that the State tax officers are all clean. We presume that they are and we hope that they will continue to be. We will keep a close eye on that. Finally, there are some secrecy provisions in the tax legislation. These provisions are a tidying up measure which is not of fundamental importance. It has no effect on the revenue and we have no quarrel with it. The tax package is a very mixed bag of Bills, many of them unexceptionable. But within the Bills are some rather unfortunate measures. The one I leave with the House for reflection is the Medicare levy, which has a wholly anomalous impact on families. Families on the same income pay quite disparate rates. I am surprised that members on the Government side have not taken up this matter until now. If the Medicare levy is meant to be any form of insurance against ill health and the costs associated with it it should surely relate to the capacity of families to pay and not be merely an addition to the income tax scales which brings about these extraordinary anomalies. With that, I say that the Opposition will not oppose the passage of these Bills either here or in the Senate. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.43) —We are in the process of considering a package of four Bills, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill, the Income Tax (Companies, Corporate Unit Trusts and Superannuation Funds) Bill and the Medicare Levy Bill, which cover a whole range of issues involved with the taxation system. These Bills are the means by which the Government has taken advantage of the opportunity to continue the process that it started when it came into government to identify major deficiencies within the taxation system and then to devise and introduce legislative provisions to overcome those deficiencies, to plug some of the loopholes and to overcome some of the inequities, injustices and impediments to economic efficiency in the taxation system and the way in which it operates. These Bills cover a whole range of different aspects of the taxation system. In the time available to any of the members who will participate in this debate it will not be possible for them to deal with all the issues. It will obviously become necessary for us to home in on the issues in this basket of legislation about which we are particularly concerned. The most comprehensive of the Bills is the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) to which reference was made by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) in his remarks when leading for the Opposition. In passing, may I say that when the honourable member referred to changes in the superannuation provisions in that Bill, he also referred to the Government's proposal concerning a capital gains tax. I would like to make passing reference to that as well. I know that it is not part of this legislation, but I want to respond to the observation made by the honourable member because inherent in what he said was a serious misunderstanding about the nature and purpose of that proposal. People who are familiar with the Government's proposal, if they are honest, will recognise that the essential purpose of that quite nominal capital gains tax is not only to pick up tax on what amounts to an alternative form of income for those who have been able to benefit from capital gains as their income to ensure in a very nominal way that they will pay tax on their capital gains income-the same as my constituents pay tax on their wage and salary income. The proposal is also designed to ensure that that loophole which has existed in the taxation legislation up to the present time could not itself be used to rort the taxation system by those people who quite cleverly have been able to use contrived and artificial and blatant schemes to transform their income from an incomes stream to a capital gain in order to avoid their taxation responsibility. This needs to be spelt out because a lot of deliberate misrepresentation has been undertaken by members of the Opposition. They refer particularly to the small businessman whom they claim puts all his time into building up the business, not taking out as an income flow on a week to week or year to year basis the accumulating financial benefits involved in that business, but choosing rather at the time he disposes of the business to get that capital gain then in a tax free form. That is okay, but when my constituents work overtime in their jobs and receive their income for that overtime in the form of an income flow each week and they pay tax on their income, I see no good reason to believe that people who put their own overtime into their own business and then seek to get the benefit of that accumulated value when they dispose of that business should not pay tax on it as well. Any suggestion to the contrary is quite absurd, inequitable and anomalous. I shall not tolerate it and I am delighted that the Government will not tolerate it. Let me make it clear that my constituents will not tolerate it either. There is also no sense in Opposition members going up into my constituency and suggesting to my constituents that in some way there is an unfair burden being placed on small businessmen, because my constituents will not wear it. My constituents are much more perceptive and exercise much greater judgment about the inequity of the present taxation system than to be hoodwinked by all those conmen on the Opposition benches. I want now to refer to some of the provisions of the tax package of Bills with which we are now dealing. The honourable member for Mackellar also referred to these provisions in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) concerning superannuation changes. There are two of them in particular. The first provides for the increase from $1,200 to $1,500 as the maximum annual income tax deduction allowable for contributions to approved superannuation funds by self-employed persons or employees not covered by employer-funded schemes. That is an important provision and it reflects the Government's recognition of the fact that a legitimate purpose is served by approved superannuation funds for self-employed persons. As a result of providing in this legitimate way for their own retirement some form of taxation concession is to be allowed. The second major provision of this legislation concerning superannuation involves the adjustment from $50,000 to $55,000 in the amount of the superannuation lump sum payment. A person aged 55 years or more would be exempt from the 30 per cent taxation which is to be applied to lump sum payments in excess of that and will be subject to a tax rate of only 15 per cent. That was an undertaking the Government gave when it introduced the provisions for the taxing of lump sum superannuation benefits. There has been a lot of misunderstanding about that, too. It has been suggested that a person who saves, a person who puts his money into a superannuation fund in order to provide for his own retirement, should not, when he retires, have any of that accumulated superannuation benefit taxed to any greater extent than had been provided for before when, for example, 5 per cent of the lump sum was added to the superannuitant's income in the last year of employment and was then taxed at his marginal tax rate. The Government provided for substantial adjustment to those provisions. I want to place on record the case for those particular adjustments which were made at that time. It was not just this Government but a series of governments over a period of time which have been prepared to make taxation concessions available to ensure that people would provide for their own retirement-that is, to reduce the pressure and the burden on the Commonwealth in its acceptance of its responsibility to pay age pensions. The current cost of all those concessions to Commonwealth revenue is about $2.6 billion every year. I refer to all the concessions that have been provided by this and former governments to encourage people to provide for their own retirement income, not for any other purpose. I will say more about that shortly. That $2.6 billion is additional to this year's provision in the 1985-86 Budget for a total of $7.5 billion to be spent by the Commonwealth to support its age and service pension schemes. That is a very substantial annual amount paid by the Commonwealth to assist people in their years of retirement: $2.6 billion plus for all the concessions under the superannuation arrangement and $7.5 billion in this current year for age and service pensions. The following tax concessions were provided, and some still are provided, to encourage people to provide for their retirement. The first is that the employer contributions to superannuation funds are deductible from the assessable income for those employers. Like wage costs, they are a contribution to superannuation funds on behalf of their employees and are treated as another cost of running the business. Thus they are tax deductible. Thus, they are treated as labour costs to the employers and they represent a form of deferred income for the employees. However, this deferred income is not taxed as it accumulates and as the employer pays it into a superannuation fund on behalf of the employee. The second benefit for superannuation purposes was that investment income, which the superannuation fund earned as a result if investing those contributions by the employer into the superannuation fund, was tax free. That is the second major concession which has been and continued to be made by the Commonwealth to encourage people, as I say, to put money into a superannuation fund and provide for their own retirement income. The third concession which was available to superannuation contributors was that provided for under the concessional expenditure arrangement, which this legislation seeks to eliminate as well, by which people whose concessional expenditure in various identified categories exceeded $2,000 could claim the balance as a rebate. Of course, this legislation seeks to eliminate that practice in general. However, this concession will still apply under the arrangements in this legislation which relate to superannuation contributions for self-employed persons. In fact, the value of this deduction will be increased from $1,200 to $1,500. Those tax concessions were very substantial indeed. The only reason they were provided was to encourage people to provide, as I have said before, for their own retirement income. I emphasise the word `income'. An amount of almost $3 billion a year in the form of Commonwealth assistance to superannuation funds was not provided, at a cost to taxation and at a cost to other taxpayers, to enable people on retirement to provide themselves with a lump sum nest egg, to take trips, to relocate their residences, to trade up the quality of their homes, to buy new cars or to invest in real estate. The $3 billion worth of assistance from the Commonwealth was not provided for those purposes. However, it was used for those purposes. The fact is that only about 50 per cent of the Australian work force is included in superannuation schemes. Many of my constituents are paying higher rates of taxation as a result of the need to finance that $3 billion worth of concessional treatment for superannuation schemes and superannuation funds. The suggestion that that situation should have been allowed to continue is absolutely intolerable and completely unacceptable. Yet, we heard all sorts of misrepresentations from members of the Opposition who paraded around the countryside and talked about a socialist government ripping off superannuitants and people in their retirement. What hypocrisy! Mr Ronald Edwards —Yes. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I am glad to have that comment of mine endorsed by the honourable member for Stirling, who, of course, is a well known and identified expert on questions concerning superannuation. Not only has he had broad practical experience but also has he- Mr Porter —Do you know his name? Mr ROBERT BROWN —It is Ron Edwards, my esteemed friend and colleague. Mr Lee —A great member. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Dobell reminds me that the honourable member for Stirling is an outstanding member. I endorse that remark and so do his constituents increasingly. As I say, the suggestion that that $3 billion should have been provided by the Commonwealth in order to allow people on retirement to take out a nest egg and use it for all of the various purposes I have outlined is completely unacceptable. It was in the light of that that the Government chose to vary the arrangement. In addition to the three tax concessions which were available before and to which I have made reference an additional concession was available to people who took their accumulated benefit in the form of a lump sum because of the large difference that existed between the tax treatment of superannuation pension benefits and superannuation lump sum benefits. The former-that is people who took superannuation payments in the form of a pension-were fully taxed on that pension and income flow to the extent that the income exceeded the tax free threshold. Indeed, the whole of the superannuation pension of a superannuitant who has other income equal to or in excess of the tax free threshold of $4,595 would have been taxed, and still will be taxed, at rates between 25 per cent and 60 per cent, depending upon his marginal rate. In the latter case-that is in the case of the person who took the superannuation in the form of a lump sum-only 5 per cent of the lump sum benefit was previously taxed at the taxpayer's marginal rate. That meant that the maximum rate which would have applied to the lump sum superannuation recipient was 3 per cent compared with 25 per cent to 60 per cent for the person taking the superannuation benefit in the form of an income flow. The maximum tax that a person who took the benefit in the form of a lump sum was 3 per cent, that is, the top marginal rate of 60 per cent or 60c in the dollar applied to only 5 per cent of the lump sum benefit. What a contrast! The person who received from the Commonwealth all of these accumulated benefits and concessional treatment during his working life in order to make provision for his retirement in the form of a superannuated income flow on which he would pay tax of between 25c and 60c in the dollar, would then choose to take out his benefit in the form of a lump sum and pay under the old arrangement a maximum of 3 per cent tax on that lump sum. Dr Harry Edwards —It helps to make the capitalist system work. Mr ROBERT BROWN —The honourable member for Berowra says that it makes the capitalist system work. If that is the way the capitalist system works, I make no apologies for being a socialist. If capitalism has to depend on that chicanery- Mr Lee —A tax rort. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As the honourable member for Dobell reminds me, it depends upon tax rorts-all of the rorts, the ramps and the rip-offs and all of the misuse and the abuse of the taxation system by the most wealthy elements of the community. According to the honourable member for Berowra, that is capitalism. At least I support restrained capitalism. I support social democratic parties winning government in order to put into place legislation which is designed to make the system work more equitably and more fairly. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.03) —I wish to address myself in this cognate debate to the Medicare Levy Bill 1985. This Bill seeks to implement the Budget announcement involving the removal of the ceiling on the amount of levy payable. The Bill also seeks to increase the threshold below which people with low incomes will not pay any levy. Prior to this change, a common levy ceiling of $750 applied to single persons and married couples. However, as from 1 July this year, there will be no ceiling on the Medicare levy payable by a taxpayer. The removal of the ceiling will particularly affect two-income families who will now pay the one per cent levy on their total income without any ceiling limits. The House will recall that, when the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) originally outlined the Medicare proposal to the Australian public, he said it `would be funded by a one per cent income tax contribution'. There is no doubt that the Government intentionally and systematically promoted Medicare on the basis of this false assertion. It clearly misled the public into believing that the one per cent levy would actually pay for Medicare. Last year the levy paid for roughly half the cost of Medicare. This year it will pay for about a third. This year Medicare will cost around $3,600m and the levy will raise $1,280m. For all but low income earners the Medicare levy is now a one per cent addition to the income tax rate. I notice that in the Government's recent taxpayer-funded full page advertisements promoting its latest tax package the statement is made that by 1 July 1987 no Australian will pay more than 49c in the dollar in income tax. That is a fraudulent and misleading statement, unless, of course, the Government is going to remove the one per cent Medicare income tax contribution. As the Government has no intention of repealing the Medicare income tax surcharge it should therefore be prosecuted for false and misleading advertising. The new tax rate will not be 49c in the dollar; it will be 50c in the dollar. This year $8,181m will be spent by the Commonwealth on the provision of health care, an increase of over $666m on last year's expenditure. Around 15 per cent of the Commonwealth's health expenditure is funded by the levy. Of course, the rest comes out of general revenue. The Medicare levy is funding a smaller and smaller proportion of the health care budget because of the rocketing cost of Medicare. The Government is spending more on health than on any department except the Department of Social Security. The reason we are now spending more on health than on education and defence is the explosion in the cost of Medicare. The rapid escalation in the cost of Medicare is a matter of deep concern, as is the fact that we are not getting value for money. The Government is spending more and more and getting less and less. We all remember the bold promise made by the Minister for Health, who is at the table. He said: The introduction of Medicare is the biggest step taken by an Australian government to ensure that every Australian has the best and cheapest medical and hospital care. In fact, the Minister has not delivered the best and cheapest medical and hospital care but the worst and most expensive medical and hospital care this country has seen for decades. Mr Ian Robinson —It is a disaster. Mr PORTER —It is a disaster. Medicare and the Medicare levy have forced a large number of people to give up private health insurance and become reliant on the already overloaded public hospital system. Nurses are resigning from public hospitals in droves as a result of the pressure caused by the overwhelming demand on the public hospital system under Medicare. Hospital beds are being closed as a consequence of these staff shortages. The result is growing queues of people waiting for hospital beds. Under Medicare the queues have more than doubled. In Victoria alone the queues have risen from around 8,000 people to around 25,000 people waiting for hospital beds. Doctors and doctors' organisations such as the Australian Medical Association have expressed concern about the deterioration in the standard of service provided in the public hospital system. Australia-wide, the public hospital system is faced with increased demands generated by Medicare, Medicare-induced staff shortages, a reduction in the number of beds available, and a deterioration in the standard and level of service. Morale has dropped to rock bottom and the queues of patients seeking hospital beds continue to grow. In the midst of this worsening crisis the Government has decided to cut the funding to public hospitals in real terms by 8 per cent. Having encouraged 20 per cent of those privately insured to give up their insurance and rely on Medicare and the public hospital system, for the Government and the Health Minister now to reduce funding in the light of the increased demand for services indicates a cruel and callous disregard for the sick, particularly the poor and elderly sick. The champagne socialists in the Government, especially the Minister for Health, have no regard for those most in need. Mr Blunt —What is he? A Bollinger Bolshevik? Mr PORTER —He is. To continue to direct people away from the private sector and into the already overcrowded public system is totally irresponsible. The Minister is obviously prepared to continue his game of brinkmanship with the health system until he has just what he wants. That, of course, is total control of the health system. Even though the present crisis in our public hospitals is a direct result of this Government's Medicare scheme, which has systematically strangled the private sector and created chaos in public hospitals, the Minister nevertheless sits back and says that the hospitals are a State responsibility. Even though the present crisis is indicated by the long queues, we have had no expression of concern from the Minister for those people, especially in Melbourne and Sydney, who, in pain and suffering, cannot get into public hospitals for treatment. The cold-hearted Minister for Health has been uncaring and unsympathetic to those in most need. Government spokesmen glibly report a reduction in the number of bed days in both the public and private hospitals. At the same time as people are shifting to the public sector, beds in that sector are being closed by the hundreds. So instead of seeing an increase in the utilisation of public beds there is, in fact, a slight decrease, simply because there are not enough beds to meet the demand. There are empty beds in private hospitals which could meet the demand, but the Government refuses to change its policies, which have put private insurance beyond the reach of all but the higher income earners. The Secretary to the Department of Health, Mr Bernie McKay, confirmed the point I have just made when he was speaking on 18 September in the Senate Estimates Committee. He said: Private hospitals do have beds. A lot of hospitals, as you know, are operating at levels between 60 per cent and 70 per cent. They have the nurses; it is just that the patients are not there. Mr Ian Robinson —Why? Mr PORTER —Why, indeed. The patients are not there because the Minister has introduced Medicare, which has forced people to give up their private health insurance. They cannot afford to pay the Medicare levy and maintain their private insurance. I said earlier that the cost of Medicare is exploding rapidly and the Government has searched for areas where it can restrict this cost explosion. While the Government maintains its policy of promoting bulk billing, which provides an incentive for doctors to overservice, it is very difficult for the Government to control costs in the area of medical benefits. The only place where the Government can cut back significantly on spending under the present Medicare system is in the public hospitals. The Government has adopted this course of action. The cuts in funding, together with the staff shortages, bed closures and industrial disputes, have restricted the services which can be provided and have led to a rationing of the public hospital services. At the same time as the Government continues to strangle the public hospitals it is spending more and more providing medical benefits to everyone rather than focusing resources on those who really need help. The budget for medical benefits and services has increased by 11.4 per cent this year over the figure for last year, a rate of increase nearly 50 per cent higher than inflation. This is an increase of $256m over last year's expenditure. It is due to the rapid increase in utilisation which has come about as a result of this Government's Medicare scheme, a scheme which on the one hand subsidises the well to do as well as the poor for medical care while on the other it rations hospital care, so that those without money or influence must wait months for a hospital bed. Not only is such a system ludicrous; it is immoral. The current increase in medical benefits is not due to a similar increase in illness, nor has it led to a similar increase in the health status of the Australian community. It reflects a growth in overservicing and overutilisation as a result of both doctors and consumers behaving as though health care were indeed free. We are spending much more but receiving no additional improvement in health care for it. Under Medicare neither the doctor nor the patient needs to give any consideration to the cost of treatment. There is thus a tendency on the part of the patient to seek treatment for even the most minor complaint and an incentive for the doctor to maximise his or her income by advising repeat appointments which may not always be strictly necessary and by ordering tests which may not be medically indicated. More expensive courses of treatment or diagnostic procedures are likely to be chosen over less costly alternatives even though the more conservative approach may well be efficacious. So long as there is no disincentive to expensive options they may be chosen over less costly alternatives, especially if they result in more income for the doctor and are of no direct financial disadvantage to the patient. The Minister for Health continues to deny the relationship between bulk billing and overutilisation and overservicing. However, the relationship has been acknowledged by others who understand the role of the present incentives in driving up health costs. The President of the AMA, Dr Trevor Pickering, and Professor David Penington have both spoken out recently against the Government's policy of encouraging doctors to bulk bill all patients. Both have called on the Government to limit bulk billing to pensioners and health benefit card holders. I have repeatedly called for an end to bulk billing. In so doing I am not doctor bashing; I am reflecting the concern of many of the profession who acknowledge that some of their number will succumb to the incentives provided by this Government to overservice. It is ironic that a government which has been so critical of the medical profession, and in particular of doctors' incomes, has set about establishing a system which so obviously fosters abuse. Being committed to a system which enables the Government to assume an ever-growing control over doctors' incomes, it is now faced with paying the price for that policy or backing away from its commitment. Honourable members may remember that, among the heady promises of Medicare, the Minister's health plan promised to provide access for all Australians, regardless of income, to the best available and most appropriate health care. However, his policies have resulted in dramatic increases in the waiting lists for public hospitals while beds lie empty in private hospitals. The very first principle of the Labor Government's health plan states: The major test of any health insurance system is its equity, or fairness in financing and in ensuring access to high quality health services. This Government's health insurance system has failed that test dismally. Not only has access to health services in public hospitals declined dramatically but also the high standard of health services which we used to enjoy before Medicare has deteriorated rapidly under this Government. As for fairness, it is only too clear that the people who are suffering most from the deterioration in standards and the loss of beds in the public hospital system are those who are most dependent on the public hospital system. They are the poor, the elderly and those on low and marginal incomes who cannot afford to take out private cover. The people who have only Medicare to turn to are inevitably the ones to be hurt most by the grievous effects of Medicare. Nevertheless, the Government persists in pushing the private sector further out of the reach of ordinary Australians, thereby leaving them with no alternative but to wait for a bed in the already overburdened public hospital system. The Minister talks about access to health care, the high quality of care and fairness while at the same time he presses forward with policies which bring about the very opposite results. How can we believe what he says when we can see what he does? Clearly, the Government is more interested in implementing its socialist policies than in responding to the needs of Australians. So long as it continues to ignore the desperate situation in our public hospitals the situation can only get worse. Clearly, the Government is unwilling to fund the public hospitals at a level which would provide adequate services. Therefore, it must make the necessary changes to Medicare to enable people to return to the private sector. The Government must take steps to restore the balance between the private and public sectors and make good the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to make private health insurance more affordable. It must permit people to opt out of Medicare and choose their health insurance from a genuinely competitive private sector. We can no longer afford to feed an insatiable Medicare appetite for medical benefits at the expense of the hospital system, nor can we afford to allow the private system to atrophy as the public system teeters on the brink of disaster due to the overwhelming burden of Medicare. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(11.22) —We have a number of pieces of legislation before us and we are debating them cognately. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), made a number of comments about the Medicare arrangements. It is necessary to correct the picture that has been painted by the honourable member for Barker. He did not point out that under the arrangements in the Medicare Levy Bill the increases in the levy will apply only to those on incomes of $75,000 or more. The honourable member for Barker's excitement about the question of fairness and equity must have been something that he has discovered only recently because the Opposition's performance in government and its performance philosophically has been one which has not shown any concern for fairness and equity. The honourable member for Barker is one of the many honourable members on his side of the chamber who were conspirators in egging on the doctors in the New South Wales doctors' dispute. Whilst he presents himself in a very sanctimonious role in relation to this legislation, it is important to understand that there are members of the Opposition who were very pleased that there was an industrial dispute which affected patients. The dispute was not about the Medicare arrangements. The Opposition was very pleased to see an industrial dispute waged in the hospital system and the honourable member for Barker has to accept the responsibility for that. Dr Blewett —He urged them on. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —He urged them on, as the Minister for Health says. Clearly, the Opposition has to face the fact that during our period in government it has been one of the major factors in encouraging industrial disputation in the medical industry. This concern about fairness and equity is a very new-found concern. It is obviously one which the honourable member for Barker has not fully internalised. There are some other matters that need to be addressed. I note that the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) spoke about changes in the taxation arrangements for horse racing clubs. He appeared to suggest that there were reasons why this Government would have made some changes that related to the Cabinet's own interest in horse racing. The honourable member for Mackellar needs to recognise that the horse racing industry is a substantial employer. It employs about 250,000 people around the country. It is our intention to try to encourage that growth in employment. We have seen employment growth in industry generally but we are keen to see growth in areas such as horse racing. The honourable member for Mackellar spoke correctly about taxation arrangements. But he seemed to suggest that our motivation is other than to encourage employment in a labour intensive industry. It is important that there is encouragement for the employment of people as stable hands and strappers and in all activities relating to the conducting of racing meetings. We are keen to encourage that. Three arrangements have been suggested. The income tax exemption arrangement will now cover horse racing clubs and greyhound racing clubs in the same way that athletics and football clubs are covered. Secondly, we have improved livestock valuation adjustment arrangements so that it will be possible for people in the industry to accelerate depreciation of their bloodstock, thereby encouraging them to improve quality. Thirdly, no sales tax will be levied in respect of importation arrangements which will also improve the quality of bloodstock. Being nationalistic, we hope that over the years that will result in an increase in the number of Australian-bred race horses winning major events such as the Melbourne Cup. Clearly, we have not paid sufficient attention to encouraging growth and development in that industry. It has been remiss of governments. These three arrangements are designed to encourage activity in the horse racing industry. It was very pleasing to hear Colin Hayes, the well-known trainer, say recently that these changes in the industry were the most significant that he had seen, except for the development of the totalisator agency boards. In fact, these taxation changes will have a long term impact on the health of the horse racing industry. We hope that they will also have an impact on employment because the real motivation is to try to improve employment in a labour intensive industry. This is very good to see. I will also direct comments on income tax assessment arrangements to the question of equity and averaging of incomes. The honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) spoke very eloquently about the question of equity and the proper arrangement of a tax system so that we can direct our attention to equity, fairness and the appropriate delivery of a tax system. That has been of considerable concern to us because we inherited a tax system with considerable inequities. There has also been a general loss of faith in the tax system within the community. The matter is difficult because whenever a system contains a great degree of voluntary arrangements under whcih we hope for the co-operation of people, if it is not fair and equitable, and it is not perceived to be so, we cannot expect that co-operation to follow. We want to restore equity and fairness in the tax system. It does not ring true for members of the Opposition to talk about equity and fairness because their record belies that goal. They were concerned with looking after those with privilege and power and the capacity to arrange their interests for themselves rather than for the benefit of the community. There is no doubt about that. Their performance in government demonstrates that. I caution Opposition speakers who suddently want to become highly principled on fairness and equity about this conversion on the road into the chamber. Their record does not suggest that they were fair and equitable. In relation to fairness and equity, there is a strong case for income tax averaging for sports persons, particularly for those in professional sport. Many people would be aware that football is an area with high fluctuations in income for those participating. The income tax exemption arrangements currently apply to football clubs as incorporated entities. They are exempt from income tax. However, the players are subject to the full force of the income tax arrangements. That provides some problems. In a 1979 case of a player from my home State of Western Australia, Adamson v. West Perth Football Club, Adamson sought a transfer to Norwood. The Federal Court determined that he was an employee and the football club was an employer. It follows logically that footballers, cricketers and other sorts of professional or semi-professional persons are employees. Therefore, we should do something to remove the inequities in taxation that exist for them. Primary producers, authors and inventors have a tax averaging arrangement. That is logical because in a very short number of years they might earn a high income but in other years around that peak period, their income may be very modest. In equity, it seems to be very wrong to ask professional sports persons in particular to pay over a short earning life a very high marginal tax rate, when prior to and after that earning period they have very modest incomes. Often all they have to remember from their sporting exposure are one or two photographs, some Press clippings, tax receipts which indicate that they have paid very high marginal tax rates and some injuries. A case could be made for facilitating the option of averaging incomes for such people. There are a couple of other reasons why averaging is important. Very often the reason that income prior to and after entering a professional sport may be very low is that the amount of time put into activities such as training is so great that the chance of pursuing another career is foregone during those critical years between the ages of about 17 and 30, when other people might have been able to pursue a career and establish a working life average income expectancy of perhaps $30,000. This person, such as a professional footballer, has been training in that time so his career path has been disrupted. The second reason is that injury or poor form can result from sport so that someone on a contract of, for example, $40,000 or $50,000 might find himself without an income because he has sustained serious injury or his form has dropped away. Another recent problem which is very significant is that of politics in football management, in particular. Many people will be aware of the machinations of Dr Edelsten in regard to the Sydney Swans. People earning a respectable income, such as former coach, John Northey, may find due to the whim of someone with great financial power that their chance of earning an income is cut off completely, not because of their performance or ability but because of the personal preference of someone in that activity with a great deal of power. I regret that, because we are seeing an attempt by Dr Edelsten not only to buy a club and do a number of other things, but also to buy a premiership. The clear intention in football, as in all other sports, should be to seek the junior development of players and the development of clubs and districts, not to wave big dollars and totally disrupt what many people regard as a very important entertainment, activity and interest. We are seeing an obsession with success and big money trying to buy that success. Mr Goodluck —Hear, hear! Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I am pleased that the honourable member for Franklin endorses my comments because I personally regret this. In setting an example to young people we should not be saying that the only way to succeed is to buy success. Effort should be put into young players for their development and the patient and systematic development of clubs and the junior area. The performance of Dr Edelsten recently in trying to rip off the Essendon Football Club gives me no great joy. The fact that the words `junior development' have never passed his lips concerns me also because that ought to be a commitment. Returning to my theme, we should have a system of tax averaging for sports persons. We then offer clubs the chance to get their financial arrangements in order. We are all aware of the financial stresses facing football clubs, rugby league clubs and soccer clubs. Clearly, there are financial stresses. We are also aware that some of those clubs are in danger of going out of business because they cannot meet costs. I am suggesting that if we were able to introduce tax averaging for competitive players, the clubs would be able to offer a lower total salary package to those players because their net take-home pay, as a result of tax averaging, would be at the same level. That would reduce the financial burden on the clubs. Incidentally, the other thing which I think is important to put into place is a proper system of arbitration of player payments, using the system of conciliation and arbitration we have established in this country. Even though the Opposition seeks to destroy that system, it will stay in place because it performs an important service. I believe that in relation to sporting activities it could perform a very significant service. In a sense, what we would be doing would be keeping the lawyers out of it. In disputes over sporting transfers very large legal fees and legal costs are incurred, with no money going back into the sports themselves. Clearly, if we were to marry to the system of tax averaging a proper system of arbitration for sporting disputes we would end up with a far better system. Let me give an instance of one area of concern which explains why I believe we need a proper system of tax averaging. Three Richmond players from Western Australia-Maurice Rioli, Tim Gepp and David Palm are currently managed by a group called Australian Rules Football Management and Advisory Services Pty Ltd. What they have done simply is to set up a tax shelter. Again, I find it a source of regret that the fees charged these three players by ARFMAS are very high. It is clear that in order to set up a tax shelter players such as Rioli, Gepp and Palm end up with far less in their pockets than they ought to. As a government we ought to be setting in place a system of tax averaging which eliminates the need for such tax contrivances and shelters and such large management advisory fees. This would make it easier for people to recognise and meet their tax liability and not to have to go into areas of contrivance. I think that is very important. It is one of the things I believe we as a government ought to be pursuing. Such a system would set a degree of equity. I am pleased to see the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) nodding assent because I think these are matters we can work out sensibly in this place. We can do much for people in sport and we can set a standard for people in sport. The more we get away from the belief that somehow sport is a business in which people can be ripped off-that is the concern I have about the current Sydney Swans' manoeuvres-the closer we will get to a situation in which people's rights and obligations under the tax laws are clearer. Let me sum up my comments about tax averaging. I have said that there is a clear employer-employee relationship in relation to semi-professional and professional sports persons. That has been established by some Federal Court decisions, and certainly it is endorsed by the income tax arrangements. The other thing that is very evident to many people who look at the situation of sporting professionals is that the income they derive, whilst it may be very high for a short number of years, is for a short number of years only. As a result of injuries and poor performance, or as a result of the political whims resulting from the privatisation of Australian rules football, which I personally regret, someone's sporting career could suddenly be terminated, not because of that person's ability but because of personality disputes. We are aware that that happens, particularly in football, but it also happens in cricket and other sports. Recently we have seen some very disturbing issues in relation to the national cricket scene in Australia where it is clear that personality issues have entered the picture. That has not been for the benefit of the players or for the sport generally. If we were to establish tax averaging for sports persons we would be recognising the fluctuations in incomes and the high opportunity costs of pursuing a professional sport when one forgoes a proper path of career development. That is very important. We would also be recognising that we see sport as playing a very important role in this country. In my view, sport plays a very important role in terms of its public entertainment value. Sport is surely the talk of the town at grand final time and in the cricket season. I believe it is important that we as a Parliament should make changes to the income tax laws to facilitate that. If we are looking at income tax law as a way of providing both equity and fairness and also incentive, it is important to recognise that if we were to introduce tax averaging we would be providing the incentive for people to say `Yes, I am prepared to commit myself to a career in football' or cricket, soccer, rugby league, tennis, golf or whatever. At the same time we need to recognise as a community that that person's income may have wide fluctuations. As I indicated earlier, authors and inventors have that recognition extended to them, and we should be extending that privilege to professional sports people. We would thereby eliminate a lot of the financial pressures, particularly in rugby league and Australian rules football at the moment, and what I consider to be bargaining of the worst kind, which has no thought for the development of sport but simply bids up the market price and, ultimately, threatens the future of these sports. I think there are many people in Australia who would say: `I do not want it that way. I do not want people with lots of money running around disrupting what I consider an important activity and entertainment for me'. I do not believe we should be encouraging high bidding. In terms of our taxation arrangements we should be saying that we are prepared to give an appropriate tax treatment to professional sports people that will enable these clubs to pay them, to have arbitrated arrangements that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned, and that will result in healthier and better performance in the sport. If we could properly address ourselves to these sorts of issues in this place we would do much to help many people in the professional sports and certainly to help the development of sports. It is my pleasure to commend these Bills to the House. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Page)(11.42) —The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) and cognate Bills, including the Medicare Levy Bill, currently before the House raise many issues of concern. One could reflect on what has been a very great debate on taxation over the past six months. The people of this country could be excused for feeling some degree of confusion about the whole spectrum of taxation and the intentions of this Government in regard to taxation. It is fair to say that the moment of truth will come not from the legislation with which we are now dealing but from the legislation that will be introduced later this session. One would hope that the debate on the specific matters before the House will be just a curtain raiser to the very serious and important complexities of changes to taxation resulting from the implementation of major so-called reforms in respect of many of the matters glossed over in the current legislation. Of course, this legislation comes as a result of the Budget determinations, when we experienced for the first time in history a non-event Budget. I call it a non-event Budget because the problems that had arisen within the economy were not addressed, nor was there any attempt on the part of the Government to create even a holding situation to avoid the run-down and the disaster evident in many directions. I refer in particular to the run-down in the health services of this country, the consequences of the Medicare levy, and the policies it embodies. Earlier in this debate the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) made a very constructive summation of the Medicare disaster. I want to add just a few words, particularly in respect of what is happening to the hospital system in New South Wales. Today we find what could be described only as total agony for ordinary people in the community in respect of hospital services. I am pleased that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is in the House because it is time he was made aware of some of the current happenings in the health field in New South Wales. He has spent so much time denigrating the doctors, carrying on `hate the doctors' campaigns throughout this nation, particularly in New South Wales, that he has apparently become oblivious to what really is happening in health services, specifically in the hospitals, in New South Wales. If we look at the financial consequences of the Medicare scheme as it operates and the financing of health under that scheme we find, as pointed out so succinctly by the honourable member for Barker, that Medicare does not meet the requirements or address the problems and the situation of chaos is growing worse day by day, week by week and month by month. We are finding the closure of wards in public hospitals, with dire consequences for the communities served by those hospitals. I refer honourable members to a hospital in the main centre of my own electorate of Page, the Grafton Base Hospital. That hospital was visited a few weeks ago by the Minister, who in a very glib comment on that occasion said: `We are looking after you. We are taking care of your needs in respect of hospital and health services, and all is well'. He did not bother to check what was really happening at that hospital. An emergency meeting has been called for today inviting the public, the Government of New South Wales, this Federal Government and representatives of community organisations concerned with health care to become aware and cognisant of the fact that that hospital will have to close a very important ward section and that it will have to cut back on services simply because the funds will not be there for it to carry on and provide the essential services that it is expected to provide between now and the end of the financial year. At this early stage in the current financial year a cutback of monumental proportions is being considered in order that the vital and essential sections of the hospital can survive. However, the closure equally removes the provision of bed space, an essential provision for that hospital to render the services it should render. Who are the sufferers? We heard a lot from the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). We heard another honourable member talk just a moment ago about equity. Where is the equity when the ordinary patients, regardless of their status, are affected by these cutbacks? The blame, so far as this Government is concerned, rests with the doctors. I ask these questions: If it is because of the doctors, why is it that there are staff shortages? Why is it that there are vast protests by the nursing fraternity and why is it that the Government in New South Wales in particular is engaged in a massive cover-up of cutbacks in health services at present? The truth is that the financial structure of the health services in this country is in chaos and the Minister is totally committed to a Medicare system which will not remedy that problem. So, in the legislation before this House to enact further provisions under the levy, we find that there is gross and deliberate fabrication of the facts about the financing of health services in Australia, particularly in the State of New South Wales. Of course, there is reference to the problem in respect of private hospitals, a problem which just should not exist. There is scope for treatment to be provided if those who require the treatment can afford to pay for it. If we did not have this one-sided, absolutely inequitable system of Medicare, those private hospitals would be able to render an effective service to all sections of the community-to those who need the service and to those who are waiting to undergo operations or whatever form of treatment is required to deal with their health problems. However, this is not good enough for this Government. It wants to entrench a socialist approach. It wants to entrench an approach which, quite frankly, reduces the standards of health care provided in this nation. It is a very great reflection on the Minister and on the Government that they are the cause of the dilemma that confronts all who have a conscience so far as health services are concerned. That conscience begins with the dedicated doctors of this country who have been vilified now for months and who no doubt will be blamed again for the serious decline that is occurring today in the provision of health services on the excuse that there are financial problems that are the consequence of the difficulties that have occurred in the last six months in relations between the medical profession and the Government. It is utter rot to assert that that is the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem is crystal clear. It is because of a change in philosophy and the introduction of a system which is not giving a practical result in terms of what is needed in this country to enable health services to be provided without them being a burden on the taxpayer and without them being a burden on those people who suffer illness in this period. The previous Government operated health services as the consequence of an equitable system, a contribution system. It was a unique system that was developed in this country over many years. That system has been torn up by two successive Labor Government administrations, to the detriment of the well-being of the citizens of this country. Small country centres now face the agony of seeing their hospitals close or being so reduced in terms of the services they render that families find that they are at great risk. Mr O'Keefe —Rubbish! Mr IAN ROBINSON —The honourable member should look at hospitals in country centres. It is all right for him as he comes from a metropolitan area, but I suggest he have a bit more concern for his own constituents who are now on waiting lists for urgent medical care.The other matters that come under the legislation with which we are dealing are equally significant. They touch upon the philosophy of the Government's determination to break down the so-called barriers between those who want to provide for their future and their family's future and those who unfortunately are not able to do so and who historically in the last couple of decades in this country have been assisted through their difficult periods, particularly in times of retirement or times of adversity when social security benefits are so essential to them. We find that there is a determination to reduce the availability of the recourse to superannuation benefits, to reduce the opportunity for people to provide for their retirement and to provide for their well-being in their advanced years. Why? The excuse given by one of the Government's senior committee chairmen in this field, the honourable member for Charlton, was that some people are getting away with it, some people are able to do too much for themselves and it might be at the expense of others. Let us have a bit of reality in this matter. The truth of the matter really is that the Government is seeking to reduce the cost-a figure referred to by the honourable member for Charlton of about $2.6 billion under the systems that did operate. Undoubtedly we will see a massive increase in social welfare payments without the opportunity for those who, on the basis of their own ingenuity, want to provide for their years of retirement and to provide for their families in a manner that can be described as providing security against the day when they might face illness, infirmity or other problems of massive consequence for themselves and their families. We are taking away that right on the pretext that the cost to the taxpayer has been too high. Of course it would be beyond the wit of the present Government, and its left wing in particular, to assess just how that might best be remedied. If there is an excessive cost to the taxpayer, a little more opportunity for a private enterprise venture into the field of superannuation and the field of providing for family security might well have reduced the tax burden slightly and also avoided a dramatic increase in social security costs for the aged. Figures undoubtedly will show the shift away from the traditional use of institutional cover, such as life assurance and the many other fields that were of some advantage, to other forms of cover less advantageous to the community and which certainly provide less opportunity for capital growth in this country. Yet what do we hear the Treasurer (Mr Keating) say day after day? He says that he is the greatest Treasurer. He has asserted that he has produced a situation of real growth in this country. When we look at what that real growth amounts to we find that the taxpayer as an individual is being put in hock. We find that the families of every taxpayer will now face a monumental debt in their lifetime and the real basis for worthwhile security in an economic climate that might be advantageous is really slipping away, and slipping away very rapidly. So these measures before the House and those foreshadowed in the tax package statement which will come before the House in the form of legislation are all pertinent and very much interrelated. Some of the other measures covered in this immediate legislation are without doubt part of an overall government plan and I believe that it would not be an exaggeration to say that it is deliberately intended to confuse the public of this country and in particular to confuse the taxpayer. On the one hand the Government says to the taxpayer that it is doing things that will be helpful, that will minimise his tax burden and that will be advantageous. It says that it is moving in the direction of equity for everyone but finally, when all that has been said, the next phase of the legislation to be introduced has reached us and that of course forecasts changes to be implemented over a two-year period. The people of this country really do not know what the consequences of these taxation trends will be and where they stand in the whole spectrum. I have grave fears, as I am sure everyone on this side of the House has, as to where the ultimate plan will really take this nation in terms of economic consequences and their effect on the individual taxpayer. Let us for a moment think of the consequences of the removal of the concessional rebate. It was said that the rebate now concerns only 6 per cent of taxpayers. We were told similar things about the assets test; we have been told in relation to so many things that they concern only a very small proportion of the taxpayers of this country. Six per cent of taxpayers will lose the concessional rebate and that is just part of the step by step process to carry into effect a socialist plan to restructure family life in this country. Mr O'Keefe —What about the other 94 per cent? Mr IAN ROBINSON —We have the crazy interjection: `What about the other 94 per cent?'. The changes to the concessional rebates and the other provisions that were in place concern a lot more than 6 per cent of taxpayers. The Government is really talking about what the figure has tailed off to and what is left of a framework that provided growth in this country, that contributed to employment and enabled families to have some perspective as to where they were going and where their future and security lay. That framework enabled them to provide for themselves positively. That has been removed and we now have a situation which can only be described as one of insecurity, unless we are to look at that great socialist umbrella that says: `There will be something there out of social security to look after you if you fall into difficulties or hard times or if you fall victim to illness or some other difficulty that affects your well-being'. We can see what is happening in that regard if we reflect again on the tragic position of hospital care in this country. I wish lastly to refer to one measure that I think has general support on both sides of the House, and that is the altered taxation arrangements in respect of the racing fraternity. I do not speak as one who participates much, if at all, in racing but I do know that in a large section of the non-metropolitan area of Australia racing is a matter of great interest to a large section of the community. The action that has been taken here, in what can be described as a very successful self-regulated industry, is to be commended. I am sure that the action taken has general support in this House. In conclusion, let us be cautious about what is to come in the whole spectrum of taxation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(12.02) —From time to time, Mr Deputy Speaker, I admire your patience and endurance in the chair when you have to listen to some of the drivel that comes from the other side. That which has just come from the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) and his colleague before him, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), is a classic example. We have before us a number of pieces of legislation covering the fairly wide-ranging areas of taxation, superannuation and health arrangements but for almost the entire debate this morning they have concentrated on what I describe as a nonsensical attack on Medicare. The reason they have done this is that they are terribly embarrassed about the nature of the legislation; they are embarrassed about what is really happening. They are embarrassed about what they failed to do during the time they had responsibility in this Parliament. Of course they endeavoured in their contributions to avoid the real issues; so I take this opportunity to bring the debate back to some of the issues that really should be covered. The taxation Bills and the Medicare Levy Bill cover a wide variety of machinery matters, as I mentioned, and in fact they could easily be passed over as machinery Bills without any examination of their real significance. That would be a mistake. I want to draw attention to the directions being incorporated in this legislation. I must compliment my colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) for his contribution this morning because he too drew some attention to the real aspects of this legislation. Let us look first of all at the problem of compliance with the tax system. There can be no misunderstanding within the community of the extent of non-compliance with our tax system. The task inherited by this Government to tidy up the tax system should not be underestimated. The efforts by government, committees, staff, the Treasury and the whole Federal bureaucracy in tidying up the mess and eliminating the non-compliance system which has been created also should not be underestimated in this Parliament. These Bills have to address things like non-leveraged leasing arrangements and the tidying up of drifts and patterns in the use of these provisions in ways that were never intended. We have had to amend provisions for the loan back rules as they apply to superannuation funds for businesses. The reason that the Government has had to address this matter is that there has been widespread concern that investment in these funds has led to situations whereby, when a business fails, not only do its employees lose their jobs but also their superannuation entitlements go down the drain. That is a concern shared by the Commonwealth Task Force on Occupational Superannuation. It was brought to attention by the Asprey Taxation Review Committee, the Hancock National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry and the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. The action that has been taken by the Government ought to be commended. Much was made of the statements of the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) when he ascended his throne that actions by this Government would be commended and credit would be given where it was due. But what have we heard this morning? We have heard drivel about Medicare, and there has been no mention of the prompt implementation of the recommendations of these inquiries. This Government is not about to pigeonhole reports that have been produced in the past. It will do something serious with those reports. No mention was made of that. Where is all the credit where credit is due that was talked about? No wonder the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition is disappearing so quickly. While talking on that subject, let me look at three key reports that have had to be addressed in recent months by the Government. The Martin Review of the Australian Financial System has led to much of the Government's action in deregulating the financial system and making more sense of it. It has led to the opening up of competition. When we talk of opening up competition let us not forget that those on the other side of the House constantly preached terms such as `free enterprise' and `let us cut out the red tape'. While they talked all this drivel they introduce one piece of legislation after another bringing in one more loophole after another, one more regulation after another, bogging down the system in protection. Its rhetoric does not stand up to investigation. That is what we have to remember. The Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs concerned the problems we inherited in the labour market. The Karmel Quality of Education Review Committee identified the problems we inherited in the quality of education. The reports of all these committees have had to be addressed quickly by our Government. This has led to our Priority One: Young Australia policy of providing youth traineeships. This is a very genuine attempt by the Government to address the problems in this nation. Having said those things, I will return more directly to the Bills. I emphasise that the Bills are not just for revenue raising purposes. They are designed to protect the benefits of members of superannuation schemes and to restrict the level of investments by sponsoring employers, which can leave both employers and employees at risk. I also draw attention to the move in the Bills to change the rebate for medical expenses in the tax system. The honourable member for Page made some comment about the fact that the removal of the concessional rebate affects only 6 per cent of taxpayers. From our information it does affect only 6 per cent of taxpayers. The other 94 per cent do not gain any benefit from the concessional rebate as it applies at the moment, but the whole Australian Taxation Office system is bogged down with having to review tax returns every year based on the claims that may be made by 6 per cent of taxpayers. That is not an efficient use of government resources and, of course, it leads to the measures which are being taken, and which have been foreshadowed by the Treasurer, to introduce a self-audit system. Much will be said of this later, and I give notice here that it will be welcomed by the Australian community as a recognition of the honest taxpayer, a recognition that the person who makes honest claims, who does not exaggerate expenditure or use all the fancy techniques and devices does not need to have his or her income tax return checked every year by the Australian Taxation Office. This Government is moving to recognise that and it is using resources more efficiently in a way which will help bring more compliance with the system. I make special reference to the provisions in the Bill which ensure that income earned by racing clubs and other industries which derive revenue from animal racing shall be exempt from tax. I have a substantial racing industry in my electorate and I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this measure has been very well received within the industry. I get the odd smile when I attend the odd race meeting in the electorate. It is good to see that group recognising that this Government has taken account of their interests and is acknowledging the substance of the industry and the need to provide those sorts of incentives to it. Another aspect of this legislation has not been touched on at any time during the debate this morning, as I recall, by members of the Opposition and yet, I believe, it is one of the most significant decisions taken in a minor way by a government for many years. I am delighted to see that the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) is at the table. He has had much to do with the priority given to local government and the announcement which is contained in this legislation. The legislation now provides for tax deductibility to be given to up to $1,000 worth of electoral expenses incurred by candidates in local government elections. That measure may not on the surface seem to be very significant, but let us look at what it represents. It means that this Government takes local government seriously. We respect the role of local government as the third tier at the local level. It is closest to the people and we recognise the legitimacy of elections at the local government level and the legitimacy of the activities that have to be undertaken by a candidate for local government. This complements the approach which has been publicly espoused by the Minister. It complements the approach which has been taken in the recognition of local government in the Constitution and the majority decision taken at the recent conference which was announced by the Minister. It complements in a very significant way the treatment of local government in the allocation of untied grants in the Budget. It is with some pride that the Minister can point out to local government that of all the cutbacks that this Government has been forced to address in its economic planning one sector which receives significant real increases in funding is local government. This is another step in the ongoing program of recognising that role and it is to be commended. Once again, we have heard nothing from the other side of the House about credit where it is due, yet Opposition members purport to have such close contact with local government. I am afraid that they are out of touch. The second reading speech of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) outlined the changes, particularly in the income test, applying to social security beneficiaries, changes in the rebate provisions and changes to the Medicare levy. In my view they are productive changes. Despite what we have heard from the other side of the House, I think they introduce more fairness and equity into the system. In response to the comments made by the honourable member for Page I say to him that he ought to wander down to my electorate, look at some country communities and have some real contact with them. I have some very significant small country communities working with their local hospitals, expanding their community health services, rationalising their operations and drawing closer to the needs of people in the area. I have no embarrassment at all about the directions being taken by this Government's health policies. Again I make the point that perhaps they are just a fraction out of touch with what is happening. Let us look also at the aspects of this Bill designed to improve co-operation between Commonwealth, State and Territory governments. We have out there a significant problem with States not being able to raise revenue via their genuine revenue-raising techniques because they do not have the powers to police or force compliance with their system. We are all about breaking down these inhibitions and barriers. This legislation provides for the transfer and an overlapping of powers to enable smoother transition. It provides for Commonwealth officers of the Taxation Office to be given powers to assist States and Territories in the pursuit of those who continually seek to avoid the system. Perhaps I should compare what is being done in these Bills with the approach adopted in the past by Opposition members, particularly in the measures relating to the social security system and the Medicare levy. Let me compare those aspects with what has been foreshadowed in what I call the Howard-Valder package. It has been made very clear in this House and in the Westpac tape that the way the Opposition would go about reducing the deficit is to cut social welfare expenditure-not by addressing tax avoidance or by getting a fairer system with which people will comply, for the benefit of all Australians, but making it harder for those who suffered under the former Government's policies. That is what Opposition members are about and that is how they would go about making gains in government revenue. The attitudes expressed this morning show the significant split between members of the National Party and members of the Liberal Party in approaching these sorts of questions. I shall be interested to watch particularly the privatisation issue regarding Telecom unfold because we all know that it is going nowhere. We all know that the rhetoric about a tough wages policy is going nowhere, and so too will these sorts of approaches because the Australian electorate will not wear them. In the recent speech to the nation on the tax reform package, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made a couple of points that need to be repeated. He said that the Government has confronted the issue of tax reform, and it has indeed. It has put enormous resources, energy and effort into cleaning up the mess. The Treasurer also pointed out that the Government had been willing to consult with the people of Australia in the process. We have no doubt that we have overwhelming support in the community for the efforts we are making to clean up the tax system. We have been willing seriously and responsibly to consider issues and, above all, we have been willing to take hard decisions. I think that is recognised and respected in the community. The Treasurer made one comment which I think may not prove to be correct. On the night of the announcement he said that the Government's tax reform process is complete. I do not believe it is. It is complete in the sense that it was being expounded in the decisions that were taken; but we are already aware that out there they are taking the new legislation, the new principles, the new policies, and they are looking for loopholes. The mentality among the high flyers is: `Let us try to find a way around it'. That attitude is still out there and will continue. This Government will continue to chase loopholes, to introduce new legislation, and take up the time of this Parliament continually trying to track down these things. I invite the House to consider why that is the position. That mentality was created during the 1970s by a government which failed to address these issues when they started. It failed to give resources to the Taxation Office to get on to the job and stop these practices. It failed to give resources to the Attorney-General to police these things. We have had the absurd case of the bottom of the harbour schemes 12 years down the line now finally making it to the High Court. It is a national disgrace that the position should have been left in that way. It has encouraged an attitude of non-compliance. I hope that those responsible will hand their heads in shame for decades to come over their role. No tax system can successfully survive if people believe that it is unfair and they they are the victims of others' actions. In the end, others then start to look for ways to enjoy the same benefits, and the system breaks down. I conclude by underlining the point made by the Treasurer. The decisions we have taken are essential to secure the future economic well-being of the nation. They are essential if we are to recover respect and integrity for our taxation system, and they are essential if all Australians are to be treated with fairness and equity. We as a government are confident that the people of Australia will recognise that these significant measures are taken in the best interests of the nation and for the greater good of every individual Australian. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(12.22) —I intend to address the House today on certain matters relating to Medicare and the Medicare Levy Bill. I generally support the contributions made so ably by my colleagues on this side of the House in relation to the other Bills which are being debated cognately. The situation concerning Medicare in this country is that people now do not have free choice as to the options of various means of health care available to them. I strongly believe there ought not to be any element of compulsion. Notwithstanding that, this Government has since its election to office on that fateful day in March 1983 proceeded to twist the arms of Australians to force them to be part of this socialist scheme. One of the more iniquitous elements of Medicare is that, while the levy has been placed at one per cent, in fact the levy covers only about one-third of the cost of administering the Medicare scheme. This means that although this Government stands before the people of Australia and says, `Medicare is costing you one per cent of your income', the reality is otherwise. The one per cent is merely window dressing. The Government has had to inject a considerable amount of funds from general consolidated revenue. That is a disgrace and the Government should be exposed for it. I, of course, strongly oppose Medicare and Labor's mandatory levy. Another element I should like to mention, is the way in which my State of Queensland, which has an excellent National Party Government, has been penalised and robbed blind by this Government. I might add that the Queensland Government was not very impressed either by the performance of the Fraser Government in connection with Federal health funding received. Payments made to States from the Commonwealth for health matters come under two heads. There are the Medicare payments and identified health grants. Queensland has been mistreated, ill treated and cheated by this Government because it receives very much less per head of population than do the other States. Queensland is receiving only $73 per head of population, whereas the average of the other five States is $173 per head of population. We all remember that fateful day at the Sydney Opera House in 1983 when Mr Hawke was prepared to promise anything to crawl into office. He was prepared to offer the people of Australia any number of inducements to try to bribe them into voting for him. He said that the Queensland Government had been poorly treated by the Fraser Government in connection with health funding, and he was correct. He said that if he were elected there would be a special grant to Queensland, and he mentioned a figure of up to $100m to compensate Queensland for the way in which we had been disadvantaged. The figures rolled in on 5 March 1983 and we saw the Hawke socialist Government elected to office not by a large majority, but it got there. Then the true colours of the Prime Minister emerged. We saw then how valuable or how worth while his promise was. The reality of it was quite disgusting. What did he do? Did he carry out the promise? Could we accept his word? Of course not. The identified health grants remained the same and Queensland got nothing, which is, of course, a terrible situation. We have as the Prime Minister of this country a man who promised to redress a gross inequity and that simply has not happened. The Prime Minister also said prior to the election that he was going to bring in Medicare. Unfortunately he certainly did that. However, the way in which Medicare was brought in and the States were funded was such as to disadvantage Queensland, which was the only State that had a free hospital scheme. The Prime Minister said that Mr Fraser was penalising Queensland in respect of its free hospital scheme. However, given what Mr Fraser did and what the current Government has done, anything that Mr Fraser did was minor by comparison. The Hawke Government decided to allocate money to the States by compensating them for the loss of fees. Queensland did not have any fees. Therefore it received almost no compensation. The Queensland Government approched the Commonwealth and said: `We do not charge fees but we would like you to take into consideration the notional fees we would receive if we charged them'. However, because the present Labor Government is opposed so strongly to the political makeup of the Queensland Government and has a very biased approach to funding for Queensland, this request did not get past first base. That is very unfortunate because the Prime Minister preached consensus during the election campaign. Consensus, of course, is a much overused word. What we need in this country is a little bit less of the `con' from the Prime Minister and much more of the `sensus'. Queensland is concerned, and remains concerned. The Government of Queensland represents all Queenslanders and must govern the State for all its citizens. It is an awful situation when the Labor Party is prepared to penalise all Queensland residents-those who vote for the National Party, those who vote for the Liberal Party and even those who vote for the Labor Party by being petty and small minded and by refusing to look at our case in an impartial way. I hope that the Government will reconsider this situation. I hope it will appreciate that the people of Queensland are entitled to a fair go. The Queensland Government and the State as a whole have done much to help the economy of the entire nation over very many years. Queenslanders ought not to be penalised. I do not intend to detain the House by discussing all of the other matters which have been canvassed in this fairly wide-ranging debate. I reiterate that the Government's attitude to the levy and its attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of Australians should be condemned. It is ridiculous to say that the levy covers the cost of Medicare when it covers only a third of the cost. The Prime Minister stood up prior to the election in 1983 and claimed that he was going to compensate the people of Queensland for the fact that the Queensland Government had a free hospital scheme. Mr Hicks —Hawkespeak. Mr SLIPPER —That is Hawkespeak, which means nonsense speak. That promise was completely forgotten after the election. In fact, it was even worse than that because the bureaucrats in the various Federal departments, obviously in conjunction with their Ministers, thought up a scheme which was going to disadvantage Queensland even further. That simply is not good enough. The people of Queensland will not tolerate that sort of thing. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you are aware, the Redlands by-election is to be held on 2 November this year. I believe the people of Redlands will ensure that the Labor candidate is defeated and that the National Party candidate, Mr Paul Clauson, a very well known and highly regarded local identity, will be elected to office. The Australian Labor Party decided to do over Mr Beattie, its State Secretary. We all know about Mr Warburton's role. It was his faction which moved from Mr Beattie and selected the other Labor Party candidate. The Labor Party succumbs to its death wish once again. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member for Fisher has received considerable indulgence from the Chair, as I think most speakers have during this cognate debate. However, I think the issues which are being dealt with ought to remain relevant to the legislation. Mr SLIPPER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I submit that the matters that I have raised are relevant on the basis that the by-election will give the people of Redlands the opportunity to protest about the way in which Queensland is being short changed in terms of Medicare funding. I do not, however, intend to discuss this aspect further, except to express my confidence that Mr Clauson will be returned as the honourable member for Redlands in the State Parliament. The Government's financial packages for this year have been revealed in a three-part saga- May, August and then September, an incredible situation. The formal Budget presented in August was a Clayton's Budget: The Budget that you have when you are not having a Budget. The important announcements were made earlier and later. We all had to wait for the September tax nasties which the Government intends to impose on the people of Australia. The National Party intends to vote against Labor's capital gains tax in both Houses of the Parliament. Mr Peter Fisher —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member for Mallee and indeed all other National Party members for their support. We will stand up and be counted on this issue just as we will stand up and be counted in our opposition to the way in which Queensland has been mistreated and ill-treated over Medicare and health funding by the Hawke Government. Mr LEE(Dobell)(12.33) —I will be addressing the majority of my comments today to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. The first element of the Bill which I would like to congratulate the Government on introducing is the alterations to the social security rebates. Taxpayers receiving unemployment benefit, special benefit or sickness benefit will have their rebates increased when this Bill is passed. The rebates for single beneficiaries will be increased from $50 to $170. For married beneficiaries they will be increased from $75 to $220. This financial year single beneficiaries earning up to $4,795 will pay no tax. After this Bill is passed single beneficiaries can earn up to a total of $5,275 and still pay no tax. Married beneficiaries will be able to earn up to $8,795 and pay no tax. I would lilke to compliment the Government on introducing this measure. The rebate shades out by 12.5c for each dollar in excess of a specified threshold. The rebate for a single pensioner previously shaded out at $5,195. After this Bill is passed the rebate for single pensioners will shade out at $6,635. The rebate for married pensioners and married beneficiaries previously shaded out at $8,815. After this Bill is passed it will shade out at $10,555. I would like to cite the example of a single unemployed person who earned $5,275 last year. In the 1984-85 financial year he would have had an income tax bill of $170. This year, after this Bill is passed, he will pay no tax at all. The rebate for Social Security and Veterans' Affairs pensioners remains at $250. This Bill seeks to increase the rebate for those receiving unemployment benefit, special benefit and sickness benefit. Pensioners who already receive the $250 rebate will be able to earn in this financial year up to $5,533 and pay no tax on that, whereas the ordinary taxpayer who is not a pensioner will pay $250 tax. Some pensioners in my electorate, and I am sure in many others, have been confused by some of the newspaper coverage of the announcements made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the 19 September tax statement. In that statement the Treasurer announced that the tax free threshold will be raised on 1 September 1986 from $4,595 to $5,100. As most pensioners on low incomes currently pay no tax on income up to $5,533, some pensioners have been confused. They have thought that, in fact, the tax free threshold had been reduced for them, due to some very sloppy reporting from some quarters. However, on the figures I have done I believe that after 1 September 1986 single pensioners will continue to receive the $250 tax rebate and they will pay no tax at all if their income is $6,142 or less. In fact, single pensioners who currently pay tax on amounts above $5,533 will pay tax only if their income exceeds $6,142 after 1 September 1986. That is a very sizable increase of $609 for those single pensioners. That $609 increase is due to two factors: Firstly, the $505 increase in the tax free threshold which will apply to all taxpayers after September 1986 and, secondly, a reduction of the 25 per cent marginal rate to 24 per cent. I also congratulate the Government on the foreshadowed relaxation of the incomes test in relation to all social security matters after 1 November 1986. Returning to the specific matters contained in the Bill before the House, I wish to address my attention to the sections of the Bill which refer to superannuation. Under the new arrangements for the taxation of lump sum superannuation payments, which were announced in August 1983, the Treasurer provided for the former rules to apply to the pre-July 1983 component of lump sum payments and for new arrangements to apply to the post-July 1983 component. The pre-July 1983 component is taxed at the old rate that is, 5 per cent of the lump sum is considered as taxable income. The post-1 July 1983 component is reduced by the amount of the employee's undeducted contributions-that is, the undeducted contributions made since July 1983. After we have deducted the employee's undeducted contributions, the remainder-that is, the employer's contribution and any earnings-is taxed at 30 per cent if the superannuitant is 55 years of age or older. Under the current regulations, if he or she is 55 years of age or over the first $50,000 is taxed at only 15 per cent. This Bill which is before the House raises this concessional limit from $50,000 to $55,000. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) complained that the figure of $55,000 was still too modest. In my opinion, that speaks highly of the total hypocrisy of those sitting opposite. In fact, the dries opposite remind me of several characters in a Robert Graves short story in which he recounted the very sad fate of a group of Americans who live in the backwoods of the United States of America and who, due to a genetic defect, have no sweat glands in their skin. I suppose it would be expected that these people would live very dry lives indeed. However, these unfortunate people must continue to douse themselves in water or wallow in muddy pools whenever necessary in order to survive. It appears to me that the Opposition talks up dry policies. Honourable members opposite claim to be economic rationalists but when they are put to the test on specific proposals they dive into the muddy swamps of political opportunism. In my opinion they were put to the test on the matter of lump sum superannuation and they failed. They were put to the test of economic rationalism on the assets test and they failed. They were also put to the test on taxation reform and they failed miserably as well. As the current Federal President of the Liberal Party, Mr John Valder, stated in his famous private Westpac video show, the Liberals want this Government to implement all the tough but unpopular decisions and then promptly to lose office. The bad news for those opposite is that the Australian people want a government which is prepared to take the tough but unpopular decisions and I am sure they are prepared to back us at the next election. As an example of the mass hysteria which was fanned by the Liberal Opposition on the matter of superannuation and the new tax on lump sums, I want to recount the position of one of my constituents who was totally misled by the conservatives. His undeducted contributions since July 1983 in fact exceeded his post-1983 component. Under the new arrangements announced by the Treasurer, in fact he paid less tax than he would have paid if there had been no change at all in superannuation arrangements. The reason is that the Treasurer has provided for the employee's contributions which are not claimed as a tax deduction to be deducted from the post-1983 component. I am concerned about one problem which this constituent has brought to my attention. The Australian Taxation Office has isued a guide called the `Australian Taxation Office Guide to Eligible Termination Payments for Approved Deposit Funds, Superannuation Funds, Life Assurance Companies and Registered Organisations'. As I explained, my constituent's undeducted contributions exceeded his post-1983 component. According to page 9 of this Taxation Office guide, he should therefore pay tax on only the pre-1983 component. But page 12 of that guide states that employers are not instructed to take account of undeducted contributions when calculating tax instalments. I am happy to advise the House that the Treasurer has agreed to investigate this apparent anomaly and to advise me in due course what action he proposes to take. One of the other provisions which is provided in this Bill is an alteration in the concessional expenditure rebate. In the few minutes remaining to me before the suspension of the sitting, I would like to cite some figures which were provided for the Australian people in the Government's White Paper on taxation reform. They show that of taxpayers who had a taxable income of $32,000 or more, 31.4 per cent claimed a rebate under the concessional expenditure component provision. I repeat that that is 31.4 per cent of those earning $32,000 or more. Yet, when we look at the average overall income tax scales we see that only 6.2 per cent of taxpayers, on average, received any benefit from this rebate, but of those in the top rate receiving $32,000 or more 31 per cent claimed a rebate under that component provision. I am more than happy to support the Government's proposals that this rebate should be re-examined. On the matter of provisional tax, it has been my experience that a larger number of my constituents who are pensioners are being hit by provisional tax. It is my opinion that the Government should look at increasing the provisional tax threshold. At the moment it is $1,040 and, to the best of my knowledge, it has been $1,040 since 1972. A pensioner needs to have only approximately $6,000 in the bank before he earns interest of more than $1,040. That pensioner then becomes liable to pay provisional tax. I believe that the Government should look at restoring the provisional tax threshold to the 1972-73 level. In today's money terms, that should be a level of about $4,000. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table I have prepared which shows the provisional tax threshold expressed as a percentage of average yearly earnings. Leave granted. The table read as follows- PROVISIONAL TAX THRESHOLD EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE YEARLY EARNINGS YearProvisional tax threshold Average yearly earning Threshold expressed as a percentage of average yearly earnings $ $ per cent 1963-4... 416 2,602 16 1964-5... 416 2,951 14 1971-2... 416 4,964 8.3 1972-3... 1,040 5,407 19.2 1983-4... 1,040 20,731 5.0 1984-5... 1,040 22,285 4.7 Mr LEE —This table readily shows that the tax free threshold has been eroded over several years by inflation. It is my belief that the Government should act to increase the threshold in order to reduce the burden on people such as my pensioner constituents. Debate interrupted. Sittting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Treasurer to the net revenue estimates on page 25 of his statement of 19 September. In calculating those net revenue gains from the measures relating to fringe benefits, did the Government make proper allowance for response effects? For example, did the estimates take account of the loss of tax revenue from the admitted adverse impact of the measures on the restaurant industry? If so, will the Treasurer advise the House of the details of those calculations and allowances? Will the Treasurer assure the House that the claimed revenue benefits of these measures will be fully realised and that the projected personal income tax cuts will not be at risk? Mr KEATING —I have been amused over the last few days to see the Opposition bleating about tax on the restaurant industry because this goes back to the whole shabby analysis by the coalition of tax in this country. Basically, never at any stage did the Opposition attempt to do anything about the ramps and rorts in the system because it knew that its people could get out of the 60 per cent tax rate. That is why the Opposition left it. After all these years the Opposition has been dragged screaming to tax reform; it walked away from it with the McCabe-Lafranchi report. When this Government attacked some of the most blatant tax shelters in the system it received complaints about the effects on this industry or another. The calculations are as sound as the calculations can be for prospective tax changes. Mr Howard —Will you make the details available? Mr KEATING —If you are asking me whether I will make Treasury tabulations or calculations available, the answer is no-just like the former Government made them available to us. Mr Howard —Do they exist? Mr KEATING —Of course they exist and they are the best estimates that the Department of the Treasury and the Australian Tax Office can make in respect of these changes. There are a lot of assumptions in the honourable member's question about impacts upon restaurants. The honourable member did not include the countervailing assumptions about other activity in the economy coming from the fact that what is not spent in restaurants will be spent elsewhere in terms of revenue yields. With a very thin disguise, what the question is really all about is a bit of a whinge on the part of the restaurateurs, who have been running a tax shelter with which the honourable member was complying for years when he was Treasurer. Mr CHARLES —Has the Minister for Defence noted recent claims by the Opposition spokesman on defence and Leader of the National Party of Australia that the Grumman Tracker aircraft now being sold by the Government still has a role which no other aircraft in the defence forces could fulfil? Are these claims accurate? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. I note that the Opposition spokesman on defence in a recent Press release stated: . . . the Trackers were ideal for maritime surveillance, anti-submarine fleet support and had at least 10 to 15 years of effective life ahead of them. He was then unkind enough to say: When it comes to defence efficiency this government demonstrates a `Dad's army' mentality. I would have thought that there was a small amount of embarrassment about criticising the Government for abandoning a technology that is now somewhat outdated-the planes are somewhat old-while at the same time accusing us of having a Dad's Army mentality about it all. To take it a point further, one of the implications in suggesting we have a Dad's Army mentality is that there is some problem on this side of the House with senility. One of the characteristics of that is an element of forgetfulness. In that case the problem is with the honourable gentlemen opposite. The honourable gentleman has provided me with an opportunity to make up for the 24-hour memory lapse on the part of the Opposition defence spokesman and to point out to him that it was not a terribly difficult decision for the Government to make. Why was it not a terribly difficult decision for us to make? It was because it had been made by him and his predecessor. So it was a fairly easy decision for us to make. On Thursday, 8 April 1982, the then Minister for Defence, Mr D. J. Killen, stated: . . . along with the decision to purchase HMS Invincible and pay off the present flagship HMAS Melbourne, the Government had decided that the Tracker and Skyhawk aircraft should be paid off as soon as practicable. That is not a bad start. My attention was drawn to a speech by the right honourable member for New England, the Opposition spokesman on defence, when he was Minister for Defence, to the Northern Development Council seminar in October 1982 when he felt obliged to say: Some of you will remember the valuable work carried out by Navy Tracker aircraft operating from Broome and Darwin between 1975 and 1980. Both the Premier of Western Australia and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory have written to me recently seeking return of the Trackers. While I understand their concern, the relative capability of the Trackers and charter civilian aircraft means that the cost of using the Trackers is significantly higher without any immediate advantage. So the former Defence Minister quite appropriately dismissed the use of these aircraft for those sorts of purposes. He pointed out to that seminar what I would have pointed out and agree with in regard to what is the most appropriate anti-submarine warfare and surveillance aircraft for the forces. The former Defence Minister stated: ``RAAF P3s fly frequent patrols of the Australian Fishing Zone'' which extends some 200nm from the coastline. Orions are used in preference to light aircraft because of their higher speeds and ability to search vast areas. I must admit that when I had some involvement in these matters I did not necessarily take that at face value. I must admit that at one stage in my political career I advocated the merits of the Tracker as a potential surveillance aircraft. When I was Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence I was deputed to do an analysis of whether this claim was valid in the maritime surveillance area and an analysis of the conclusions reached by the right honourable gentleman when he was the Defence Minister, although this claim was abandoned by him when he became the shadow spokesman on defence. I did a study on the comparative merits, in cost terms, between chartered civilian aircraft in the coastal surveillance area and that of the Trackers. I came to the conclusion that the chartered civilian aircraft cost $174 per 100 kilometres of coast surveyed compared with $1,158 for a Tracker, more than six times the cost of a chartered civilian aircraft. So it was not a terribly difficult decision not to pursue that line in maritime surveillance and to reach agreement with Sinclair Mark I. That was no particular problem at all. I turn to the area of anti-submarine warfare which is another matter which was mentioned by the right honourable member. He suggested that we should keep the Trackers for anti-submarine warfare presumably in addition to what we would do with the Orion P3 fleet. The Orions, which obtain the bulk of the Government's attention in this regard, are perfectly adequate for that task because of their size, legs and ability to be developed further in that area which the Trackers cannot. Basically the Trackers, particularly in the Australian context, are viable only in an aircraft carrier type context; they are not viable as a land-based aircraft with the sorts of distances we have to cover. What this Government is on about in increasing defence expenditure in real terms-it is substantially greater than that of our opponents-is doing it in a manner that does not waste money. In this way we do not retain capabilities which are completely unnecessary. On those grounds we will not be able to move into a position where we can accommodate Sinclair Mark II as opposed to Sinclair Mark I when it comes to planning an appropriate force structure for this country. Mr SINCLAIR —In the light of the availability to the Treasurer of the details from Treasury of the consequences of his tax package, what is the expected job fall-out in the restaurant industry as a result of his proposed introduction of the disallowance of entertainment expenses for tax purposes? Will he advise the House of the likely effect on tourism and the revenues it generates of the expected decline in the hospitality industry? Mr KEATING —I cannot understand this concentration on the restaurant industry. What is implied in the question, again, is that the restaurants of this country are entitled to reside and profit and prosper under a tax shelter, that the people those opposite have represented for years should be able to continue to slide through the 60 per cent marginal rate of tax and not pay their fair share, while they drop the burden on high and marginal income taxpayers. I cannot remember one occasion on which this Government has legislated against tax avoidance and needed an employment impact statement. It is absurd. Mr Sinclair —You are not worrying about unemployment. Mr KEATING —Yes, we are. This tax package will lift aggregate employment. The economy will be more dynamic. The change in marginal rates from 60 per cent to 49 per cent and the imputation package for companies will make this economy far more dynamic than it has ever been. I should have thought that those opposite would be the last people to talk about employment. Unemployment rose dramatically in their period of office by a quarter of a million in their last year as against the 430,000 jobs created by this Government. They have the temerity to ask us about employment! Mr Hawke —They had one growth industry before. Mr KEATING —As the Prime Minister said, for years they had one growth industry-the tax avoidance industry. This Government will not do employment impact statements on tax shelters. It is time we had a decent, fair, clean and honourable tax system, and we will have one now. Mr Howard —Including seminars? What about seminars? Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition talks about seminars. I make a point about entertainment. The whole question of the non-deductibility of entertainment is confused with the question of meals. Meals do not intrinsically go to the question of entertainment. Entertainment is about purpose and circumstance, and we are refusing to have entertainment as a tax deduction in the system. If at a convention or a conference meals are served, they are not served to entertain, just as meals are deductible as part of overnight or travelling expenses. When someone travels the cost of the meals they have is deductible. We are removing from the system a tax ramp which is being abused and used by certain categories of high income earners primarily for the purposes of social value and entertainment. Because it is unreasonable to expect the Commissioner of Taxation to make judgments on these matters, and because it is unreasonable to provide the Commissioner with laws which we know he is incapable of administering, we are doing what Britain has already done and the United States intends to do, that is, we are curbing the abuse of this section of the tax system. It is simply a further commentary on the policies of the Opposition that it should defend this area of the tax system which has been so open to abuse and suggest that we need an employment impact statement when wiping out a tremendous and outrageous rort in the system. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —My question concerns the taxation system. Will the Treasurer inform the House how the Government's recently announced tax reform package will correct the decay in the tax system which occurred under the previous Administration? Mr KEATING —The history of taxation under the former Government was one of obfuscation and concealment of the most blatant tax avoidance and evasion practices in this country's history. The former Treasurer was dragged screaming to reform the most outrageous areas of the tax system by the McCabe-Lafranchi report, which he described as being a stunt by the Victorian Premier, by the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, which he hid behind under the secrecy provisions of the Taxation Act, and by the Gyles report, which said that if there had been an adequate administrative, judicial and political response in the first place the situation would never have arisen. The fact is that the coalition was tardy about tax reform, tax avoidance and evasion because it knew that its friends could escape through the system. It left all the holes in the system so that the people it represented would not have to pay the full rate of taxation but would have that burden placed on every other taxpayer. By contrast, this Government has debunked all those myths and has taken firm action on the tax system where the coalition failed. We will cut personal income tax rates-the top rate from 60 per cent to 49 per cent and the next rate from 46 per cent to 40 per cent and we will end double taxation of dividends and remove the basis for tax avoidance and evasion by a fair and reasonable capital gains tax. Where is the Opposition's policy on taxation? Yesterday's financial review by the Opposition taxation spokesman, Senator Messner, was another hollow policy sham by the Opposition, as is its wages policy. It exposed again the total confusion of the Opposition's ideas. We see trotted out again a proposal for a flat tax system. It is simply absurd for the Liberal Party to believe that the workers of this country will wear the burden of a flat tax without it impacting on the wage system. The Opposition's total incognisance of the interconnection between taxation, wages and inflation was obvious yesterday in Senator Messner's statement about the need for a flat tax system. The other issue is that Senator Messner has backed the coalition away from a consumption tax. He said that there would be no consumption tax. All this brave stuff we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition about a consumption tax is to be debunked. Those opposite will not have a consumption tax to pay for their other tax changes. That will all be blurred. They will walk away from it. Interestingly, Senator Messner has endorsed the concept of a services tax, the very option the Government rejected because a services tax will not yield a fiscal dividend to the system, will not reduce marginal rates, and will not pay for flat taxation. If the government of the day compensates people adequately for the inflationary impact of a services tax, the fiscal dividend is obliterated. That is why the Government walked away from it. The Opposition is contemplating a services tax without compensation. We would be going back to the Howard policies of 1980, lifting sales taxes dramatically without compensation. What the Opposition really has in mind is a services tax without compensation, picking out all the industries about which it is now crying crocodile tears-the restaurants, the dry cleaners and all the other service industries-and taxing them. Yet they question me about the tax treatment of restaurants! The most interesting part of Senator Messner's statement was that he said the coalition would have a capital gains tax. He made that clear. He said that they would have an extension of section 26AAA. Over time, that is the most punitive option a government can have in capital taxation; that is, the full marginal rates taxed on the full nominal gain, not the marginal rates on the real gain, as this Government has in its proper tax. Mr N. A. Brown —Who said that? Mr KEATING —Senator Messner said it yesterday. Let us get it quite clear. Yesterday Senator Messner said: . . . as long as the law was modified, possibly to merely have specific time limits on sale of assets for capital gains, such as the existing- Mr Howard —You modified it. Why don't you represent it- Mr KEATING —Oh, shut up for a minute. Senator Messner continued: Section 26AAA, would sufficiently serve the purpose of a capital gains tax on speculative profits. How about that? So do not ask me about the quote. The quote is dead right. The fact of the matter is that what they are about is the most vicious, the most punitive, the most savage capital gains tax that this country could have; that is, full marginal rates on the full nominal gain. By contrast, the Government has a capital gains tax at the full marginal rates on the real gain with inflation washed out of the system. Senator Messner went on to make it quite clear that he does not think that the coalition could repeal a capital gains tax. Senator Messner also made it clear that the existing method of taxing some capital gains-section 26 (a) or section 25A-could be amended to get around the problems of its administration. Senator Messner makes two or three clear points about capital gains taxation. He says that section 25A can no longer and should no longer work in its present way with the Russian roulette operating under the Taxation Commissioner's discretion. He makes that clear. He says that the existing capital gains provisions are inadequate and that we must do something about section 25A. He goes on further to say that the way to do it is to extend section 26AAA to a medium term capital gains tax against speculative gains. That is a tax at the full marginal rate on the full nominal gains. Here we have the coalition parties which made absolute harlots of themselves on this issue at the last election campaign, coming round to the most savage, most penal, capital gains proposal this country could see. Where is all this flat tax to be paid for? There was some vague mention of expenditure control. But when the shadow Treasurer is asked about where the expenditure control will be, he says that he will not start brush fires by nominating expenditure controls. This Government can wear the public opprobrium of wiping out tax shelters to produce the revenue to pay for tax changes, but apparently the Opposition believes it has to identify no such revenue for its tax changes, that it can just say that it will look at expenditure control and the rest of the country should accept that, while the discipline on the Government- Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Yesterday during Question Time we had five questions. Today the Treasurer seems intent on again avoiding the consequences of answering questions and treating Question Time as it should be treated. Mr Speaker, I suggest that under our Standing Orders a Minister is expected to respond to a question relative to the question asked and not to allow Question Time to be diverted and distracted in this way. Mr SPEAKER —Order! As the Leader of the National Party has pointed out, it is up to the Minister as to the length of his answer and what he considers appropriate. The Standing Orders do not give me power to limit answers. Honourable members will note that I try to use a bit of a body language to get them shortened. I only wish that the Standing Orders Committee had accepted the recommendation some four years ago for the shortening of answers. Mr KEATING —I will wind up, Mr Speaker. Let me make it clear: Apparently the morality of politics is at the stage that the Government must identify a stack of tax shelters and wear the public difficulty of obliterating them to produce revenue for its tax changes; but the Opposition can say that it will have expenditure control, whereas blatantly and audaciously the shadow Treasurer says that he will not identify any area of expenditure cuts to afford the Opposition's policies. That is where we are at. The Opposition will not get away with that and it is not entitled to do so. The most interesting point in all this is that the Liberal Party will not wear the policies of the Leader of the Opposition. We have found that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has walked away from his Leader's policy in respect of wages. The honourable member for Lyons has walked away from his Leader's policies in respect of wages. Now Senator Messner has walked away from a consumption tax, the former Treasurer's hallowed policy. He is walking away from income splitting, which he does not mention; he is going to a flat tax; he is walking away from privatisation; and he is having a capital gains tax. This reveals that, whether in government or out of government, the Leader of the Opposition cannot get his policies through the Liberal Party. He could not get them through the last Cabinet and he cannot get them through the current Opposition. His Deputy debunks him, the honourable member for Lyons debunks him and the tax spokesman debunks him. Where are these brave Howard policies? They are in the garbage can. The impotence of the Leader of the Opposition has been clearly established because a couple of weeks into his leadership the issues for which he has become identified in this community are no longer being proceeded with by the Opposition. Where does that leave him and his policies? I will just wind up on this point: It has been a very interesting week because we now have bipartisanship in this country on capital gains taxation. That is an advance. However, this Government's capital gains tax is fairer than the punitive one signalled by the Opposition. What we do not have is some decency in public policy whereby the coalition at least identifies where the revenue will come from for the tax changes that it proposes. That is why it is that only from this side of the House will the public of this country get a decent, fair, equitable and efficient tax system and more growth, prosperity and employment than any of the policies of the coalition will provide. It makes clear again just how woolly-headed, fuzzy and hopeless the Opposition is when it comes to any sort of policy development. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer and refers to one of his favourite subjects. In view of the continuous slide of the Australian dollar against the currencies of our major trading partners and the falling credit rating given to Australia by international investors, what hope is there that Australians will benefit this year or next from the lower interest rates promised by himself and the Prime Minister as recently as April and May of this year? Mr KEATING —The Liberals will always get into the gutter to try to besmirch Australia's reputation. In the 1983 election we had the then Minister for Foreign Affairs running around saying that there would be a run on the currency. At every chance the Liberals get they are always prepared to drive the reputation of the Australian national economy into the ground. I make it abundantly clear that Australia's credit rating is as good as it ever was. This very day Moodys, one of the two major assessing houses in the world-the other one is Standard and Poors-has given Australia a triple A rating once again. So much for that. The Prime Minister has just handed me a statement of the former Treasurer, who said: I believe that if they- the Australian Labor Party's economic policies- are implemented in Australia our international economic reputation would be affected and so far from instilling that private sector business confidence, which in theory everybody agrees is necessary, I believe it would have the opposite effect. It just simply makes the point again. As I have said in this House before, in recent borrowings Australia borrowed in the deutsche mark market more cheaply than the German Government. We borrowed in the Euro-dollar market below United States of America debt level and we achieved the lowest margin over United Kingdom gilts by a sovereign borrower in that market. I just make that point clear. This is just an attempt by the Opposition to try to damage Australia's reputation again. On the question of interest rates, perhaps this question provides the clearest indication that there is no guiding policy precept on the other side of the House at all. This question comes from one of the supposed dries of the Liberal Party. It comes from the Liberal Party which is going to be about rational economic policy. It comes from the Liberal Party which is about market outcomes. It comes from the Liberal Party which is now witnessing interest rates in this country being set at tender in a public process in public markets. It is really saying that it wants the Government to rule the markets down. It simply wants interest rates to decline and it wants the Government to do something about it. The Liberal Party has been seeking all of this at a time when the honourable member for Bennelong has been saying that monetary policy is too loose and we ought to tighten it in order to lift interest rates. Mr Howard —Last year it was too loose before the election. Mr KEATING —It is okay now, is it? Mr Howard —You loosened it before the election and you know it. Mr KEATING —Is that right? The monetary policy is all right now? The honourable member for Bennelong is like the barber's cat. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Treasurer answer the question and ignore the interjections. Mr KEATING —The fact of the matter is that the Opposition is saying that monetary policy is too loose and that we ought to tighten it up. At the same time, the Leader of the Opposition, puts statements out-crocodile tears-about how interest rates are threatening growth. This is from the man who gave us 2 per cent economic growth a year through the period he was Treasurer. The average for the Fraser years was 2 per cent economic growth. Is it any wonder that workforce growth outstripped employment growth and we had high unemployment in this country? We had no economic growth. This Government has produced a dramatic turnaround in economic growth. The Leader of the Opposition is the keeper of economic growth. He is telling us that the interest rates are going to top off the economic growth and he is now protecting that growth. The fact is that interest rates are set and determined in the market place, barring the housing rate, which the Government has kept a ceiling on. All sorts of influences will affect those determinations. The fact is that the high interest rates that prevailed in the honourable member for Bennelong's time as Treasurer prevailed while people were borrowing to hang on to remain solvent. The difference today is that people by choice borrow to invest and to earn. There is a total difference between walking into an institution and accepting the price of debt so as to make money in this buoyant economy and being driven into an institution in 1982 to save yourself from going to the bankruptcy court, which was the position under the former Treasurer. I would like to refer to a quote from the former Treasurer made in the West Australian on 21 May 1982. The article stated: The Federal Treasurer, Mr Howard, admitted in Perth yesterday that the Government had no answer to the problem of spiralling interest rates. . . . . He told the Chamber: If there was a simple easy way of lowering interest rates without jeopardising our anti-inflationary fight, this Government would have long since implemented that solution. . . . . He also ruled out the likelihood of any large-scale tax relief for home buyers. He told a Perth Chamber of Commerce luncheon that any attempt by the Government to control or regulate interest rates would be doomed to failure. How long do we have to accept this humbug from the supposed dries, the supposed rationalists, the market outcome people? These people have no idea about the major economic issues. They are a pathetic apology for an Opposition. I wonder whether I should waste my time in giving a decent answer. Mr PUNCH —Can the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House of the Government's attitude towards its proposed action against the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation following the release from gaol of the Union's General Secretary? Mr WILLIS —I am aware- Mr N. A. Brown —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It may well be that that question, reframed, would be in order, but with the greatest of respect the question as it is presently framed is out of order as the matter is sub judice. Mr Hawke —Oh! Mr N. A. Brown —What are you moaning and groaning about? Learn some basic principles. Mr SPEAKER —I think the Minister will realise there is validity in that point of order. The matter is sub judice. Mr WILLIS —As I understood the question, it related to the Government's proposals in respect of the deregistration of the BLF. Mr Punch —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question asked specifically about proposed action against the BLF. I think the honourable member for Menzies has misheard the question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I think the honourable member for Barton did add something to that question. It did not affect the substance of the question but he should not have added the addition that he did. I call the Minister. Mr WILLIS —I am aware of some speculation regarding the attitude of the Government to the proposed deregistration of the BLF following the release from gaol yesterday of the General Secretary of the BLF, Mr Gallagher. I want to take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's determination in this matter. Let there be no misunderstanding about this whatsoever. The Government remains absolutely committed to its proposals for the deregistration of the BLF and the release of Mr Gallagher from gaol will make no difference whatsoever to the Government's attitude. Indeed, the statements made by Mr Gallagher yesterday only reinforce the necessity for the Government's actions. Mr Gallagher was reported as saying yesterday that employers would be made to pay for the time he spent in gaol. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Minister that this is a matter for appeal and that the question- Mr WILLIS —My comments are in no way directed to any action which relates to Mr Gallagher. My comments are related totally to the deregistration of the BLF. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister is quoting statements made by Mr Gallagher- Mr Hawke —In his capacity as Federal Secretary of the BLF. Mr SPEAKER —I think the Minister should relate it to that question of deregistration. Mr Hawke —And he is. That is exactly what he is doing. Mr WILLIS —That is exactly what I am about to do. Mr SPEAKER —I am quite capable of understanding plain English. I am suggesting to the Minister that he not associate the statement with the question of the judgment yesterday, that he make it straight with regard to the BLF. Mr WILLIS —Yesterday Mr Gallagher said that the Builders Labourers Federation would be pursuing a 35-hour week and that the building industry agreement had gone out the door. I believe that those statements demonstrate the necessity for the action which the Government has embarked upon. Those statements are a disgrace and are a further repudiation of- Mr N. A. Brown —I raise a further point of order. We all have views about this particular matter but the point is that the Minister in effect is denigrating, by reference to statements he has made, a person who is presently awaiting trial--- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no substance to that point of order. The Minister is now quite clearly relating the answer to the deregistration of the BLF and not to the questions that arise in regard to Mr Gallagher. I call the Minister. Mr WILLIS —I am interested to note that the Opposition's spokesman on industrial relations does not think that these statements are disgraceful at all. It seems to me that they are a further statement by the BLF leadership of repudiation of obligations that they have undertaken in respect of the building industry agreement, of the no extra claims commitment to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and of the prices and incomes accord. I suppose it is all right for the Opposition to say that it does not mind the BLF breaking its word in this respect. It said that it was not a disgrace at all. It obviously is a disgrace and it is particularly amazing that at the same time as that was being said the BLF was preparing its submission for an appearance in the High Court of Australia this morning. In the High Court this morning the BLF was seeking to obtain a stay order on the BLF deregistration proceedings before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which are listed for later this month. In a submission this morning the BLF counsel said that the Federation ought to be given a stay order, and put as the reason for that that it intended to abide by the building industry agreement. In view of Mr Gallagher's statements yesterday it is not surprising that the High Court did not accept that undertaking from the BLF and has denied the stay order. Therefore the matter will come before the Commission on the 28th of this month. The Government remains absolutely committed to the course that it has embarked upon. It believes that the BLF leadership cannot be trusted, that the comments made yesterday are typical of the tactics of intimidation and industrial blackmail relentlessly pursued by the BLF over the past decade. Mr N. A. Brown —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My respectful submission is that you should direct the Minister not to make remarks of that sort about an individual who is presently awaiting trial. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members will realise that the area of sub judice is always a difficult one. In the present situation we have proceedings which affect the personal conduct of an individual, but that individual is also an officer of a union and is entitled to make statements on behalf of that union. The Minister in his last statement attributed those views to the organisation of which that individual is the Secretary. There is no point of order. I have tried to clarify this because everyone seems to think the matter of sub judice is quite simple. In these cases it is difficult to distinguish the line between the actions of the union and its leader and the actions pending against the individual involved. Mr WILLIS —I am quite amazed by the attitude of the Opposition spokesman. In no way in anything that I have said have I referred to the case against this particular officer of the BLF. I reiterate that the Government remains absolutely committed to the course of action outlined in the Building Industry Bill and the recent statements by the BLF Secretary are testimony to the correctness of that course. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister whether he accepts the definition of ministerial responsibility set forth to this House by the present Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General on 25 August 1982, which stated: Ministerial responsibility, I remind honourable members, does not concern the question of what one knew; it concerns the question of what one ought to have known. In light of the Solicitor-General's opinion that was tabled yesterday, why did the Prime Minister breach his ministerial responsibility by not seeking appropriate advice concerning Dr Armstrong's proposed payout at least on 19, 28 and 30 August, that is, prior to the payment being made? Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition is rapidly degenerating into the Kennett of Canberra; he shoots from the lip and has no concern for principle, truth or propriety. The answers that I have given in this place already relating to 19 August and each subsequent date have been fully outlined and establish the propriety of the action that I took at all points. Mr GAYLER —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the growing impatience and frustration of Queensland cane growers regarding the delay in decisions following the report in August of the sugar industry working party? Would it be reasonable to assume that the position being projected by the Queensland Government during discussions is consistent with the interests of the large milling companies and the major supporters of the Queensland branch of the National Party of Australia? Can the Minister inform the House of the progress that has been made and of his understanding of the stage reached in coming to a joint decision for a package of assistance for the industry? Mr KERIN —I will set out for honourable members the reason for the frustration in the Queensland sugar growing industry. It is rather interesting that no National Party members ask me questions in this House about the sugar industry, because they are just as confused as their Queensland counterparts. This industry is a difficult one to deal with. It is an industry that is bound up in some 70 years of regulation involving two boards and judges setting prices. It is centred principally in Queensland and the Queensland Government controls its legislation. In November of 1984, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister and I met with the Queensland Cane Growers Council so that we could break what was virtually a political deadlock in terms of moves by the Government to assist this industry. In other words, there are two fundamental political problems: It is an industry bound by regulation, and is not likely to accept any suggestions about deregulation, and it is involved with the Queensland Government, which sets out as its main purpose the bringing down of this Federal Government. The Premier says that all the time but we do not wander around saying those sorts of things; we are trying to help the sugar industry. The cane growers agreed to get the Queensland Government to come to see us, or we would see them, with the industry, so that we could discuss the industry in a non-political and sane atmosphere. Eventually the Premier of Queensland consented to talk to the Commonwealth Government about the sugar industry and that meeting took place on 1 April, some four or five months later. Out of that meeting we set up a 100-day working party which eventually became known as the sugar industry working party. The report of that party, made up of the Commonwealth Government, the Queensland Government and industry-the three concerned groups-was presented to the two Ministers, Mr Turner and myself, on 14 August. At that stage I was ready, due to a Cabinet decision by my Government, to negotiate with the Queensland Government on the recommendations of the report. It must be said that the report was agreed to by the Commonwealth, the State Government and the industry. It made recommendations in four areas partially about deregulation, partially about rural adjustment, partially about research and, also, most importantly, about income support. On 23 September the Cabinet met again to discuss the progress that had been made because after the handing over of the report on 14 August there was no contact from the Queensland Government. It was very busy, it said, consulting with the industry before it would talk to us. Following the Cabinet decision and the announcement we made in Townsville, Mr Turner and Mr Hallam met with me on 25 September. Out of that meeting, particularly following discussions with Mr Turner, came an agreement-I have it here before me-which was confirmed in correspondence. It is an agreed schedule of deregulation drawn up as a result of the Commonwealth-Queensland meeting of 25 September 1985. We reached agreement on that on the basis of a nine page document supplied by the Queensland Government headed: `The Queensland Government position on the report of the Sugar Industry Working Party'. I thought we had reached some agreement on the basis of those disussions about that and also about rural adjustment assistance and research. There was no agreement reached on the levels or methods of income support because Mr Turner had no power to negotiate. What has happened since then is a fair reflection of the Byzantine workings of the Queensland Government. I also met with Mr Hallam on that day; both Ministers had to go to their Cabinet on 30 September. Whereas the New South Wales Labor Government was able to respond-I have here a telex from Mr Hallam, the New South Wales Minister-the Queensland Government was not able to respond. What happened, of course, was that the Queensland Minister gave to the industry his nine-page paper. In other words, he leaked the wrong document. That caused a lot of confusion. Since that time I have been trying to work out what has been happening in Queensland. Quite frankly, Mr Turner does not answer the telexes I send to him asking for the status of this agreed schedule, and neither can officials get anything from officials. What the Queensland Government does not understand about the question of income support is that if it is not to be involved in price support for the industry the Commonwealth Government will have to deal directly with the industry to try to get money into it. Of course, in the meantime, the National Party, particularly at the State level, has been running away at the mouth. Mr Menzel has one theory and some other member has another. All sorts of theories are being bandied about. Some people are saying that because the price has picked up a little there is no need for assistance or that assistance will not trigger. The whole problem is that the Queensland Premier will not take a decision, so he says, unless the industry is totally agreed. In other words, he is not prepared to show any leadership or take any hard decision, nor is he prepared to put any money into his own industry. Mr Katter —He has put in $40m. Mr KERIN —That is just a lie. He has put very little money in and he keeps running that lie. The industry has been consulted. It was involved for at least the last 40 days of the 100-day sugar industry working party. The industry had representatives on that working party. There have been responses since. I would have thought, in terms of all the consultation that has gone on, not just this year but over the last year, that the Queensland National Party would at least now have reached the situation where it could express an opinion. In fact, I thought it had expressed an opinion. But, as I said, due to the Byzantine politics in Queensland and the lack of leadership of the National Party in that State, it is near impossible to get any sort of answer from that Government. We do not have the same problems with the New South Wales Labor Party. What is going on in Queensland is nonsensical. I would have thought that by now, given the announcement we made in Townsville, members of the sugar industry and the National Party in this House and in Queensland would have realised that we are prepared to assist this industry at least to an amount of $150m on two conditions: First, that there be some price support from Queensland and agreement on the method and level of financing of this industry and, secondly, that there be some moves with respect to restructuring of the industry, not because of any ideological belief but because, if the taxpayers are to put hundreds of millions of dollars into the industry, there is a need to try to give that industry a better cost structure at the end of the three-year period of assistance. It is the National Party in Queensland which is holding up assistance to this industry. Mr Hunt —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. In the answer that the Minister gave to the question on sugar he read from a document outlining the agreement with New South Wales. I wonder whether the Minister will table that document. Mr SPEAKER —Was the Minister quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr Kerin —No, Mr Speaker. I read the heading of the Queensland Government position paper. I referred to the agreed schedule of de- regulation drawn up as a result of the Commonwealth-Queensland meeting and I merely waved around the telex from Mr Hallam and quoted no part of it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I advise the House that we have present in the gallery Mr David Buffett, the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island, and two of his executive colleagues. I am sure that the Chief Minister appreciates the warm welcome he receives. I welcome him to the House. Honourable members-Hear, hear! The Clerk-Notice has been received from the Leader of the Opposition of his intention at the next sitting to move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his handling of matters related to the Australian Bicentennial Authority and specifically- (1) his gross administrative incompetence and neg- ligence regarding the payout of over $500,000 to Dr Armstrong; (2) his attempts to cover up and suppress his own role in initiating Dr Armstrong's removal and approving the payout; (3) his persistent refusal to make full disclosure of relevant facts to the Parliament, and (4) his attempts to blame others for his own administrative failures and mistakes. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith the motion of censure of the Prime Minister of which he has given notice for the next sitting. Motion of Censure Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.55) —I move: That this House censures the Prime Minister for his handling of matters related to the Australian Bicentennial Authority and specifically- (1) his gross administrative incompetence and negligence regarding the payout of over $500,000 to Dr Armstrong; (2) his attempts to cover up and suppress his own role in initiating Dr Armstrong's removal and approving the payout; (3) his persistent refusal to make full disclosure of relevant facts to the Parliament, and (4) his attempts to blame others for his own administrative failures and mistakes. It is perfectly obvious from the answer that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave in the Parliament today that he regards the concept of ministerial responsibility so far as he is concerned as an absolute joke. He may treat the concept of ministerial responsibility as a joke and the Leader of the House (Mr Young) may treat it as a joke but, quite clearly, the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) does not regard the question of ministerial responsibility as a joke. I say to the Prime Minister that many people in Australia, not only members of the Opposition, neither treat the concept of ministerial responsibility as a joke nor regard the behaviour of the Prime Minister on this matter as an issue to be dealt with by laughter and indifference. It was perfectly plain from the Prime Minister's conduct yesterday, when he took part in the matter of public importance, that he regarded the tabling of the report of the Solicitor-General as being in some way the great Hawke king hit on the whole matter. At the end of the matter of public importance he was almost breathless coming toward the end of his allotted 15 minutes. He tried, in dramatic tones, to grab everybody's attention and said: `Madam Deputy Speaker, we now have the report of the Solicitor-General and it will vindicate everything that I, as Prime Minister, have done in this matter'. So far from that happening, so far from the report of the Solicitor-General being a king hit against those who criticise the Prime Minister's role in this matter, it has turned out to be a king hit against the Prime Minister himself. The document that was to vindicate the Prime Minister, the document that was to demonstrate that at all times the Prime Minister had a firm grip on the administration of the Australian Bicentennial Authority, the document that was to indict John Reid, the document that was to implicate John Reid and Dr Armstrong, the document that was to clear the Prime Minister of any kind of culpability and guilt in the whole matter is the very document which has underlined the administrative failure and incompetence of the Prime Minister in the conduct of his ministerial responsibilities in the whole matter. That is why the Opposition brings forward this censure motion today. That is why it has not been prepared to let this matter rest on the basis of the material made available yesterday. That is why the Opposition asks the Prime Minister today to tell the House whether he believes that he discharged his ministerial responsibilities. Because of the inadequate answer given by the Prime Minister to that question the Opposition brings forth this censure motion. I remind the House of the terms of this motion. It seeks the censure of this House of the Prime Minister for, firstly, his gross administrative incompetence and negligence regarding the $500,000 payout to Dr Armstrong; secondly, his attempts to cover up and suppress his own role in initiating Dr Armstrong's removal and approving the payout; thirdly, his unwillingness to make full disclosure of relevant facts to the Parliament; and, finally, and I think most blameworthy of all, his attempts to blame others for his own administrative failures and mistakes. It is worth reminding the House of that very bland and innocent Press statement that was issued by the Prime Minister on 11 September when news of the whole matter first broke. When Laurie Oakes, on the Today show, on the morning of 11 September first disclosed that there had been a payout of almost $500,000 to Dr Armstrong, the Prime Minister's office issued a very simple Press statement which made it very plain that the Prime Minister had had a discussion with Mr Reid. Let me read the Press statement because it bears recalling precisely in what way the Prime Minister set out to mislead the House and the way in which he tried to dissemble-the way in which the Prime Minister as early as 11 September was starting to shift blame to other people. These are the Prime Minister's words in the Press release: I have been asked about reports of the settlement of the terms of the contract of the former General Manager of the Australian Bicentennial Authority, Dr David Armstrong. In recent weeks I have had several dis- cussions with the Chairman of the Authority, Mr Reid, about both the specific criticism of the ABA and the plans that were being made for the 1988 celebrations. Listen to this: After these discussions took place, Mr Reid and Dr Armstrong concluded that the interests of the Authority would be best served if Dr Armstrong were to leave its services. He then went on to say: The negotiation of the terms of settlement of that departure was, as it had to be under the terms of the legislation establishing the ABA, entirely a matter between the Chairman and Dr Armstrong. I have no comment to add to those terms. What he was saying was that it was all a matter between the Chairman of the Authority and the former Chief Executive of the Authority. Of course the Government would like yesterday to have been the last of the matter. Of course the Government did not want us to bring it up again today. Of course as far as the Government is concerned it is a great big joke, and the whole concept of ministerial responsibility for this Prime Minister as far as his affairs are concerned is a great big joke. After all, he is the man who told Mr Reid to get rid of Dr Armstrong. He told him to do it quickly, quietly, and to err on the side of generosity. He thanked him for moving so quickly. Now he has the audacity to pretend that it is all somebody else's fault. Fascinatingly enough, the thing that has brought the Prime Minister unstuck and the document that has demonstrated to the people of Australia how careless, negligent and indifferent this Prime Minister has been about his ministerial responsibilities on this occasion is the very document the Prime Minister thought was to be his life raft in this whole debate. I have not the slightest doubt that when the Prime Minister came into the debate yesterday he saved up Dr Griffith's report right to the end and he thought: `I will slam it down on the dispatch box right at the end of the speech. This is my king hit. It is about 150 pages long. This report will fix them. It will fix Reid, it will fix Howard, it will fix Allen, Allen and Hemsley. It will fix everybody else and will completely clear me of any kind of involvement or any kind of blame in this whole matter'. Of course, the reverse has proved to be the case. What the document did very clearly, if we are to accept the document as being an accurate analysis of all the legal and factual issues involved in this dispute, was to drive home to the Australian public one thing with brutal clarity. It is that the Prime Minister himself was totally negligent in not obtaining that opinion weeks ago and that if the Prime Minister had been doing his job competently, if he had been careful about the money of the public of Australia, if he had worried about the $500,000, he would have got that report weeks ago. He would not have waited until he was under parliamentary and public pressure. He would not have waited until he was being criticised. He would have embarked upon one of the most fundamental things of ordinary prudent administration in government, that is, get the advice of the relevant department. One does not always take it. It is the mark of a good Minister and of a good Prime Minister not always to take the advice of his department, but it is the mark of a foolish and careless Minister or Prime Minister that he thinks he is so good he never gets the advice of the experts who are available in government. The Prime Minister thought he was too good to get the advice of the mere humble Solicitor-General. He was too good to get the advice of the Tax Commissioner. He was too good to get the advice of his own Department. Remember the evidence of Rose before the Senate Committee? He said that that letter of 28 August `came as a complete surprise to us'. But this Prime Minister is too good to get advice. He might get advice on the telephone from his mate, from the minder who listens in to private telephone conversations with the Prime Minister, but does he get the advice of the Solicitor-General or of the Tax Commissioner? Does he check out whether what the Chairman is saying is correct? Does he check out the legal opinion of Allen, Allen and Hemsley? Of course he does not. But he gets into trouble, he is found out, he is flushed out and people realise they have been misled. So far from having nothing to do with the settlement between Armstrong and Reid, which the Prime Minister pretended to be the case on 11 September, it is established after questioning and scrutiny bit by bit, answer by answer, dragged out of the Prime Minister, that, so far from having nothing to do with it, he was the architect of the whole arrangement. He was the person who called Reid in and said: `I don't care what you say. Get rid of him. Get rid of him quickly. Do it quietly, err on the side of generosity-and for heaven's sake keep it quiet'. That is what the Prime Minister did, despite what he said on 11 September. The Press statement of 11 September stands as a dissembling piece of misleading deception by this Prime Minister. He sought by that Press statement to mislead the Australian public and to mislead the Parliament. Having got into difficulty, having been forced by the pressure of public and other opinion to admit that he had in fact prevailed on Mr Reid to get rid of Dr Armstrong, did he then do the responsible thing? Did he then come into the Parliament and say to the Parliament: `Look, I made a mistake. It was my idea. Reid did not want to get rid of him. I don't think Reid was correct, but I as Prime Minister determined that my will should prevail over Reid. I told him to get rid of Dr Armstrong, and the haste of getting rid of Dr Armstrong was one of the reasons why the payout was so large. I lay out all the facts and I accept responsibility for the matter'? Did this Prime Minister do that? Having been found out, did he admit his role in the matter? Of course he did not. Having been found out and having been demonstrated to have misled the public, he then embarked on another shabby little exercise. He then cast around in very courageous fashion for a scapegoat. That is a good principle, is it not, for the Prime Minister when he is in a corner? When he has a problem, when he has been found out on misleading us, when he has been shown to be incompetent, what does he then do? He casts around for a scapegoat. He sought the scapegoat in the person of Mr Reid. I have to say about Mr Reid that at all material times in this matter Mr Reid was doing the Prime Minister's bidding. If Mr Reid did something wrong, he did something wrong because the Prime Minister wanted him to do something wrong. That is the fact that comes out in all the documentation and all the developments in this matter. What does the Prime Minister do? He casts around for a scapegoat and says: `I have got a scapegoat. I will get rid of John Reid; I will dump it all on John Reid. I will blame him for the fact that we have got into this mess, and I will somehow or other try to transfer to Reid the blame and the odium for that huge payout having been made, perhaps in circumstances where there was no legal liability'. So what does he do? He casts around to find some basis on which he can have Mr Reid blamed for this episode. The Prime Minister constructs two alibis. The first alibi he constructs is that of tax minimisation. The second alibi he constructs is that Reid misled him about the nature of the settlement. Interestingly enough, the first alibi is exploded by none other than the report of the Solicitor-General that was supposed to be the life raft of the Prime Minister in this whole matter. If one reads section 46 of the report of the Solicitor-General, one sees that he disputes the assertion made by the Prime Minister at his Press conference on 26 September that Mr Reid had been involved and had promoted tax minimisation. So strike one against the Prime Minister's attempt to make Mr Reid the scapegoat. The second attempt by the Prime Minister to make Mr Reid a scapegoat was in some way to allege that Mr Reid had misled him about the terms of the contract and the terms of the settlement. Yet the documents tabled before the Senate Estimates Committee and the documents tabled in this Parliament, and they go undenied in substance by the Prime Minister, demonstrate clearly that Mr Reid kept the Prime Minister informed. He told the Prime Minister in his letter of 19 August the nature of the buy-out. He told the Prime Minister in his telephone conversation of 19 August. He told the Prime Minister by letter of 28 August. If the Prime Minister is puzzled, is now concerned and claims to have been misled, why did he not express that concern on the 19th, on the 28th or on the 30th when he wrote in effect giving written approval to Mr Reid for the allocation of the funds that would be involved? Why on earth, if the Prime Minister was concerned, if he had been misled, if he believed one thing and was then being told another, did he not give voice to those concerns and to that puzzlement on those three opportunities that presented themselves? The truth is that the Prime Minister could not have cared less as late as early September what the payout was. He could not have cared less about the basis of the settlement. If he had cared about the basis of the settlement, he would have sought the advice of Dr Griffith. Surely a Prime Minister who is told that $500,000 is going to be paid to somebody for five or six years' work as a payout can only be doing his duty in the most elementary way if he says to the Government's lawyers: `Is this okay?'. Why did not the Prime Minister go to the Government's lawyers before the cement had been set, before the cheque had been paid over to Dr Armstrong and say: `Look, this is what Reid says; this is what Allen Allen and Hemsley say. Is it okay? Am I protected? Am I doing the right thing by the public's money? Am I doing the right thing in the discharge of my ministerial duty?'. Did this Prime Minister do that? No, he did not. This Prime Minister was too good; he was too clever; he was too smart; and he organised the thing far too effectively to do that. This Prime Minister said: `Go ahead, John, do it. Good on you for doing such a good deal. Thanks for getting it done so quickly. I want you to err on the side of generosity and, above everything else, will you please not say anything about it; will you please all keep it under wraps?'. Of course, having done that, having been found out and having been exposed for having misled the public, he then resorts to the very shabby device of trying to blame somebody else for a debacle of which he was the prime architect. If Reid deserves to go and to be condemned, this man deserves to be condemned for his role in this affair because it was his idea to get rid of Armstrong. He may or may not have had good grounds to get rid of him. That is not really the point. The point is his own ministerial involvement. He said: `Get rid of him; get rid of him quickly; pay a reasonable amount for it; err on the side of generosity; keep it all hushed up; don't tell anybody the details of it but, I tell you what, if I get caught out, if I am found out and I am exposed, you will carry the blame for it, not me, because I am the Prime Minister and I cannot be expected to carry any of the blame for a problem that arises as the result of a decision I have made'. That is the standard that the Prime Minister has applied on this occasion. I say to the House that, having come into the debate yesterday, having lifted up the report of the Solicitor-General and having no doubt thought to himself: `Well, my king hit will be the tabling of this report; this report will fix them; that will silence the Opposition; that will demonstrate how Reid misled everybody and will put me completely in the clear and I can go on to other matters', the Prime Minister now finds that so far from the Solicitor-General's report being a king hit against the Opposition or against Mr Reid or Dr Armstrong, it is a king hit against the Prime Minister himself. The Solicitor-General's report leaves the Prime Minister jammed right in the middle. If the Solicitor-General is right, the simple question the Australian public wants answered is: Why did not the Prime Minister get the right advice before 30 August when the money was paid over? That is the only question to which they want to know the answer. They want to know why the Prime Minister did not get it before 30 August; why did he not get it before the horse had bolted; why did he not get it before the money was paid over to Armstrong? So, if the Solicitor-General is right, the Prime Minister now has to tell the public why he did not get that right advice before 30 August, why he did not have the concerns and why he did not express the concerns and the puzzlement that he now, with great enthusiasm, says that he had always had. On the other hand, if in fact the report of the Solicitor-General is not to be believed, if in fact the legal analysis of the report of the Solicitor-General is wrong, what justification can there possibly be for the Prime Minister's conduct in getting rid of Mr Reid? Because, in getting rid of Mr Reid, the Prime Minister is asking Mr Reid to accept a greater responsibility for things done by Mr Reid at the behest of the Prime Minister than the Prime Minister is himself prepared to accept responsibility for. It is a pretty fundamental breach of ordinary human dealings with people to say to somebody who does something at one's instruction in one's name at some risk to himself: `If something goes wrong, you can carry the blame, I will go scot-free and I will not accept any of the responsibility'. So, on either count the Prime Minister is jammed and condemned by the report of the Solicitor-General. On either basis, the House ought to pass the motion of censure against the Prime Minister's conduct. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Is the motion seconded? Mr Sinclair —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(3.16) — Mr Speaker, I believe it is appropriate at the outset of this debate to test the integrity of the person who leads for the Opposition on the motion of censure of the Prime Minister because if there is anyone in this whole episode who comes out with grubbiness and with a total lack of integrity it is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Let me establish that point at the outset. It will be recalled by all members of this House that, on 19 September, I tabled a number of documents. The first page of that set of documents was one which was tabled in error. That is a fact which was conveyed to the Leader of the Opposition here on the floor of the House. He knows that it was tabled in error because in fact it referred to some personal characteristic of Dr Armstrong which it would have been totally inappropriate and unfair to have had tabled in this House. I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition on this matter and informed him that it had been tabled in error. He understood that but he was not prepared, as any decent person leading the Opposition would have been prepared to do, to accept the fact of it being tabled in error and for it to be withdrawn. There was no possible advantage to the Leader of the Opposition. However, he insisted that it go in with a whiting-out of this reference. That was bad enough. But what happened then? Following that, the next day he came out and said to this House and to the people of Australia that the Prime Minister misled the Parliament and misled the people because there was a second page of this document which he did not put in. He knew on the floor of this House and had been told that it had been tabled in error. We wanted it withdrawn because it went to the question of the personal characteristic of Dr Armstrong. The Leader of the Opposition went around this country trying to say in regard to something on which he knew the total factual situation that this was a deliberate misleading. He knew that it was not the case but such is his attempt to try to bolster his position that truth has no concern for this man no concern whatever. He knew the facts but he said: `Well, we will try to twist the truth in this matter to see what we can get out of it'. The judgment will be made of the Leader of the Opposition who makes this attack upon me when he knows that he deliberately misled this House and the people of Australia on that issue. The honourable gentleman has continued to do it. Every time has has spoken about the question of what happened on 15 August he keeps on saying that there was an instruction given by me to Mr Reid to dismiss Dr Armstrong. He knows that this is not the case. He knows that what happened on 15 August was that I discussed this issue with Mr Reid, that I conveyed to him for the reasons which are now obvious to the House that it was in the best interests of the Australian Bicentennial Authority and certainly in the best interests of the preparation for the bicentennial celebration that the services of Dr Armstrong should be terminated. That was the view I put strongly to Mr Reid. But there was no sense then in which I instructed Mr Reid. Never once did I instruct him and there was no word of mine by which I instructed him because, as a matter of law, I had no authority or capacity under the law so to instruct the Chairman of the ABA. But does that fact concern the Leader of the Opposition? He has consistently and persistently said from the beginning that I instructed Mr Reid. He knows that it is a deliberate untruth for him to say so, but he continues to put it. That is the measure of what credence once can attach to the Leader of the Opposition when he talks in this matter. He deliberately misled the people of Australia in regard to 19 September and he has consistently misled and misrepresented about what happened in regard to 15 August. There was no instruction because there could not be. That leads us then to a consideration of just where the Leader of the Opposition is in this matter. As I said yesterday, when people come to look at this issue in the future, what will be the central issue is the question of what are the standards that should apply, particular to a public authority, in regard to the matter of tax minimisation or avoidance. Even at this late stage not a word has come from the Leader of the Opposition to say that he or the Opposition has any attitude against the concept that a public authority should in any way be engaged in tax minimisation. This should not come as any surprise, given the record of the current Leader of the Opposition, the previous Treasurer of this country, under whom, of course, the tax avoidance and evasion industry became the only growth industry in this country. The present Leader of the Opposition is thoroughly tainted through and and through with association with and condemnation of the practices of tax avoidance, evasion and minimisation. So it is little wonder that when we reach this late stage of this debate we still have no condemnation from the Leader of the Opposition of what has obviously transpired in this case. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say that at all times the Chairman of the Authority was doing the Prime Minister's bidding. Again he knows that that is not the truth. But we have to recognise that when we are dealing with this incumbent of the position of Leader of the Opposition we are dealing with a person for whom truth matters not at all. He knows from the written record and he knows particularly that it was at Mr Reid's insistence that the negotiations on this matter were something from which I was divorced. Mr Reid said to me on 19 August that this was a matter which he must and will conduct. We had the situation, of which the Leader of the Opposition is totally aware, that that was the position of the Chairman of the Authority after I had put my view to him that the General Manager should go. I put that to him and he said: `I will go away and think about it'. He went away and thought about it. He came back to me on the 19th and said to me: `All right, I accept that but, Mr Prime Minister, you must accept that as a matter of law I, the Chairman of the Authority, am going to conduct this matter'. That is the fact. The Leader of the Opposition knows it is the fact, but he gets up in this place now and, in moving this motion, says `at all times Mr Reid was doing the Prime Minister's bidding'. The opposite is true because as far as the negotiation of that matter is concerned Mr Reid insisted that he should handle that. Once he had made his decision that he would accept the recommendation I put it was not an instruction because there could not be one-he then handled the matter and insisted that it should be so. He handled it in the context of saying to me on 19 August that he would be handling it in terms of there having been the need to buy out this contract with six years to go, which would give the sort of amount of money which we now know is at issue. He went away from me insisting that he would conduct this matter on those terms. I had no reason at all to believe that he would then do other than act according to the indication he had given me. He went away; he was involved in the negotiations; he handled them; and at every material point from 19 August up to and including the night of 26 September when I finally indicated that I wanted the resignation of Mr Reid. Mr Reid did not demur from the proposition that he was conducting those negotiations in terms of buying out a contract which had six years to run. Even on the 26th, in the final hours before his resignation was tendered and accepted, he was saying that that was the framework and he was acting because he thought that if he did not do that he could be up for an action from Dr Armstrong for wrongful dismissal. It was only on that night, not before, that he produced the letter of 12 October 1979, I think it was, which made it crystal clear that any suggestion of buying out six years of the contract was a nonsense. The letter of 12 October, which was not produced to me before then but was produced on 26 September, made it crystal clear that the whole edifice upon which this negotiation had been constructed was not in accordance with the facts. So, Mr Speaker, you have it from 19 August to 10 September in conversation with him. Again let me remind the House as I did yesterday that I spelt this out in this House on 19 September. Five days later Mr Reid reported to the Bicentennial Authority that the record of what the Prime Minister had said was accurate. So he accepted before the Board on the 24th that what he was doing-he was negotiating, not the Prime Minister-was on the basis of buying out a contract for six years. He confirmed to the Board that what I had said to the Parliament was accurate. That was the 24th. So we had it on 19 August, 10 September, 19 September, confirmed on 24 September and then in the final conversations on 26 September, when the resignation was tendered and accepted, again the clear statement and acceptance that what was being done was the buying out of six years of contract. In those circumstances I accepted what Mr Reid was doing because I had no reason to believe, even up to a half hour before he resigned, that he had been doing anything differently. The question of taking advice has been raised. I received a letter on 28 August from Mr Reid. I remind you, Mr Speaker, that it was a letter which made no mention of the fact that it was largely academic at any rate because the deed had been signed five days earlier on 23 August. Having signed it on 23 August, he wrote to me on the 28th and asked for my approval. What did I do? I got advice. The Leader of the Opposition said that I took no advice. I took advice from my Department. The advice from my Department was associated with advice from the Attorney-General's Department, which advice I accepted. I accepted the advice given to me that this was not a matter for me to approve, that the approval of this, was a matter for the Bicentennial Authority. So I replied. It was stated in this debate on the censure motion that I did not take any advice; I was too proud; I would not listen to my Department. The very fact is that the letter which I wrote and sent to him on 30 August, not approving the settlement but saying to Mr Reid that it was his responsibility, was based precisely on the advice which I sought from my Department in association with the Attorney-General's Department, and which I accepted. That advice was given under the law. What law? It is the law that was created by honour- able members opposite. We did not create this law. Honourable members opposite put the Prime Minister and the Government at arm's length. I operated on that advice. If I made a mistake in this matter I have indicated it. For too long I accepted that the Chairman of the Australian Bicentennial Authority was putting the position to me honestly and accurately. However we find, but not until the death knell on 26 September, that the whole edifice of advice that he had put to me was not in accordance with the document and the contractual relationship. The mistake I made was accepting for too long the proposition that the Chairman of the Bicentennial Authority would not have misled me. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.31) —The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), putting aside all the other matters which have been before the House and all the debate that we have had, has just condemned himself out of his own mouth. Let us look at the three explanations he has given. I ask honourable members to forget about all the debate that we have had over the last week or two and listen to what he said today. The Prime Minister has already admitted today that the advice he gave the Parliament and the people of Australia when he sacked John Reid was wrong. He did not mention tax evasion. Gavin Griffith told him that he was wrong. Gavin Griffith said that there was no tax evasion. If there was tax evasion it was a minimal amount of $7,300. There are alternative schemes that he could have been persuaded to pursue if he had wanted to avoid paying taxation. What did the Prime Minister do today? He wiped that excuse for having sacked Mr John Reid. Secondly, he said today that right through his basis of belief of the terms of the contract with Dr Armstrong was that he was buying out a six-year contract. The basis of that seems to be that he claims that until 26 September he did not know the details of the financial settlement. Why did he not know the details of the financial settlement? The reason he does not know the details is that he did not seek advice. The whole of the basis of his explanation was that he sought advice but only from 28 September. The date from which he should have sought financial advice was the very origin of this whole affair. From 11 September-when he made his very aborted public statement of three paragraphs, one of which was a deliberate lie-from the very beginning of this matter the Prime Minister knew about the details of the financial settlement. It is no basis to defend this censure motion by saying: `I took advice but I took it on 28 September'. The whole of the credence of the Prime Minister is based on the fact that retrospectively he decided he would somehow or other look back and decide that he was puzzled and concerned about the matter. The Prime Minister's answer this afternoon shows only too effectively that the doctrine of ministerial responsibility has little weight as far as he is concerned. The sad record of this whole affair has shown that he has made deliberate mis-statements and half truths from the very genesis of the arrangements which he entered into with Mr Reid to dismiss Dr Armstrong. Even this afternoon we heard the Prime Minister state: When I finally indicated that I wanted the resignation of Dr Armstrong. . . I contrast that statement with what he said in his first Press statement: After those discussions took place, Mr Reid and Dr Armstrong concluded that the interests of the ABA would be best served if Dr Armstrong were to leave its service. It was entirely a matter between the Chairman and Dr Armstrong. This afternoon the Prime Minister finally admitted that he wanted the resignation of Dr Armstrong. The basis of this censure motion is the presentation yesterday of the opinion of the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth. It rebutted the prime reason for the dismissal of Mr Reid. It finally laid to rest the circumstances which, for so long, the Prime Minister and this House have said were the basis upon which he felt Mr Reid had to go. From 26 September John Reid has been the butt of the Prime Minister's criticism. John Reid has been the fall guy for the Prime Minister. The second problem is that there is no doubt that the Prime Minister's incompetence in financial management has been apparent right through the whole sad and sorry exercise of this affair. The final point is that even this afternoon he was not prepared to stand up like a man and say that he was wrong. We heard his final words. He said that he was mistaken in his trust. It is not the Prime Minister who is mistaken; it is the people of Australia. It is the people of Australia who, sadly, have been mistaken in believing a man who, for so long, has tried to tell them that in some way he was capable of being Prime Minister. This afternoon I want to refer to a letter that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, on 28 January 1983. I think it is important that this afternoon we put the whole of this affair-Hawke's Watergate-in perspective. Honourable members will remember that in that letter John Button stated: I must say that even some of Bob's closest supporters have doubts about his capacities to lead the party successfully, in that they do not share his own estimate of his ability. Mr Howard —Who is that? Mr SINCLAIR —That is John Button, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, talking about the man who pretends he is a man of honesty and integrity. Perhaps that is not the only thing we need to think about the Prime Minister. Let us look at the second exercise in prime ministerial responsibility in the days when he was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Honourable members will remember that on page 186 of Blanche d'Alpuget's biography of Hawke there was reference to Hawke's involvement in the ACTU-Bourke affair. There was the very tragic death of Lionel Revelman. After Lionel Revelman's death the Bourke's store began to slide. Blanche d'Alpuget stated: Hawke consistently refused to tell the ACTU- Mr Young —This is getting a bit far away from the bicentennial. Mr SINCLAIR —Wait for it. It has a great deal to do with it. Exactly the same maladministration occurred in the ACTU for which Peter Nolan was sacked as occurred in the Bicentennial Authority for which John Reid has been sacked. We need to understand the question- Mr Howard —He was the ACTU scapegoat. Mr SINCLAIR —As my colleague says, Peter Nolan was the ACTU scapegoat as, indeed, John Reid is now the ABA's scapegoat. I think it is worth recalling that after Lionel Revelman's death the Bourke's store began to slide. Blanche d'Alpuget stated: Hawke consistently refused to tell the ACTU executive what the financial position of Bourkes was . . . Failing information from Hawke, the ACTU executive became increasingly ill-humoured and suspicious about Bourkes. From the latter part of 1980 and through 1981 signs in titanic black letters were painted on the whitewashed windows of Bourkes, announcing baldly: BOURKES-ACTU IS FINISHED. I suggest that on the whitewashed walls of this place might well today be written: `Hawke's Government is finished'. The circumstances today in the ABA are identical with Hawke's failure as President of the ACTU to concern himself with the financial details of Bourkes store. It is equally important that we realise that as far as the general circumstances of the Bicentennial Authority are concerned, this affair did not begin on 11 September. We all know that on 1 December last year the Prime Minister decided that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) should be removed from the position of exercising responsibility for the- Mr Hunt —He was an early scapegoat. Mr SINCLAIR —He was an earlier scapegoat. That is right. He was one of those who was removed because the Prime Minister, quite properly, said that the ABA would demand greater attention by the Government between now and 1988. The problem is that the Prime Minister has not given that greater attention to it. Part of our reason today for addressing the attention of the House and the people of Australia to the Prime Minister's failure in exercising proper ministerial responsibility is that he did not fulfil that undertaking when he appointed himself the Minister responsible for the Authority on 1 December. It was not just that. We know that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has been writing letters to the Prime Minister which the Prime Minister has not read. The Minister expressed his rising concern that the Authority had spent $20m on its own administration and had little in concrete projects to show for it. Mr Jim Maher, the Federal President of the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association is a member of the ABA Board. He has been advising the Prime Minister on what has been happening. Mr Cohen —We took a lot of notice of him. That is why Armstrong got the chopper. Mr SINCLAIR —The Prime Minister is taking about as much notice of the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) and the Minister. That is one of the problems, because the Prime Minister has taken no notice whatsoever of anybody until Sir Geoffrey Yeend, the head of his Department, told him that things were not going too well. Ranald Macdonald, a senior newspaper executive, resigned from the Bicentennial Authority in July, as all will recall. The circumstances did not just begin in September. There has been the Prime Minister's appointment, letters from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and participation in the affairs of the Bicentennial Authority by two of his confidantes-that is if they could get through to him. They all tried to get through to the Prime Minister and tell him what was happening. Jim Maher, the honourable member for Calare, and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment spoke to the Prime Minister who refused to listen to advice. What happened? The Prime Minister decided on 10 September that something had to give. Having told Mr John Reid that what had to give was Dr Armstrong, the Prime Minister acted entirely on the basis of wanting as expeditiously, quietly and cleanly as possible to get rid of Dr Armstrong. There was no concern about the size of the payout. There was no belated concern and puzzlement that we read about in his letter of 30 September. We had a determination by the Prime Minister, without proper legal advice, without consultation with the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General, without referring to his ministerial colleagues and without consultation-if he felt fit to do so-with the full Board of the Bicentennial Authority. There was none of that. He is now quite prepared to say that one man alone is to blame for the whole affair. Whatever the Prime Minister does, he, above all, has to be kept free of any odium or blame that might follow. Yesterday, we learned from no less than the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth that the reason that the Prime Minister sacked Mr Reid was wrong. We learned that there was no tax evasion. If there was tax evasion it was not carried out very effectively. It is worthwhile looking at the degree to which others have taken legal advice. True it is that the Solicitor-General disagrees with the advice tended by Allen, Allen and Hemsley, but the man being blamed for the dismissal of Dr Armstrong and for the size of that large payout at least took legal advice. He went to the Bicentennial Authority's solicitors. He sought written advice from them. Their written advice was the basis on which he acted. We know from the Solicitor-General that Mr Reid made no inquiry about taxation. Mr Reid was not involved in any suggested tax avoidance scheme, so the whole basis on which the Prime Minister has said that Mr Reid needed to go has been dismissed, both in terms of the Solicitor-General's advice and the admission by the Prime Minister in this House today. As to the degree to which there was a concealment of the package, how can it possibly be that in the circumstance of that constant request by Mr Reid for prime ministerial approval as to the nature of the payout the Prime Minister knew nothing about it. He said in this House today: `I did not know anything about it until 26 September'. How ridiculous it is for a man in a position to ask any questions that he wanted, to get any legal advice that he wanted, to have had the report, which he tabled yesterday, presented before the payout on 30 August, to say: `I did not know anything about it'. If he did not know anything about it and he did not take any advice on the basis of the payout, he stands condemned from his own lips. This country cannot afford a Prime Minister who is so neglectful of his responsibilities that he consistently lies or misstates the truth or- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Mr SINCLAIR —I withdraw the word `lie'. He deliberately misstates the truth, tells half truths or, by deliberate omission, conceals his own involvement. There is no basis on which the Prime Minister can avoid the total responsibility for the size of that payout to Dr Armstrong. That is sad, because now the Solicitor-General's advice states that the matter has to go to the courts so that the public money can be recovered. The circumstances of this affair are sorry indeed. The record of the Prime Minister is disastrous. There is no basis on which the Parliament of this nation can afford to have a Prime Minister who so consistently is prepared to neglect his ministerial responsibility. I believe that the Prime Minister rightly stands condemned. This censure motion should be supported unanimously by the members of this Parliament. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(3.46) —A number of issues were raised. There is the question of ministerial responsibility, the matter of Dr Armstrong's resignation, the resignation of Mr Reid, the actions of the Prime Minister, the payout to Dr Armstrong and, now, the advice given by the Solicitor-General in relation to this matter. It would be fair to start by making available to all honourable members who have not read it the letter from Dr Armstrong to Mr Reid on his resignation on 22 August. I take the time of the House to read it because honourable members will get in context the problems that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been facing in relation to the Australian Bicentennial Authority. The letter states: Dear Mr Reid, As you know, the Bicentennial Authority has been the object of increasing questions and criticism in recent months, both publicly and privately. In my view, that criticism has been largely ill-informed. The questions raised have been dealt with fully and firmly, one by one; I believe that the answers given have been generally satisfactory to the Government, the media and the community as a whole. Nevertheless, the criticism has left in its wake a vague, generalised disquiet concerning the Authority and its management. More specifically, critics of the Authority continue to express their concerns at my own approach to the role of Chief Executive. I do not accept the validity of those concerns, but nonetheless, I have to recognise that despite every effort to define and respond to them, they continue to exist. The coming months represent a critical phase in the Authority's development. Already much has been accomplished. The Authority is now moving from program concepts and planning to implementation. This transformation, I firmly believe, simply cannot be accomplished successfully in the current environment in which criticism of the Authority and of myself is having a destabilising effect on the conduct of its affairs. The Authority has such critical paths to determine and such tight, immovable deadlines, that it simply cannot afford such instability. I have therefore concluded very reluctantly that it would be self-indulgent of me to continue to stand and fight the critics although that is, of course, my natural inclination when to do so might place at risk all that we have achieved so far and the success of the Bicentennial itself. I therefore consider it my duty to stand aside in the earnest hope that this gesture will satisfy the critics and permit the Authority to successfully complete its important work. Accordingly, I hereby give you notice of my resignation from the position of Chief Executive of the Authority, in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of my Appointment. There are three other paragraphs. The document is a public document and is available to everybody. First, it establishes that Dr Armstrong recognised that there was widespread criticism of his administration as Chief Executive of the Bicentennial Authority. It was bit just a criticism coming from the Prime Minister. It was, as established in the debate yesterday, criticism coming even from the Opposition, through its shadow spokesmen who, in July, long before these events, had written to the Prime Minister questioning the efficiency of the Authority. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) raised the question of the efficiency and the operations of the Bicentennial with the Prime Minister at the very time that the Prime Minister was involving himself in what was happening, and receiving criticisms from the honourable member for Bradfield and other people. Dr Armstrong recognised that and used it as the reason he submitted his resignation. Secondly, he gave notice of his resignation `in accordance with the terms and conditions of my appointment'. We now find the terms and conditions of his appointment in a letter between Mr Reid and himself were four months notice either way. They were the terms of his employment. The terms were not that his contract should be bought out should he leave sometime before 1989, as was suggested earlier in the discussions or was the impression left from the discussions between Mr Reid and the Prime Minister, which led the Prime Minister to believe that the payout could be in the order of over $400,000 and perhaps approaching $500,000. When the letter came to light expressing the arrangements that had been made by Mr Reid, the Chairman, and Dr Armstrong, it showed that there was four months notice either way. Frankly, I would have been surprised if there had been any other contract signed between a government authority and one of its employees, considering that that person would have been promised employment for up to 10 years. So firstly, Dr Armstrong recognised the criticism within the community; and secondly, he said; `It is an immovable object; we have to hold the celebrations in 1988. We cannot put it off for a while until we get things back on a more even keel, with me as Chief Executive'. Dr Armstrong recognised all that and resigned, which is what the Prime Minister said to Mr Reid would be in everybody's best interests when he held a meeting with him. Mr Reid did what he considered to be in the best interests of the Authority by seeking Dr Armstrong's resignation. All that came to pass. The Opposition now raises the question of the $500,000. From the evidence given to this House, there is no doubt that the impression left with the Prime Minister was that we were buying out Dr Armstrong's contract and that was our responsibility. That was not the Government's responsibility. The letter given to Dr Armstrong by Mr Reid four years ago said that four months notice either way could be given. That was our legal responsibility, as was pointed out yesterday in the Solicitor-General's opinion. There was a marked contrast between the reality of the contract between the Authority and Dr Armstrong and what the Prime Minister was led to believe. Nevertheless, that having been settled, Mr Reid then placed himself in the precarious position of giving the Prime Minister the impression that the Authority would have to pay out that money. All the cards are now on the table. Everybody knows exactly what happened. Someone has said that there should perhaps be some criticism of the Prime Minister for taking this action. The Prime Minister is the Minister responsible for the Australian Bicentennial Authority. There was a widespread criticism. In Dr Armstrong's letter of 22 August, he said that it would help the Authority if he resigned and got out. He recognised that the criticism was not just Government criticism but widespread community criticism which he could not overcome by staying in his position. He said that it was in the interests of the Authority and of Australia for him to resign, to get out and let somebody else carry on the task. The Opposition has tried every tactic in bringing this matter forward for debate, as is its responsibility, and today it is the ministerial responsibility of the Prime Minister. The Opposition has said that things should have happened slightly differently, and it should have been brought home to the Prime Minister. We all know what the Coombs Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration said in relation to ministerial responsibility. The Royal Commission said that the issue of ministerial responsibility is sometimes used by the Opposition in a very minor way to point up what it hopes will be a political embarrassment to the Government. I suppose it is fair enough, if honourable members opposite are going to do that, to compare the conduct of this Government in regard to this issue with the conduct of the Fraser Administration on a couple of occasions when it had to look at ministerial responsibility. I remind honourable members what the Kelly Committee of Inquiry to Examine Commonwealth and State Meat Inspection Systems had to say about the colleague of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). What did the Committee inquiring into the meat scandal have to say about Mr Nixon and what he should be doing? The Royal Commission said that the Minister, Mr Nixon, did not deal with these allegations adequately and effectively. It said that the Minister had been grossly negligent in his duties. That is what the Royal Commission said about Mr Nixon. What was the reaction and the response of the government of the day to the criticism by the Committee of Mr Nixon's administration of his portfolio? The then Prime Minister stood up here and said that the Committee was wrong. He said: `The judge has misinterpreted the evidence given before him. I do not intend to take any action at all'. That was one response we had from Malcolm, the mate of the Leader of the National Party, in relation to the criticism of Mr Nixon by the Committee. The all-party Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in September 1981 reported that the Australian Dairy Corporation had contravened General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade arrangements on minimum export prices. It further found that the responsible Minister had knowledge of the breach at least as early as September 1976 and that he did nothing. This was despite the Minister's numerous subsequent statements in the House denying any knowledge of the breach. It was despite his own subsequent statements that he regarded any breach of the GATT as totally unacceptable. The Minister was grossly derelict in his duties and he misled the Parliament, yet he not only remained in the Ministry but in the Cabinet. Who was that? The second speaker for the Opposition today, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), was found guilty by all these authorities in terms of his ministerial responsibilities. Mr Hunt —What about you? Mr YOUNG —We can take it one step further. The Deputy Leader of the National Party has opened up a new arena. He asks `What about you?'. I think we are entitled to put all the cards on the table, now that the honourable member has opened the debate up. Who will be Deputy Prime Minister if the coalition gets back into government? The right honourable member for New England will be Deputy Prime Minister. Let us look at what Mr Justice Cross said about the right honourable member for New England. My God, talk about parliamentary and ministerial responsibility! I was not going to get to this matter, but honourable members opposite did provoke me. On page 23 of the report of the Special Commission of Inquiry under Mr Justice Cross it was stated: It must be said that in his evidence to this Commission Mr Sinclair has retreated a considerable distance from the forthright and grave nature of his televised comments in his Canberra speech. And indeed, in an interview with a senior police officer between the time of that speech and his appearance at this Commission, Mr Sinclair retreated much further . . . The Commission comes very comfortably to the view that no such . . . proposal or representation as Mr Sinclair alleges occurred took place. This is a statement made about somebody who will be the next Deputy Prime Minister in a conservative government. The Cross inquiry stated on page 24 of its report: . . . it is clear that an independent magistrate had found that there was sufficient evidence to warrant Mr Sinclair standing trial and that a plurality of Senior and independent Counsel had recommended Mr Sinclair's prosecution . . . In the light of the number and status of persons unanimously recommending prosecution the direction of the Attorney-General that the trial proceed was at least understandable . . . It appears to this Commission that it would have been improbable in the extreme bordering on the impossible for such a prosecution suddenly to have been stopped by political direction. Do honourable members remember all the allegations made at the Tattersall's Club by the right honourable member for New England? Mr Sinclair —How is Mr Justice Hope? Mr YOUNG —The right honourable member need not worry about opening up these things. The House will recall that a few minutes ago the right honourable member for New England was talking about Bourke's store. I thought he had Manning Clark on his staff as a research officer. He was going back into history. I will tell honourable members opposite what the Prime Minister did when he was running Bourke's store. He stopped all that nonsense about retail price maintenance, which those opposite would not do. They were allowing companies to fix their prices at the retail outlets. That is something the Prime Minister did. I will tell the House something else the Prime Minister did which was totally consistent with the action he has taken on Dr Armstrong. Honourable members know and the Australian public knows that one of the most beneficial superannuation schemes in this country belongs to parliamentarians. They also know that the person who has taken the action to ensure that these vast lump sums cannot be taken from taxpayers in future is this Prime Minister. After 1983, we had Sir Billy Snedden, Mr McLeay, Mr Fraser, Sir James Killen, Sir Billy McMahon and Mr Nixon all coming in here with their wheelbarrows and taking out about $500,000 in superannuation. It looked like the Liberal Party branch of the Builders Labourers Federation! They were coming in here with their wheelbarrows to take out their superannuation. This Government has put a stop to that. Mr Connolly —For 25 years of service, not five years. Mr YOUNG —This is totally consistent with the action the Prime Minister has taken in relation to the payment made to Dr Armstrong. He was told we were buying out his six-year contract. Mr Connolly —You can't even count. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr YOUNG —I can say to honourable members opposite that if they tell the people at the next election that when they get back into power they will change the parliamentary superannuation scheme back to the giant rip-off under the Fraser regime, they will never get votes. That is what they did. The big wheelbarrows were coming in. Malcolm got $540,000, and was already a multi-millionaire living in the western districts of Victoria. But he came and got 560,000 bucks from the taxpayers to retire on. Bob Hawke stopped that. By his actions and by taking responsibility for the Australian Bicentennial Authority, he is also going to stop this massive payout to Dr Armstrong. What the Prime Minister has done in relation to all of these matters has been perfectly correct. The ministerial responsibility shown by the Prime Minister has been far and above the conduct of many of the Ministers who served in the Fraser regime. I move: That the question be now put. Question resolved in the affirmative. Original question put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R.F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G, Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Howard, J. W. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, 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. Lee, M.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDarling, E. E. Morris, PeterDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, 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. Simmons, D. W. (Teller)Gayler, J. 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.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Rocher, A. C. Humphreys, B. C.Aldred, K. J. Gear, G.Cameron, Donald Lindsay, E. J.Dobie, J. D. M. Scott, J. L.McVeigh, D. T. Hurford, C. J.Braithwaite, R. A. Hayden, W. G. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the 1984 report on the activities of the Film Censorship Board. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I table the 1984-85 report of the Australian Industries Assistance Commission. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SINCLAIR —I do, Mr Speaker, by the sergeant-major of the Dad's Army. I thought that I should respond, albeit very briefly. I have been misrepresented on three counts. The first is that it was alleged that I was responsible for the decision to sell the Tracker aircraft. Of course that is not true because it was a decision taken by my predecessor, and after the decision was taken not to acquire HMS Invincible the de- cision was taken to retain the Tracker aircraft because of their still considerable suitability in the fields identified in my Press statement which the Leader of the House (Mr Young) read to the House. The second count is that the Leader of the House alleged that I had made the comment in a speech to the Northern Australian Development Corporation in October 1982 that the Tracker aircraft were not suitable for surveillance. As he pointed out in reading my speech, the cost was higher but the suitability remained. In fact, the aircraft are suitable for in-shore maritime surveillance and for maritime surveillance close around a ship. They are not suitable in the long areas for which the P3Cs, which he extolled, are used. The third count is that he suggested that in some way the sale of the aircraft was therefore justified on the basis that it would cost only $174 to charter aircraft for an hour for maritime surveillance as against something over $1,100 for the Trackers, yet he has given away the Trackers at a discount price of which even Coles would be proud. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party is now debating the matter, not pointing out where he was misrepresented. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Brumby,Mr Cleeland,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Hawker,Mr Howe,Mr Milton and Mr Reith. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of ALP policy to make child care services available to all at an affordable cost. Further, that the fee rises arising from the cuts will cause great hardship to the majority of families using these services. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House fully restores all Federal funding to children's services in Australia, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Dr Charlesworth,Mr Hicks,Ms Jakobsen and Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We the undersigned deplore the gross violations of human rights by the Philippines Military. We request the Australian Government to stop all military aid to the Philippines till there is a halt to these atrocities. by Mr Beale. 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, fulfilling employment, 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. Create an Australian Ministry for Peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict; 2. Convene a national Summit of Survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and international co-operation; 3. Support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund peace activities; 4. Actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education, self help development and environmental repair; 5. Develop National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops to assist the greening of Australia. 6. Implement National Recycling Programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted domestic sewage-sludge and organic garbage with mineral-rich gravel dust, a by-product from rock quarries and mines, into hygeinic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in revitalising improverished soils. 7. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, 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, fulfilling employment, 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 assisting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reducing our military expenditure by at least 10% and allocating this to fund environment repair programs; (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted seweage-sludge and organic garbage mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich rocks to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops to assist the greening of Australia. by Ms Jakobsen. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to all returned service personnel. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that all changes to benefits for veterans', and conditions of service for military personnel, as announced in the May Economic Statement, be withdrawn as to allow sufficient time for sensible community debate before any veteran or service person can be unfairly disadvantaged. by Mr Blunt. 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 we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death Tax described as ``Capital Gains Tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respecfully showeth that: As residents of the towns of Ayr and Home Hill and surrounding districts, your petitioners do humbly pray that the Australian Government, in recognition of the present plight of the sugar industry in our region and other parts of Australia, and in recognition of the importance of the industry to the economic and social well-being of our community, provide urgent financial assistance to that industry to ensure the survival and future viability of our local economy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the Arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos and other pornographic material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions or benefits. That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable. That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. 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 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 hard-core 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 Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely disatisfied with the pricing of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively, with recent Government decisions adding over 8c per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6c per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their cars for essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3c per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises in the cost of petrol. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. 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 the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled: Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ``States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitution. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26/1/85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. 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 the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: The introduction of identity cards in itself will not help shift the tax burden to the tax evading wealthy. Potentially, the associated computerisation of taxation, social security, health, employment and compensation records, will combine to act as a net to catch virtually only people who are dependent on non-wage incomes-the poorest in the community, the majority of whom are women, who are five times more likely to be living in poverty than men. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. The Government refrains from introducing compulsory identity cards. 2. The Government introduces radical tax reforms to redress the economic imbalance against women. 3. The Government reviews the presently inadequate social security system and implements the concept of income security. by Mr Howe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia. Respectfully showeth: that the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 5. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitiioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further Capital Gains and Wealth Taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of Capital Gains and Wealth Taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Orana Region, N.S.W. respectfully showeth: 1. To restore the $19m cut from the TAFE Participation and Equity Program which is run to provide employment skills, for Australia's unemployed youth. 2. To ensure the maintenance of an accommodation allowance for rural students attending P.E.P. Courses at locations distant from their homes. 3. To oppose the imposition of a tax on the Living Away From Home Allowance for existing P.E.P. Students. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will consider our petition. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: 1. Badgery's Creek and surrounding district are unsuitable sites for any major airport due to environmental, conservation and weather factors. 2. Many hundreds of people will be dislocated and many thousands more will be disturbed by the siting of an airport at Badgery's Creek and surrounding districts. 3. New South Wales taxpayers cannot afford the cost of a second airport when at a minimum of cost upgrading and expansion the Kingsford Smith will satisfy the needs of New South Wales air travellers in the foreseeable future. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will not approve an airport at Badgery's Creek and surrounding districts. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Grace. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: that the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right of Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth; 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) the Union Jack, itself the creation of 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 remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth that: Without any warning and at the worst possible moment, the Federal Government has abandoned the pensioner patients in South Australia's Nursing Homes. These people are suffering underserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85% of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that doesn't exist. We request that the Federal Government: 1. alleviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care 2. restore the review of the benefit rates in November 1985 3. resolve its concerns over health care costs with the South Australian Government rather than inflicting unnecessary suffering on nursing home patients. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The high interest rate strategy employed by the Government to maintain the ALP-ACTU Accord in the face of a falling Australian dollar. 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- Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the business of the day be called on. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J.Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C.Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. McHugh, J.Charles, D. E. McLeay, LeoCharlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J.Child, J. Martin, S. P.Chynoweth, R. L. Mayer, H.Cleeland, P. R. Mildren, J. B.Cohen, B. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, PeterDarling, E. E. Mountford, J. G.Dawkins, J. S. O'Keefe, N. P.Dubois, S. G. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duffy, M. J. Price, L. R. S.Duncan, P. Punch, G. F.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Fatin, W. F. Scholes, G. G. D.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Simmons, D. W. (Teller)Free, R. V. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous. A. C.Grace, E. L. Tickner. R. E.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman. W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry 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.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Humpreys, B. C. Rocher, A. C.Gear, G. Aldred, K. J.Lindsay, E. J. Cameron, DonaldScott, J. L. Dobie, J. D. M.Hurford, C. J. McVeigh, D. T.Hayden, W. G. Braithwaite, R. A. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Message received from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendment disagreed to by the House of Representatives and has agreed to the amendment made by the House in place thereof. Bill received from the Senate and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Bill received from the Senate and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.28) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. It is with great pleasure that I move the introduction of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. This Bill will provide real and significant protection for rights and freedoms essential to real democracy and to the respect for human dignity in Australia. The rights and freedoms established by the Australian Bill of Rights are those rights and freedoms internationally recognised as the minimum standards to which governments should conform in dealing with individuals within their jurisdictions. I stress that a Bill of Rights only provides minimum rights which are fundamental. Other legislation in different areas can, of course, build upon these rights. The centrepiece of the Bill is the self- contained Bill of Rights in clause 8, which further implements the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. Before turning to the details of the Bill and of the Bill of Rights, I think it is vital to recall the genesis of the Bill and the history of Australia's approach to human rights issues. Background to the Bill of Rights The starting point is the establishment of the United Nations under its charter in 1945 and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The Universal Declaration is widely known and quoted. It sets out, in simple and inspirational terms, fundamental human, civil, political, social and economic rights. In the aftermath of the Second World War, it marked a new stage in the development of international law, dealing with the rights of individuals themselves and not just nation States. It was agreed by all who signed the Declaration that human rights could no longer be treated as merely internal matters but were now matters of concern to all humanity. However, the Universal Declaration was not a legally binding treaty. Accordingly, using it as a starting point, work began under the auspices of the United Nations to develop more detailed and legally binding treaty obligations by which States agreed to guarantee more rights and freedoms to individuals within their borders. On the initiative of the Menzies Government, Australia was elected a member of the relevant UN agency, the Commission on Human Rights, in the 1950s and as such participated in the work of developing and negotiating what became the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The text of the International Covenant was unanimously concluded by Australia and 105 other countries on 16 December 1966. Honourable members will note therefore that both the Holt and Menzies governments participated in the development of the Covenant. Australia signed the Covenant on 18 December 1972 and began work on the steps leading to ratification. This was a matter on which there was bipartisan policy. The Fraser Government announced early its intention to ratify the Covenant and eventually, after several postponements, it ratified the Covenant in 1980. As part of the process preparatory to ratification of the Covenant and with the intention of bringing Australian law into conformity with its standards, Attorney-General Murphy introduced an Australian Human Rights Bill in 1973 designed to implement the Covenant. This Bill lay on the table but did not formally progress. Nevertheless, it marked the commencement of the debate about the feasibility and form of a Bill of Rights for Australia. The first Attorney-General of the Fraser Government, Mr Ellicott, introduced a Human Rights Commission Bill in 1977 as an alternate means of attempting to fulfil the obligations of the Covenant. The planned Human Rights Commission was to be part of the establishment of `systematic and comprehensive' procedures to protect the rights and freedoms of Australians. As such, the first Fraser model for the Human Rights Commission was to have wide powers to administratively encourage observance by both the Commonwealth and States of the standards established by the International Covenant. The 1977 Human Rights Commission Bill did not progress either. Extensive consultations with the States were entered into. Although several States, under both Labor and conservative Governments, enacted their own equal opportunity legislation, the then Commonwealth Government was not able to secure agreement and did not take legislative action until 1981 when the Human Rights Commission Act was passed, establishing the present Human Rights Commission. Even then, in our view, the Commission, which was restricted to the Commonwealth sphere, did not have adequate powers or terms of reference to properly allow it to guard and promote human rights. Nevertheless, the achievements of the previous Liberal-National Party Government, in creating the Human Rights Commission and appointing its members, must be acknowledged. Accompanying this Bill is a Bill to reform and improve the Human Rights Commission, which will be renamed and reconstituted as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Finally, it is important to recognise developments at State government level. Since 1977, the majority of States have become significantly involved with questions of basic rights in the areas of equal opportunity, sex discrimination and race discrimination. Now most States have their own legislation aimed at preventing specific forms of discrimination. Each of those jurisdictions has its own complaint investigation and dispute resolution machinery. Recognising the value and importance of these State laws and procedures, this Government has developed new relations with the States on human rights questions. Co-operative mechanisms to streamline the processing of complaints and inquiries under State and Commonwealth laws by the Human Rights Commission and like State bodies have been introduced. Agreements were signed with Victoria in 1983. New South Wales in 1984, and South Australia and Western Australia earlier this year. In passing, I note that the Commonwealth Government is willing to sign such an agreement with Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania as soon as those jurisdictions enact their own human rights and equal opportunity legislation. Existing State co-operative arrangements will continue under the new Commission. I have traced these developments because there needs to be an understanding of the significance which successive governments from both sides of politics have placed on human rights at both the international and domestic level generally, and of the importance of the International Covenant and the aspirations and obligations it embodies in particular. Liberal-National Party governments, both recently and earlier, have espoused similar principles concerning human rights as have the Australian Labor Party governments. However, this Government came to office pledged to more fully implement the terms of the International Covenant and my immediate predecessor set to work to prepare a draft Bill of Rights for this purpose. I welcome most gratefully the great assistance this has provided for this Bill. The Need for a Bill of Rights The assumption of international obligations under treaty is a solemn and significant act. In becoming a party to the International Covenant, Australia bound itself by Article 2 of the Covenant to respect and to ensure to all individuals in Australia the rights in the Covenant. Unlike the previous Government, this Government has never been satisfied that administrative mechanisms, particularly of the limited kind which eventually emerged under the 1981 Act, were the only means by which Australia could or should carry out such a clear undertaking. What is equally significant so far as the introduction of this Bill is concerned, is that the Covenant itself specifically commits Australia to adopt legislative measures to give effect to the rights it contains-Article 2:2. A strategy of compliance with international human rights standards which does not involve legislative definitions of rights must be half-hearted and hollow, if not suspect. Those who argue that our existing legal and social institutions make a Bill of Rights unnecessary, overlook that the common law does not offer clear or wide-ranging statements of an individual's freedoms and liberties; at best, the common law offers remedies in a haphazard and incidental way often only after satisfying complex procedural requirements; the power of the Parliament to confine or withdraw totally common law `rights'-this may occur unintentionally and even unnoticed by the public at large; the fragility of community attitudes and pressures on which so many of what are popularly regarded as individual freedoms rely. In the light of this, the Government does not believe that it is sufficient or appropriate to rely on administrative measures alone and those aspects of our common law or general culture which recognise rights here and there. Furthermore, the enactment of a Bill of Rights has a vital educative function. It has the capacity to inspire respect for fundamental freedoms and libterties by setting out rights in positive, declaratory form. It is a broadly based declaration drafted in Australia for Australians, in conformity with international standards. Alternatives whether reliance on the common law, particular legislation or administrative mechanisms and programs without more do not spell out and proclaim key rights and concepts in the same way as does the Bill of Rights. This approach was recognised in the Parliament in 1977 when former Attorney-General Ellicott spoke of the importance of such a charter. He said, as set out in House of Representatives Hansard, volume 107, at page 2511: I think there is one aspect at which we should be looking, and that is whether there could be evolved a declaration of human rights that could be adopted by this Parliament and also by every other parliament in the country. Honourable members will know that in Canada there is a declaration of human rights. It is, in effect, part of Canada's constitutional documents. It would be a good thing in this country if we were able to use the covenant on civil and political rights to formulate legislation which formed the basis of a declaration of human rights in this country. It could then act as a guide to legislation in this Parliament and in every other parliament in the country. It could, in effect, be a broadly based, broadly stated document. It could, in effect, be almost a constitutional document . . . it would be a step a very significant step towards getting a broadly based system in this country. Legislative protection of human rights is of fundamental importance in assuring full democratic processes in Australia. It is vital to realise that the common law provides no guarantees of important rights such as freedom of expression, movement or peaceful assembly or the right to a speedy trial, legal aid or many other rights in the administration of criminal justice. Cases continually demonstrate the weakness of the common law in defining and protecting rights. For example, it has been held that the common law has never contained a fundamental guarantee of the right of religious freedom and expression. Such a right is included in the Australian Bill of Rights. Even where common law or statutory remedies exist, these can, in the absence of a Bill of Rights, be set aside by Parliament or by subordinate legislation. A Bill of Rights acts as a check upon possible excess by the government of the day. It provides a positive means of guiding the actions of legislators, administrators and public officials. It applies also as a guide to the courts in determining the common law from time to time. In summary therefore, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill provides legislative recognition and protection and judicial enforcement of human rights. It also provides administrative measures for investigation and conciliation by the proposed Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Scope of the Bill of Rights In turning to the Bill in detail, it is important to emphasise the different levels of operation of the Bill of Rights and the functions which the Parliament, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the courts are to have in relation to the rights and freedoms set out in the Bill of Rights. The Parliament in passing this Bill will spell out the legal meaning for Australian citizens and residents of the obligations assumed by the nation as a party to the International Covenant. The Parliament is the forum to which the Commission will report; the Parliament will also have the role of acting on reports of the Commission which identify areas of law or governmental practice which breach the Bill of Rights, by framing specific laws as necessary to ensure compliance with our obligations. In legal proceedings concerning Commonwealth and Territory laws the courts will be able to protect individuals whose rights or freedoms have been trammelled, by referring to the Bill of Rights. The Commission and its delegates in the States will have the role of investigating and conciliating at the administrative level complaints by individuals against governments. The Commission will also have a central role to play in changing those attitudes that result in the denial of rights. By the development of programs of education and research, the Commission should make the public more aware of the need to respect human rights. The operation of the Bill with respect to governmental practices and legislation is structured in the following way: As to Commonwealth laws generally (earlier and later than the Bill of Rights), the Bill of Rights will act as a guide to construction and interpretation; as to later Commonwealth laws, the Bill of Rights will as far as possible (subject only to an explicit intention to the contrary) render inconsistent laws inoperative; as to earlier Commonwealth laws, after five years from commencement it will be able to be called upon to override inconsistent laws; as to Commonwealth and State laws and practices these may be referred to the Commission for inquiry, and conciliation where appropriate, and for study and report to Parliament. The Australian Bill of Rights consists of 32 articles, contained in clause 8 of the proposed legislation. It attempts to avoid the sometimes difficult language of ordinary Acts. It has been drafted in succinct and understandable terms with the objective of providing an inspirational and educative charter that can be used separately from the Act. The embodiment of rights in such a Bill will make people more aware of their rights and make infringements more obvious and conspicuous. The scope of the Australian Bill of Rights is designed to protect individuals against violations of their rights by the impact of laws or by the actions of governmental institutions. It does not affect the rights of individuals in relation to each other. While not able to guarantee human rights, the common law has designed mechanisms to provide some limited protection or recognition of rights. Article 2 of the Bill of Rights provides that existing rights and freedoms will not be diminished or denied on the basis that they are not included in the Bill of Rights. Thus the Bill of Rights operates in addition to, and not in substitution for, any protection provided by or under any other law, which includes the common law. The six Divisions of the Australian Bill of Rights protect a wide range of fundamental and political rights. Article 1 guarantees the rights of equality before the law and to equal protection of the law without distinctions. The right to privacy, the right to marry and found a family and the rights of the child are protected under the Bill-Division 4. Freedom of movement and choice of residence are guaranteed to every person lawfully in Australia-Division 5. The Bill sets out the political rights and freedoms fundamental to a free, democratic society in Division 3. They include the right of every Australian citizen to participate in public life, to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections and to have access on general terms of equality to public employment. Freedom of expression, including freedom of the Press, is guaranteed under the Australian Bill of Rights as are the rights of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of thought and conscience and freedom to adopt a religion or belief. The pluralist and multicultural nature of Australian society is also recognised in Division 3 of the Bill of Rights. That Division includes the rights of persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, in community with other members of their own group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language. The rights affecting the administration of criminal justice, often called the `due process rights', are set out in Division 6 which deals with life, liberty and criminal processes. They include the right to be informed of reasons for arrest and of charges, the right to consult with a lawyer and to remain silent, the presumption of innocence and the right to be tried within a reasonable time. In criminal proceedings in the exercise of federal jurisdiction and in Territory courts, the courts will be required to exclude evidence obtained in contravention of the Bill of Rights unless it is demonstrated that the admission of the evidence would substantially benefit the public interest in the administration of criminal justice, and that that benefit would outweigh the infringement of rights involved. The Government takes the view that such an approach is preferable to the United States position where there is a blanket exclusion of evidence obtained in contravention of the Bill of Rights. The test for the admission of evidence obtained in contravention of the Bill of Rights will be clearer and wider than that developed in the High Court in Bunning v. Cross. Limitation of Rights The Bill recognises that rights cannot be absolute. They must be balanced against other rights and the general welfare of the community. The Covenant itself qualifies many of the individual rights with elaborate limitation provisions. These provisions permit a wide range of exceptions and restrictions on such grounds as the necessity to protect national security, public order, public health or the rights and freedoms of others. Many such limitations are obviously necessary in terms of practical realities. Some may also have been necessary to achieve the wide range of international support from countries with differing political and legal systems and social values. The desire to have in Australia a broadly worded inspirational charter led to the inclusion in this Bill of a general test of permissible limitations on rights. By Article 3 the rights and freedoms in the Bill of Rights are `subject only to such reasonable limitations prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society'. In addition, they shall not be limited to an extent greater than that permitted by the relevant Covenant provisions. This approach, which is similar to the one adopted in the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will allow all reasonable limits necessary in the interests of the community generally and of other individuals. The approach also allows some flexibility and adjustment to current community standards in the limitations which should be permitted in relation to any particular rights. The Bill of Rights will, of course, operate only as ordinary Commonwealth legislation. It will be able to be overridden by future Commonwealth legislation. We have endeavoured, in clause 12 of the Bill, to provide a mechanism so that any such overriding of the Bill of Rights in future will not happen by accident. Rather, it will only happen when the Parliament has clearly adverted to the possibility of conflict and, by clear words in the relevant new legislation, has indicated its intention that the provisions of the legislation, to the extent that they are in conflict with the Bill of Rights, are to prevail over the Bill of Rights. The Government is committed both internationally and nationally to promoting the fundamental civil and political rights detailed in the Covenant and implementing those standards in Australia. Naturally, it is our intention to hold those standards high and we would not lightly wish to diminish or override them in the future, or to see future governments do so. The Bill of Rights Bill will not be able to override existing Commonwealth or Territory legislation until five years after the commencement of the Bill. This period will permit an orderly examination of Commonwealth and Territory legislation to see if it might be in breach of the Bill of Rights. In that period we might expect some amendments to legislation which will utilise clause 12 and make certain provisions apply notwithstanding the Bill of Rights. We do not anticipate that much Commonwealth legislation will be found to be in breach of the Bill of Rights. However, the results which might flow from the invalidation of some aspects of Commonwealth legislation, particularly that with appropriation implications, may lead the Government to spell out, if only from an abundance of caution, that a small range of legislation may need to operate notwithstanding the Bill of Rights. A situation where this might occur might be the maintenance of military discipline and certain essential elements of government immigration policy. All such areas would no doubt be areas where the Government was itself of the view that the restrictions it wished to impose were `demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society' within the terms of Article 3, but because of the nature of the legislation, wished to put the matters beyond doubt. The advantage of the approach taken in Article 3 is that there is a reverse onus on those who would limit the basic rights in the Bill of Rights. Similarly with clause 12, a government would need to justify to the Parliament the need to override the Bill of Rights. Judicial and Administrative Enforcement of Bill of Rights Under Parts III and IV of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, the Bill of Rights will operate as a rule of construction in relation to Commonwealth and Territory legislation. It will have statutory force in that it will, five years after its commencement, deem any existing inconsistent Commonwealth enactment to be repealed. As discussed above, it will render inoperative any future inconsistent Commonwealth legislation which is not expressed to operate notwithstanding the Australian Bill of Rights. However, it will not operate to override any State law or Northern Territory law. The Bill of Rights is to be a shield and not a sword. It may be called in aid in any federal or Territory proceedings whether criminal or civil; however it cannot of itself be used to found proceedings. Under Part V the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will have the function of examining and reporting on both Commonwealth and State legislation which conflicts with the Australian Bill of Rights. It will recommend to Parliament legislation needed to prevent any such conflict. The Commission will be empowered to inquire into the acts and practices of Commonwealth and State departments and statutory authorities, and local government councils, for possible infringements of human rights. It is to inform the responsible State or Commonwealth Minister when it decides to proceed with an investigation. It will conduct inquiries when requested to do so by the Minister, when a complaint is received, or when it appears to the Commission to be desirable to do so. However, it will not be able to commence an inquiry into State matters without receiving the consent of the Commonwealth Attorney-General. The Commission's role when a complaint is first received is to attempt to conciliate the matter between the parties concerned. The Commission will be able to require witnesses to give evidence and documents to be produced. The Commission may include in a report to the Minister, a recommendation that compensation be paid, or that remedial action be undertaken, when loss or damage has been suffered as a result of an infringement of a human right. Where possible, the Government will develop co-operative arrangements with relevant agencies of the States and the Northern Territory concerning the investigation of complaints under the Australian Bill of Rights Bill on behalf of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. This will facilitate the continued development of `one-step shopping' by which persons concerned about breaches of human rights need only have their complaint dealt with by one agency. The Government has chosen to limit the extent of application of the Bill of Rights to the States, not because of any doubts concerning constitutional power, but in order to achieve if possible a co-operative approach to human rights protection. However, the Commonwealth expects the States and the Northern Territory to take action to amend or repeal legislation which offends human rights and also it is hoped that at least some States will enact their own Bill of Rights. The Government wishes to make it clear that if such action on the part of the States is not forthcoming, the Commonwealth reserves the right to enact specific overriding Commonwealth legislation and to extend the operation of the Bill of Rights to the States. Financial Impact The cost of implementation of the Bill is expected to be $0.35m this fiscal year and $1.4m for the next two years. The cost of administrative enforcement will be included in appropriations for the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. There will be additional costs associated with the appointment of full time commissioners to the new Commission. I deal with those costs in my second reading speech on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill. There will be some costs of judicial enforcement, including legal aid, which are difficult to estimate at this stage. The Australian Bill of Rights represents a very significant step forward in the protection and promotion of respect for human rights in Australia. It will act as a yardstick against which legislative and administrative intrusions on basic rights can be measured. It will provide a source of education and inspiration about the importance of fundamental rights and freedoms in a democratic society and it will enhance Australia's international reputation in the field of human rights. I believe it is a Bill of historic importance to Australia. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 is substantially the same as the Bill of the same title introduced into the Senate in September 1984 by the then Attorney-General. The Bill provides for the establishment of a new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to replace the existing Human Rights Commission. The new Commission will administer the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. It will also be the vehicle under which Australia's obligations under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 1958-that is, International Labour Organisation Convention No. 111-will be implemented. The proposed Australian Bill of Rights Act and any future legislation in the human rights area will also be administered through the new Commission. The Government's aim is to ensure that the new Commission will have an effective and cohesive leadership. To achieve this the membership of the Commission will be relatively small and the emphasis will be on full time professional appointments, although the Bill provides for part time appointments where such appointments are necessary. The Commission will comprise a President, the Race Discrimination Commissioner, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and at least one but not more than three other commissioners. The name of the new Commission, together with the inclusion of the specialist commissioners among its members, will reflect the Commission's important role in the areas of equal opportunity and anti-discrimination. The Bill also provides for the appointment of advisory committees. It is proposed to establish an advisory committee of State equal opportunity and anti-discrimination agencies heads to advise on matters including the co-ordination of procedures under Commonwealth-State co-operative enforcement arrangements. In addition, regional advisory committees may be established to keep the Commission in touch with community opinion and to utilise the expertise and good will which exists in relevant organisations and individuals in the community. Part time members of the present Human Rights Commission and former members of State employment discrimination committees could be included as members of the regional committees, together with representatives of relevant interest groups, including ethnic, disability and civil liberties organisations, women and Aborigines. It is also proposed to appoint a new National Advisory Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation, including representatives of State governments, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Australian Industry and certain specially interested groups such as Aborigines, women, people with disabilities, and ethnic minorities. This Committee will advise the Commission in the performance of its function and will have, in addition, the special functions of advising the Minister in relation to ILO Convention No. 111. New functions of the Commission in the employment and occupation area will enable the functions of existing State employment discrimination committees to be subsumed within the new Commission. At the same time, the establishment of the advisory committee system should ensure that the valuable expertise developed by the State committees during the past 10 years will not be wasted but will be put to an important and constructive use. The staffing arrangements and administrative structure of the new Commission will be the subject of review to ensure maximum efficiency and the most effective use of scarce resources. The functions of the Commission in the human rights area will be similar to those currently performed by the Human Rights Commission. Human rights, for the purposes of the legislation, are those rights and freedoms recognised in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons and the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. These international instruments are attached to the Bill. The Bill also contains provisions whereby the Minister, after consultations with the States, may declare other relevant international instruments for the purposes of the legislation. The Commission will have investigation, conciliation and reporting functions in relation to complaints of infringements of human rights. It will examine international instruments, Commonwealth enactments and, if requested by the Minister, proposed Commonwealth enactments to ensure they contain nothing inconsistent with or contary to any human rights. It will report to the Minister in relation to any laws that should be made or action that should be taken by the Commonwealth to comply with Australia's international obligations under the international instruments attached to the legislation and any declared relevant international instruments. It will undertake research, education and promotion activities and will perform functions conferred by any other Commonwealth or State legislation or under Commonwealth-State arrangements. In addition, the Commission will: formulate and publish guidelines in relation to matters, including the avoidance of discriminatory acts or practices, that fall within its functions; be able, with the consent of the court, to act as amicus curiae in cases where human rights or anti-discrimination issues are raised in legal proceedings; and be able to recommend, in relation to an act or practice that it finds infringes human rights or constitutes discrimination, that any loss or damage be the subject of a payment of compensation or other remedial action. I have mentioned the intended role of the Commission in implementing Australia's obligations under ILO Convention No. 111. That Convention, which Australia ratified in 1973, is included among the international instruments attached to the Bill. It requires, among other obligations, that each member state undertake `to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote, by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice, equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation, with a view to eliminating any discriminations in respect thereof'. Australia's national policy under the Convention was announced by the then Minister for Labour on 22 May 1973. The policy included the development of educational and conciliation processes and the establishment of national and State employment discrimination committees on a tripartite basis. It sought to achieve the co-operation of State and Commonwealth governments, employer and worker organisations and other appropriate bodies. The National Employment Discrimination Committee comprises representatives of the Commonwealth Government, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Confederation of Australian Industry, women, migrants and Aborigines, and has an independent chairperson. Its functions include advising the Government on the implementation of the Convention, considering complaints of discrimination in employment and occupation having national significance and complaints referred to it by the State committees, promoting equality of opportunity in employment, and co-ordinating a national education program. The various State committees, which include representatives of Commonwealth and State governments, employers and unions, together with an independent chairperson, consider complaints of discrimination in employment and occupation and implement a nationally developed education program. The national policy has undergone de facto changes since it was announced. It encouraged the development of administrative processes rather than the enactment of legislation providing enforceable rights. Special anti-discrimination legislation having an impact in the employment area has since been enacted by the Commonwealth Government and by all the State governments except Queensland and Tasmania. It has for some time been clear that the original policy needs to be reconsidered. In particular, the integration of the national and State employment discrimination committees within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has been publicly forecast. To achieve this, the Bill will give the new Commission important functions in the field of employment and occupation. It will have investigation, conciliation and reporting functions in relation to acts and practices in the Commonwealth sphere that are discriminatory on the grounds specified in the Convention-namely, race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin-and on such other grounds as are determined by the Minister. It is expected that these will include the extra grounds developed over the years by the committees-for example, age, criminal record, marital status, medical record, nationality, personal attributes, physical disability, sexual preference and trade union activities. The Commission will also be given investigation, conciliation and reporting functions in relation to discriminatory acts and practices engaged in within the States and the Northern Territory. It will not, however, have any coercive powers for obtaining information or evidence in this area. Unless it acquires additional powers in relation to acts and practices engaged in within the States pursuant to Commonwealth-State arrangements, the Commission's functions in the State area will be limited to functions of the kind already exercised by the existing State committees. In considering these new functions, the Government has recognised the need to preserve existing State specialist legislation and to ensure that complaints of discrimination covered by such legislation, or by other Commonwealth legislation, continue to be dealt with under that legislation. Under the Bill, a complaint that is covered by the Racial Discrimination Act or the Sex Discrimination Act will be dealt with under that Act rather than under the proposed new provisions. Similarly, a complaint of a discriminatory act or practice occurring within a State and covered by anti-discrimination legislation in that State will be referred to the State authorities to be dealt with under that legislation. The proposals to which the Bill gives effect, and in particular the implementation of ILO Convention No. 111 through the new Commission, have been the subject of consultations with State governments, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Confederation of Australian Industry. The Bill will establish a strengthened Commission with significantly widened functions. Its role in ensuring the effective compliance by Australia with its international obligations under the various relevant international instruments should contribute to the achievement of an effective scheme of protection of human rights in Australia and will increase Australia's international standing in the human rights area. The legislation is expected to come into operation during this financial year. Costs of administration are expected to be the same as those of the present Commission, with additional costs involved in salaries and support staff for the extra full time members of the new Commission. Total additional expenditure is estimated at approximately $600,000 in a full year. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill effects a technical change in the functions of the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, to be established by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985, to avoid, on the coming into operation of the Australian Bill of Rights Act 1985, a duplication of functions. As introduced in the House, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill confers on the new Commission similar functions in respect of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 currently confers on the Human Rights Commission. The Australian Bill of Rights legislation is to be the Government's means of implementing the Covenant. It is expected that the substantive provisions of that legislation will not come into operation until the middle of 1986. Until that time it is appropriate for the new Commission, which I expect will be established early in 1986, to continue performing the functions of the former Commission in relation to the Covenant. However, when the Australian Bill of Rights Act is in operation, it will no longer be necessary or appropriate for the Commission to exercise functions in relation to the Covenant other than those provided in that Act. To avoid this duplication of functions, this Bill removes references to the Covenant, and Schedule 2 containing the Covenant, from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act. This Bill will come into operation at the same time as the substantive provisions of the Australian Bill of Rights Act. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985 deals largely with technical matters. It contains transitional provisions necessary upon the establishment of the new Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission legislation. It also contains consequential and other amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Part II of the Bill repeals the Human Rights Commission Act 1981. It contains transitional and savings provisions designed to ensure that complaints made to, and examinations and inquiries commenced by, the Human Rights Commission but not dealt with before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission legislation comes into operation can be dealt with by the new Commission. Agreements entered into by the former Commission will also be saved. Officers of the former Commission will continue to be bound by the confidentiality requirements in the former Act, and moneys appropriated for the former Commission will be available to the new Commission. Part III of the Bill contains amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act. The office of Commissioner for Community Relations is to be replaced by a new office of Race Discrimination Commissioner. This change will bring a measure of uniformity into the Commonwealth's anti-discrimination legislation. The Race Discrimination Commissioner will be a member of the new Commission and will not be subject to the directions of the Commission in the performance of functions under the Racial Discrimination Act. The Bill contains savings provisions necessitated by the change of office of Commissioner and by the establishment of the new Commission. In the enforcement area, certificates signed by a member of the former Commission or by the former Commissioner may be used as the basis for instituting civil proceedings after the new legislation comes into operation. Certain penalties under the Act have been updated. Part IV of the Bill amends the Sex Discrimination Act. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner will be a member of the new Commission and will not be subject to the directions of the Commission in the performance of functions under the Sex Discrimination Act. Here again, savings provisions are necessary as a result of the establishment of the new Commission. The Bill contains new provisions in relation to determination functions. The Minister will be empowered to appoint persons on a part time basis to assist the new Commission in the performance of its determination functions under the Sex Discrimination Act. Persons so appointed will be deemed to be members of the Commission when they are called upon to take part in determination proceedings. The determination provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Racial Discrimination Act are under review, with a view to further developing a co-ordinated scheme of enforcement with the States which are already participating in co-operative arrangements with the Commonwealth in the field of human rights and equal opportunity legislation. In the interim these new provisions will enable the Commonwealth to expand the number of persons available to perform the determination functions of the Commission by appointing persons such as members of those State bodies which are already performing similar functions under existing State human rights and equal opportunity legislation. In this way, the Commonwealth will be able to utilise the expertise and experience which already exists in certain States. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is to strengthen and improve the working of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in significant respects. It provides for the amendment of key provisions directed at restrictive trade practices in order to increase their effectiveness. It includes important new provisions to extend the protection afforded to consumers by the Act. The Bill also clarifies the intended meaning of a number of provisions and effects other changes for which experience with the legislation has shown a need. The Trade Practices Act is a most important piece of legislation for the regulation of business practices in Australia. It is now some eight years since the Act was last comprehensively reviewed and it is time to address a number of problems which have arisen. The Government has demonstrated its sound economic management and its commitment to restoring the efficiency and vitality of Australian industry, with consequent benefits in increased employment opportunities and greater availability of reasonably priced commodities. The Trade Practices Act plays an important role in ensuring that the maximum benefits are obtained through an efficient allocation of our national resources, as well as protecting the interests of the consuming public and reputable businesses. The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that the Act is effectively and appropriately achieving its dual aims of promoting efficiency through competition, thereby ensuring goods are provided to the consumer at the cheapest price, and providing consumers and business people with an appropriate measure of protection against unscrupulous traders. This Bill represents the outcome of a major review of both the competition and consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act which was commenced immediately this Government came to office. The review, which was undertaken without preconceived notions or entrenched attitudes, led to the issuing in February last year of a Green Paper entitled `The Trade Practices Act: Proposals for Change'. The shipping provisions in Part X of the Act, administered by my colleague the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris), are the subject of a separate review and are not dealt with in this Bill. The introduction to the Green Paper indicated that it was intended to be a catalyst for public discussion and debate about the Trade Practices Act. The Green Paper succeeded in fostering debate, and 120 submissions were received from a wide range of groups including large and small business groups, representatives of other special interest groups, trade unions, consumer organisations, academics and other individuals. The original proposals were substantially reviewed in the light of these comments. Further changes were made following consultations earlier this year with key interest groups representing large and small business, consumers and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The process of consultation was extensive and proved valuable. As a result of that process, a number of the provisions of the Bill differ in significant respects from the proposals which were put forward in the Green Paper. The Bill also contains some provisions not foreshadowed in the Green Paper to deal with specific problems that have come to light since that paper was published. Proposals for recall of unsafe products were canvassed in a White Paper entitled `Recall of Unsafe Products' issued for public comment by the Office of Consumer Affairs in my Department in June 1985. The paper was the culmination of discussion over some years with industry and consumer groups on the options for an effective product recall system. The proposals in the Bill have been developed in the light of that process of consultation and of comments received on the White Paper. As indicated in the Australian Labor Party platform, this Government is committed to the development of uniform consumer protection legislation throughout Australia. The Standing Committee of Consumer Affairs Ministers is actively pursuing this issue, and has created a special working party of officials. Together with the Green Paper, the Government released a list of amendments to the Act sought by the State and Territory governments to facilitate the achievement of uniformity by making the Act a suitable basis for mirror legislation elsewhere in the Commonwealth. Public comment was invited and extensive consultation with the State and Territory governments has taken place. Some of the amendments to Division 1 of Part V have been formulated specifically to make Division 1 a more suitable basis for mirror legislation. Several States have now indicated their willingness to enact legislation mirroring the majority of Division 1 of Part V and related provisions in Part VI of the Act as proposed to be amended. I cannot overemphasise the importance of achieving uniform legislation in the consumer protection areas. Differences and conflicts between legislative provisions in force in the various jurisdictions can pose real problems for businesses and cause confusion on the part of consumers. By promoting uniform consumer protection legislation throughout the Commonwealth, it is expected that the costs of compliance for business, and ultimately the community, will be reduced. The Government will be actively encouraging those States which have not yet undertaken to enact mirror legislation to do so, and will be seeking to ensure that the uniformity is maintained in the future. Once the so-called mirror fair trading legislation is enacted, we will turn our attention to other areas of consumer protection law and seek to promote uniformity in those areas also. The question of uniformity is not a major problem in relation to the competition provisions in Part IV of the Act, since the States have not generally legislated in this area. In its approach to business regulation, the Government is committed to ensuring that unnecessary existing regulation is wound back, and adequate justification is put forward for new regulation. The Trade Practices Act lays down rules designed to preserve an environment in which the forces of competition can be effective and, at the same time, to protect consumers and reputable businesses from practices which are unfair. Beyond that, the Act does not seek to regulate the way in which firms carry on their businesses. Its aim is to enable businesses to make their own decisions in a free but fair market. Anti-competitive private regulation of business can be just as restrictive as, or even more inhibiting than, government regulation without being based on the same broad concern with public interest. In improving the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act, we will ensure that anti-competitive private regulation of business is kept to a minimum, so that free and fair competition becomes the prime regulator for business. Content of Bill The more important features of the Bill, which I will now outline, represent significant advances in restrictive trade practice and consumer protection law. Definition of `Consumer' The definition of `consumer' in section 4B determines the types of transactions to which the conditions and warranties contained in Division 2 of Part V apply. The current definition, which involves a monetary limit of $15,000 on some transactions, was set in 1977. The real value of that monetary limit has been significantly eroded since that time. It is proposed to increase the monetary limit to $40,000 to restore the protection given by the Act to consumer and small business purchasers. Also, the Government sees a need to provide protection for truck owner-operators whose business is directly affected by the dependability of their vehicles. After consideration of the recommendation of the National Road Freight Industry Enquiry-the May report-section 4B is to be amended to provide to purchasers of commercial road vehicles the protection given to consumers under Division 2 of Part V of the Act. Misuse of Market Power A competitive economy requires an appropriate mix of efficient businesses, both large and small. Whilst large enterprises may frequently have advantages of economies of scale, there are many occasions when large size does not of itself mean greater efficiency. However, a large enterprise may be able to exercise enormous market power, either as buyer or seller, to the detriment of its competitors and the competitive process. Accordingly, an effective provision controlling misuse of market power is most important to ensure that smaller businesses are given a measure of protection from the predatory actions of powerful competitors. Unfortunately, section 46 as presently drafted has proved of quite limited effectiveness in achieving that result, principally because the section applies only to monopolists or those with overwhelming market dominance. Even in those cases, it can be extremely difficult for a plaintiff to establish the requisite predatory purpose on the part of the defendant corporation. The amendments proposed in clause 17 address these two problems and are designed to make section 46 much more effective. The test for the application of the section is to be reduced from that of a corporation `being in a position substantially to control a market' to a test of whether `a corporation has a substantial degree of market power'. As well as monopolists, section 46 will now apply to major participants in an oligopolistic market and in some cases, to a leading firm in a less concentrated market. The amendment will also make it clear that the court can infer the requisite predatory purpose from the conduct of the corporation or from the surrounding circumstances. Section 46 in its proposed form-which will be described as misuse of market power rather than monopolisation-is not aimed at size as such or at competitive behaviour as such of strong businesses. What is being aimed at is the misuse by a business of its market power. Examples of misuse of market power may include in certain circumstances, predatory pricing or refusal to supply. Price Discrimination I should mention that the Bill does not propose amendments to section 49 which deals with price discrimination. The Government has concluded that amendments of the kind which were canvassed in the Green Paper could have unintended and undesirable effects, in particular, leading to price rigidity. However, predatory price discrimination can be merely one manifestation of misuse of market power. The strengthening of section 46, and its more effective application to powerful buyers, will extend the potential application of that provision to predatory price discrimination. Mergers There has been much public debate recently about the level of merger activity in the Australian economy and the extent to which it should be regulated. Whilst the level of the debate has intensified recently following merger activity in the retail sector and in other markets, the public discussion was largely initiated by proposals in the Green Paper relating to section 50. Section 50 prohibits mergers which will result in a corporation being able to control or dominate a market, except where prior authorisation is obtained, on public benefit grounds, from the Trade Practices Commission. The Bill will close several loopholes which have come to light in section 50 in the last few years. The relevant provisions are directed to joint venture acquisitions and acquisitions by natural persons. Clause 19 inserts a new section 50A to deal with off-shore mergers which affect a market in Australia. Opportunity will also be taken to make it clear that section 50 does not apply to the bare transfer of monopoly power. The Government is firmly committed to the encouragement of efficient Australian industry and to increasing our competitiveness on world markets. It has been decided that the existing `dominance' test in section 50 should remain essentially unchanged. The coverage of section 50 will not be extended beyond those mergers which result in undue concentration in a market. The competitive conduct of firms which increase their market power as a result of other mergers, will be subject to scrutiny under section 46 as proposed to be amended. At present the Act provides an opportunity for merger participants to seek authorisation from the Trade Practices Commission on public benefit grounds. Some business groups have claimed that the existing authorisation procedures are not adequate for dealing with industry restructuring. While the Government does not accept this view, this has resulted in reluctance to approach the Commission to ascertain its views on possible authorisation. The Commission has, however, made it clear that it regards desirable industry restructuring as a public benefit and has been prepared to authorise mergers for that purpose. In recognition of the reluctance and time constraints in merger cases, the Bill contains provisions designed to speed up considerably the authorisation process. In addition, the Bill widens the scope of directions which the Minister may give to the Commission pursuant to section 29. This will provide greater flexibility in relation to directions which can be given to the Commission in respect of particular issues to be taken into account, or bodies to be consulted in authorisation cases. In this respect I am considering directing the Commission to consult the Industries Assistance Commission in such matters. Other Changes in Competition Provisions The Bill contains a number of other provisions which are of significance in relation to Part IV. By clause 51, the divestiture remedy in section 81 is being made more effective, particularly where the parties to the merger have conspired to breach section 50. To ensure Australia's international relations are not adversely affected, private proceedings which rely on the extraterritorial operation of the Act will require the Minister's consent. Provisions relating to the disclosure of financial interests by members of the Commission and the Tribunal are being brought into line with current practice. Also, it will now be made clear that the Court can grant consent injunctions and consent divestiture orders, and the Tribunal will be able to make consent determinations, without the need to have a full hearing of the matter. Prohibition against Unconscionable Conduct The Green Paper proposed a prohibition on unconscionable conduct by corporations in relation to a contract or proposed contract. Following consultation with business, industry and consumer groups, the scope of this amendment has been refined and the proposed section 52A will now prohibit, on a civil basis, unconscionable conduct by corporations in relation to consumer-type transactions. Where a contravention is proved, remedies under section 87 will be available, and the Trade Practices Commission will enforce the section by seeking injunctions where appropriate. The section is directed at conduct which, while it may not be misleading or deceptive, is nevertheless clearly unfair or unreasonable. For example, a corporation which attempted to take advantage of a buyer's obvious lack of understanding of a transaction might fall foul of this section. The new provisions will supplement existing provisions of Part V and strengthen the protection afforded to consumers against unscrupulous trading practices. Recall of Unsafe Products The Act already contains provisions enabling bans to be placed on the supply of unsafe products. However, these provisions have no application to unsafe products supplied before a banning order is issued. There are at present no powers available to deal with the problem of unsafe products which have already reached the hands of consumers. The Government recognises that many industries have established voluntary procedures for the recall of unsafe products in the market-place, and it commends this responsible approach. However, to provide an adequate mechanism for remedial action across the range of potentially unsafe products, the Government considers it necessary to provide mandatory recall powers which can be used when necessary. Where no voluntary procedures exist, or the procedures are inadequate, these powers will be able to be exercised to ensure unsafe products are recalled from circulation or other remedial action is taken. Clause 35 proposes the inclusion in the Act of a new Division 1A in Part V. The new provisions, dealing with product safety and product information, represent a most important development in measures for the protection of consumers. The division incorporates, with some amendments, the existing sections of the Act dealing with product safety and product information standards. It also includes new powers dealing with the mandatory recall of unsafe goods supplied after 1 July 1986 and notices to warn the public of goods that are under investigation. I stress that the provisions for mandatory recall are designed to provide reserve powers which will be available for use where the safety of the public is threatened and the situation cannot be handled adequately by voluntary recall schemes or other means. In all cases, primary responsibility for ensuring the safety of consumer goods remains with manufacturers and importers. The Attorney-General will be relying on advice from his colleagues the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) in relation to motor vehicles, and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in relation to pharmaceuticals, therapeutic goods and foodstuffs, who would undertake the appropriate consultative procedures within their areas of responsibility. Further, when the Government proposes to issue a mandatory recall order or banning order, there will ordinarily be an opportunity for suppliers of goods affected by the proposed order to seek a conference before the Trade Practices Commission before the order can be issued. In circumstances where there is an imminent risk of illness or serious injury the Attorney-General will be able to make an order without delay. In those cases which involve a declaration that goods are unsafe, there will be an opportunity for a conference after the event to review the declaration. The review procedures will provide opportunity for full canvassing and testing of the issues consistent with quick action when necessary to protect the safety of the public. Commission Action on Behalf of Consumers Clause 55 provides for the amendment of section 87 to enable the Trade Practices Commission to obtain redress on behalf of particular named persons who have suffered loss or damage because of the conduct of a corporation or person in breach of the consumer protection provisions in Division 1 or 1A of Part V. One of the main obstacles preventing consumers from enforcing their rights under the Act is the high cost of litigation. By allowing the Commission to seek compensation on behalf of particular consumers in certain circumstances, consumers will more easily gain redress. The amendment will be particularly useful where the Commission takes enforcement action in situations such as where a large number of consumers have each been defrauded of relatively small amounts, or where a small group of consumers have lost their savings as a result of a fraudulent representation. This kind of proceeding will be a representative action rather than a so-called class action. The question of remedies for aggrieved consumers will only arise once the Commission has established a contravention of Part V in a prosecution or a proceeding for an injunction. The aggrieved consumers must be identified in the application and must have consented in writing to the Commission acting on their behalf. The Court is not empowered to make awards of damages to a class of persons, but only to particular named persons. The amount of the loss suffered by each individual by reason of the contravention will have to be established. Other Amendments to Part V The Bill also contains other amendments to strengthen the operation of Part V, and their enforcement under Part VI. I draw attention to amendments dealing with misleading representations about employment opportunities, to provide greater protection for unemployed people looking for work; and with fraudulent claims for payment for unsolicited advertising, to ensure that small businesses have adequate protection against such claims. Further details of the amendments are given in the explanatory memorandum. Financial Impact Statement Generally speaking, this Bill will have only a minor impact on Government expenditure. This Bill does not involve additional staff or resources for the Trade Practices Commission. The only direct impact on Government expenditure concerns the administration of the reserve mandatory recall powers. This will require five staff in the Office of Consumer Affairs to monitor industry product recall systems and advise the Attorney-General on the need to exercise the reserve powers when those systems are not adequate, to arrange testing of allegedly unsafe goods, and to conduct advertising to notify the public of unsafe goods. The full year cost is estimated at $250,000. I expect that this Bill will enhance the protection offered by the Act to consumers and will promote fair business practices and competition, to the ultimate benefit of the whole community. Further, if, as expected, several of the State governments enact legislation mirroring the majority of division 1 of Part V of the Act and repealing State legislation thereby rendered unnecessary, I expect that the costs for business and industry of complying with Government regulation in the consumer protection area will be reduced. Conclusion This Bill contains many important features aimed at promoting fair business practices and competition to the benefit of business interests and the broader community alike. In pursuing these objectives, the Government is demonstrating again its commitment to strong, efficient and internationally competitive Australian industry to a fair market-place. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(5.30) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Home and Community Care Bill 1985 establishes the framework for a home and community care program. The Bill authorises the Commonwealth to pay financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory under agreements with the Commonwealth for the provision of home and community care services. The companion of this Bill, which I will introduce shortly, is the Home and Community Care (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985. That Bill will amend four existing Commonwealth Acts to ensure that the home and community care program operates as intended. The four Acts are the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970, the Home Nursing Subsidy Act 1956, the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969, and the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act 1969. The home and community care, or HACC, program established by the Home and Community Care Bill 1985, which contains the agreement in the Schedule, will be a joint Commonwealth-State program. The financial assistance provided under the Bill will assist State and local governments and community organisations to provide a comprehensive range of home and community based care designed to provide basic maintenance and support services. Services are to be targeted at aged or disabled people, either directly or through their carers, to prevent their unnecessary or premature admission to long term residential care. When this Government came to office it had before it an array of reports done over the last 10 years at both the Federal and State levels. These reports all recommended a change in the balance between institutional and community based services for aged and disabled people. Important among these was the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, `In a Home or at Home: accommodation and home care for the aged'-the McLeay report-completed in 1982. Arguments for improving the planning and delivery of community based services have been given by organisations in the field and by aged and disabled people whose views have in many cases shaped the various reports to governments in this area. These arguments are compelling. Many people doubt their continuing ability to provide for the needs of aged or disabled family members at home. In the past, families have felt that they have had no option but to encourage or seek institutional care for their relatives, even when this may be a quite inappropriate solution. The existence of services to provide ongoing support should be of help to all Australian families. In the long run this should mean that nursing home beds will be used only when this is the most suitable option. It will lead to the development of a continuum of services, with assessment and referral services being developed as an integral part of that overall system. What little statistical evidence we have in this field demonstrates the need to develop a comprehensive range of home based services for aged and disabled people. The 1980 Australian Bureau of Statistics survey on disability revealed that around 325,000 people over 65 years were severely or moderately handicapped and that over 70 per cent of this group live in the community. That 325,000 represents 42 per cent of the total moderately and severely handicapped population. Other data shows that only about 10 per cent of aged people living at home regularly receive help from formal health or welfare agencies. It was clear to successive governments that administrative arrangements in this area were cumbersome and unco-ordinated. Some services were administered and funded by the Commonwealth, while others were administered by and cost-shared with the States. Additional complexity was caused by the split in administration of related programs between two departments at the Commonwealth level and two or more departments at the State level. The Government has already acted to remove this artificial barrier to effective and efficient planning and administration of services by bringing together all major welfare-related service activities into one department. However, while the planning and delivery of services remains fragmented and unco-ordinated, it can legitimately be argued that needs are not being met under the existing arrangements. On 21 August 1984 a joint Press statement was issued by the Minister for Health, the Hon. Neal Blewett, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator the Hon. Arthur Gietzelt, and Senator Don Grimes as the then Minister for Social Security, to introduce the HACC program. Since then, there have been extensive negotiations with the States, and talks with service providers and other appropriate non-government organisations and service users on the shape and content of the program. The views of these governments, organisations and individuals have been taken into account in formulating the home and community care program and the supporting Commonwealth-State agreement. A feature of the new HACC program will be to ensure that service providers and users are involved in the future development of home and community care. The two main objectives of the program are: to promote the provision of a comprehensive and integrated range of home and community care designed to provide basic maintenance and support services both directly and through their carers to persons within the target population and thereby to assist them to retain their independence in the community and avoid their premature or unnecessary admission to long term residential care; and to expand and develop home and community care services through the joint co-operation of the Commonwealth, the States, local governments and community organisations representing both service providers and users under a single cost-shared arrangement. Services in a State funded under four existing Commonwealth Acts will be subsumed in the program once the State enters into a Home and Community Care Agreement with the Commonwealth. Those Acts are: the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969, under which the Commonwealth cost-shares with the States the provision of home care services and senior citizens centres, and cost-shares with organisations the salaries of welfare officers of senior citizens centres; the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act 1969 under which, in the three participating States, the Commonwealth cost-shares the provision of home based paramedical services such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy; the Home Nursing Subsidy Act 1956, which provides for Commonwealth subsidy to home nursing organisations not exceeding the contribution of State or local governments to the home nursing service; and the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970 under which the Commonwealth provides various levels of assistance to organisations delivering meals to the aged or to invalid pensioners. The program will provide financial assistance for recurrent or capital purposes to assist States, local government and non-government bodies to maintain or expand appropriate services funded under one of the four existing Commonwealth Acts, or to develop agreed new service types. Services which may be funded under the program will be included in the following 11 sub-programs: Home help or personal care, or both; home maintenance or modification, or both; food; community respite care; transport; a community paramedical service; community nursing; assessment or referral, or both; education or training for service providers and users, or both; information; and co-ordination. Financial assistance under the program will be by way of grants to the States and the Northern Territory. In line with its responsibility for day to day administration under the jointly established program, the State will either apply the financial assistance directly or will pay it to local governments or non-government agencies to be applied to services under the program in the local area. In the first two years of the program, Commonwealth grants have a number of components and will, in part, be matched by contributions from each participating State and the Northern Territory. The base grant consists of the Commonwealth's expenditure under the four existing Acts in the State in respect of the 1984-85 financial year, indexed by a figure calculated in accordance with the formula contained in the agreement, plus other amounts as agreed between Ministers. The State will be required to contribute and have local governments and community organisations contribute to the program an amount equal to that spent in attracting matching Commonwealth funds under the four existing Acts in respect of 1984-85, indexed under the same formula contained in the agreement, plus other amounts as agreed between Ministers. Commonwealth above the base funding in 1985-86 in participating States will comprise the State's share, on a resident population basis, of the unmatched Commonwealth $10m made available in 1984-85 and carried over to 1985-86; and an additional $25m provided by the Commonwealth. These funds must be matched by the State on the basis of $1 State for every $3 Commonwealth. Total Commonwealth outlays in 1985-86 under the program, including funding under the four existing Acts, are estimated to be $117m. In 1986-87 Commonwealth above the base funding in participating States will comprise $30m, again distributed on a resident population basis, matched by a State contribution of $1 State for every $2 Commonwealth. This injection of significant new funds in this year and next will encourage the expansion of existing services, and the introduction of new service types not previously able to be funded under the more restrictive provisions of the present legislation. In turn this will have a flow-on effect in subsequent years. Total Commonwealth expenditure on home and community care services in 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 is estimated to be $317.6m. Total State expenditure for that period is estimated to be $247.2m, giving an estimated total Commonwealth-State expenditure of $564.8m over three years. Commonwealth financial assistance in 1987-88 to a participating State will be up to a 20 per cent increase in money terms over the 1986-87 level. The exact percentage increase is to be agreed between Ministers subject to a State agreeing to increase its outlays by the same percentage. In future years, for the life of the agreement, Commonwealth financial assistance will represent a 20 per cent increase in money terms over expenditure in the preceding year unless otherwise jointly agreed, and subject to the State agreeing to increase its outlays by the same percentage. The home and community care agreement is to be a continuing one but subject to a joint review at least every three years. If, following a review, the Commonwealth and State Ministers cannot agree on the continued operation of the agreement, then for the two years following the failure to agree the Commonwealth and State will provide sufficient funds to maintain the activity level of services previously funded under the program. The actual funding amounts would be determined in accordance with the formula in the agreement. The agreement provides that the Commonwealth and State will jointly approve new services, the allocation of funds between all services and significant variations to such allocations, having regard to the views of local governments, service providers and service users on the needs and priorities under the program. All participating States will establish administrative mechanisms to enable service providers and users to participate in the identification of gaps in existing service delivery, the development of priorities and the evaluation of the effectiveness of services funded under the program. Any agreed Commonwealth-State planning machinery will also, of course, need to take account of developments in related health and welfare services, particularly in the areas of long term residential care. In developing and strengthening the range of services, the priority under the HACC program will be to provide access to ongoing care to that large number of frail aged and younger disabled people who need help but who have had little or no support in the past in receiving the services they, and their carers, require to stay at home. For this reason the prime HACC target group embraces those people whose essential requirement is for longer term basic maintenance and support services to enable them to remain in the community rather than be placed in possibly inappropriate and unnecessary institutional care. Services such as accommodation services or aids and appliances are excluded from the program. Services of these kinds are provided under other Commonwealth-State programs. A number of services which have been provided under the existing four Acts have initially been designated as no growth areas under the HACC program. The services so designated as compared with those for the prime HACC target group tend to meet short term and often intensive needs. Moreover, they tend to reflect a rather limited view of using support services as a means of assisting the hospital system to reduce average length of stay. The services included in the no growth category are post acute care, palliative care, services primarily for families in crisis and services designed specifically for a particular disability group. Services for these groups will be maintained at the existing level of activity subject to review over the next three years to determine the most appropriate source of funding. This does not mean, however, that people who suffer from a particular disability, such as multiple sclerosis, or a psychiatric disorder will be excluded from receiving services under the program. On the contrary, such people requiring basic support as will be provided through the HACC program will, of course, be eligible, but the new program is not a vehicle for the provision of specialist services or for other services which have traditionally been the function of other Commonwealth or State services. Many people within the HACC target population will require more than one service. In the past, services have been delivered in a fragmented way with no co-ordination at a local level. It is our intention over the next three years to develop, through the HACC program, mechanisms for achieving better co-ordination of services and for establishing the level of service needed and being provided to any one individual. The co-ordination mechanisms established may vary from State to State and from area to area but must be able to determine the hours of service for each client. Such information is basic to establishing a picture of how resources are being used: Whether the package of services being provided to the individual is appropriate or whether other options including other services, medical treatment or residential care may need to be considered. The Commonwealth has also foreshadowed with the States its desire to assist in the development of a national data base to enable effective monitoring of the program. Currently there is no nationally comparable data available on service provision, nor on any standards for services, and very little information on the efficiency and effectiveness of alternative methods of service delivery. During preliminary discussions the States have indicated a willingness to work with the Commonwealth to develop standard definitions and to establish a national data collection. As a significant proportion of services is in fact provided by local governments or the voluntary sector, the Commonwealth will seek to involve service providers in this developmental process. The development of standards for services is an extremely complex issue which will again require input from service providers and users. National program guidelines will be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and their operation in each State and the Northern Territory will be agreed by Ministers. These guidelines will cover the administration of the program, financial arrangements, eligible services and organisations, and provide for input from service providers and users on program needs and priorities. The national program guidelines will be supported by more detailed sub-program guidelines for each of the 11 sub-programs to which I have earlier referred, with the latter guidelines being agreed jointly between Ministers. Under the HACC program the Government is providing for a considerable increase over the level of funds provided in the past. The financial arrangements in the third and subsequent years will provide for a sensible and planned scheduling of new initiatives in a way which will ensure better financial planning by the Commonwealth and States, and which will enable new projects to be approved throughout the life of the agreement. Thus the Commonwealth and States will be able co-operatively to plan and develop services in the knowledge that there is a continuing commitment from both parties to provide financial support. Three States-South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia-as well as the Northern Territory have to date indicated that they will sign or have in fact signed the home and community care program agreement. Negotiations are continuing with the remaining States to facilitate their involvement in the program. The issue in these continuing discussions is not the principle of the home and community care program, which has been endorsed by all State governments. It revolves around associated matters such as long term financing, the scope and boundaries of the program and the extent of Commonwealth involvement in joint programming arrangements. It is generally accepted that many matters relating to the program will need to be addressed and resolved over time. A first priority must be to gain a picture of the nature, scope and coverage of present programs. An understanding of these important aspects of the programs is sadly lacking. However, we will be developing a national home and community care database as an initial strategy to achieve improvement. The first three years are seen as developmental ones for the program. The present design and any jointly agreed administrative arrangements with States will reflect the Commonwealth's commitment to see that program objectives are achieved in the most cost effective way. Future developments will be determined when the Commonwealth, the States and the community are in a position to assess whether this new approach to the planning and delivery of needed services is successful. Service-providing organisations and members of the community will naturally be concerned to know how the introduction of the program will affect them. For that reason and in co-operation with the States, letters will go to all community organisations in receipt of Commonwealth and/or State funds to advise them of the impact. The home and community care program signals a new approach to the planning of community services in Australia, an approach which will hold out the possibility of achieving a more caring and equitable society. Services which are appropriately planned, distributed and financed provide an essential complement to other social policies in achieving social equity and needed support to ensure that our society functions properly. The introduction of broad enabling legislation and agreements with State governments provides the basis for the Commonwealth and States jointly to demonstrate their commitment, through cost shared programs, to improving the quality of life for the aged and disabled who are being cared for at home. Let me emphasise again the features which mark the proposed change in approach. Firstly, the inflexibility built into the present four legislative programs will be removed. The introduction of flexible agreements allows the scope and nature of the program to alter as community requirements change and government priorities alter. Secondly, a joint approval process means that both Commonwealth and State governments are involved in a partnership. Such an approach provides a mechanism to promote national priorities, to ensure that jointly agreed objectives can be achieved, and to see that State and regional differences can be recognised. Thirdly, there is a recognition that community services are not the monopoly of governments. Over the first three years machinery is to be established to ensure that service providers and users are offered an on-going opportunity for involvement in priority setting. This will allow service users a vital opportunity to become involved in the planning and delivery of services which affect them. The Office for the Aged and the Office of Disability will play an important role in assessing whether this objective is achieved. I thank State and Territory Ministers for their co-operation to date and look forward to increased opportunities to develop the total program over the coming years. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(5.52) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I foreshadowed this Bill in my second reading speech on the Home and Community Care Bill 1985. As I explained in that speech, the Home and Community Care (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985 amends four existing Commonwealth Acts. The four Acts are: The Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970, the Home Nursing Subsidy Act 1956, the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969 and the States Grants (Para- medical Services) Act 1969. The Bill aims to ensure that the transition from funding under those Acts to the home and community care program is as smooth as possible. For an explanation of the program, I refer honourable members to my second reading speech on the Home and Community Care Bill 1985. The Bill provides that the four Acts cease to apply in the States which sign the home and community care agreement. Services previously funded under the four Acts will then be funded under the home and community care program. The Bill also provides that in States which have not yet agreed to participate in the program, financial assistance under the four existing Acts will continue to be provided in respect of existing services at a level sufficient to enable those services to be maintained at their 1984-85 activity level. No new services or expansions to existing services will be approved. Funds for this purpose are available only under the home and community care program. The amendments contained in the Bill are designed both to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements, and as an indication of the Commonwealth's commitment to the home and community care program and to working co-operatively with participating States. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(5.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is an omnibus Bill implementing many of the major social security and repatriation initiatives of the 1985-86 Budget. In the Budget the Government provided for an increase in expenditure on social security and welfare of $100m in 1985-86 and $245m in a full year. This is in addition to increases in expenditure that automatically result in 1985-86 from factors such as the indexation of pensions and benefits and increased numbers of pensioners and beneficiaries. In combination, these increases in social security and welfare outlays are considerable and demonstrate the Government's commitment to improving the adequacy of assistance for those most in need. They have been achieved within an overall economic strategy that also will be of substantial benefit to low income groups by reducing unemployment and inflation. The Bill provides substantial increases in assistance to those most in need. For example, as a result of these initiatives and the November indexation increases a sole parent pensioner who has two children will receive almost $8 a week extra from November 1985 and almost $10 a week extra from next May; a single unemployed adult aged 21 or over who rents privately could receive more than $16 a week extra from May 1986; and an unemployed couple aged 18 or over who have two children and are renting privately could receive up to $10 a week extra from November 1985 and up to $20 a week extra from May 1986. The Bill also implements several initiatives concerning programs administered by the Minister for Community Services. I will give details of the financial impact of the measures in this Bill as I deal with each major initiative. SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1947 The major Budget initiatives dealt within Part VI of this Bill consolidate and extend the steps taken by the Government in the previous two Budgets to provide additional assistance to those in greatest need in our community. In particular, the Bill seeks to address the needs of low income families, single parents, and people who are unemployed. Additional assistance will also be provided to people receiving sickness and special benefits. Other special needs have also been addressed. Increase in Assistance to Families This Government is strongly committed to improving the level of assistance provided to low income families with dependent children. Accordingly, we have built on the priority we gave these families in the previous two Budgets by again increasing payments to them. From 1 November 1985, the additional pension or benefit payable for each child in the care of a pensioner or beneficiary will be increased by $2 to $16 a week per child. This increase will not apply after 1 January 1986 in relation to young people who receive assistance through the secondary assistance scheme or the tertiary education assistance scheme. In conjunction with this increase, the maximum rate of family income supplement, a payment made to low income families not receiving a pension or benefit, will also increase by $2 to $16 a week per child. Together with the $2 increases provided in each of the last two years, these payments will have been increased by 60 per cent since this Government came to office in 1983. In 1985-86 these measures will benefit an estimated 309,000 social security and repatriation service pensioner families and 114,000 beneficiary families, as well as 26,000 families in receipt of family income supplement. The net cost will be an estimated $56.3m in the current financial year and $86.2m in a full year. The Bill also provides for a 20 per cent increase in the rate of mother's-guardian's allowance from 1 May 1986, bringing the maximum rate to $12 a week. This allowance is provided in recognition of the particular needs of sole parents and is paid in addition to additional pension or benefit paid for each child. In 1985-86 an estimated 267,000 pensioners and beneficiaries will benefit from this measure at an estimated cost of $5.4m in the current financial year and $28.9m in a full year. The Bill introduces a new category of pension from 1 November 1985 for people providing constant care and attention on a long term basis for a severely handicapped age or invalid pensioner spouse or close relative at home. The new carer's pension will replace the existing spouse carer's pension, which is paid only to men caring for their wives. The provision of a pension to those caring for invalid near relatives, for example, aged parents, is an important Government initiative. The carer's pension is estimated to cost some $1m in the current financial year and $1.6m in a full year. These figures take into account savings from those persons currently receiving spouse carer's pension or special benefit who are expected to take up the new pension. From 15 November 1985, the Government will introduce special additional assistance for families with multiple births. An increase of family allowance payments of $150 a month for triplets and $200 a month for quadruplets and higher multiple births will be made until the children reach the age of six. Being an increase in family allowance, these amounts will not be taxable or means tested and will be made in addition to other income support payments. The previous system of discretionary act of grace payments for quadruplets and higher multiple births will be discontinued. In 1985-86, 180 families with triplets and six families with quadruplets are estimated to benefit from the increased payments at an estimated cost of $200,000 in the current financial year and $300,000 in a full year. Initiatives for People Who Are Unemployed One of the Government's major 1983 election commitments was to restore progressively the rate of unemployment benefit for single adults to parity with the standard rate of pension. Before November 1978, the single adult rate of unemployment benefit was the same as the single rate of pension and sickness benefit. The previous Government excluded it from automatic pension and benefit indexation arrangements, causing its real value to decline substantially. As a result, single adult unemployment beneficiaries were subject to discrimination and required to bear the greatest burden during the economic recession. Since coming to office, we have moved to end this discrimination by progressively closing the gap between this group and single pensioners and sickness beneficiaries. In 1983, we increased the rate of single adult unemployment benefit by $9.20 a week in two stages. We also provided for automatic indexation of the rate from May 1984 and made special ad hoc increases above the requirements of indexation in May and November of 1984, and in May 1985. In keeping with our election commitment, this Bill provides further assistance. From November 1985, the rate of unemployment benefit for single people aged 21 years and over will be raised by $3 a week in a special ad hoc increase. Along with an indexation increase of $3.25 a week, the rate will rise to a total of $91.45 a week. In 1985-86 this initiative will affect on average some 247,000 unemployment beneficiaries at an estimated cost of $25.7m in the current financial year and $41.8m in a full year. In addition, we will create a new category of unemployment benefit for single people aged between 18 and 20 from 1 November 1985. To establish an intermediate rate, unemployment benefit payments for 18-20-year-olds will not be subject to automatic indexation increases. This will result in savings of $14.9m in 1985-86. The new intermediate rate of $88.20 a week will be created by an ad hoc increase of $3 a week to the current single adult rate. Further ad hoc increases will be made from the beginning of 1987 and 1988. At that point, the Government intends that the intermediate rate of unemployment benefit will be equal to the level of tertiary education allowance paid to students who live away from home. Both rates will then be automatically indexed at the beginning of each subsequent year. An estimated average of 101,000 unemployment beneficiaries will benefit in 1985-86 from the ad hoc increase which creates the intermediate rate. The estimated cost will be $10.4m in the current financial year and $16.1m in a full year. The single junior rate of unemployment benefit will increase from 1 November 1985 by $5 to $50 a week. Currently, only people aged 16-17 years who have been receiving unemployment benefit for 6 months or more receive this higher rate. This increase means that since March 1983, the rate of unemployment benefit for 16-17 year olds will have risen by 25 per cent. An estimated 34,000 unemployment beneficiaries will benefit in 1985-86 from this initiative at an estimated cost of $5.8m in the current financial year and $8.9m in a full year. There is another measure in the Bill which is of major significance for people who are unemployed. From 1 May 1986, rent assistance of up to $10 a week will be available, for the first time, to people over 18 years who have been receiving unemployment benefit for 6 months or more and who rent privately. This measure will not apply in the case of a single beneficiary who has no dependants, is under 25 years and is living at home. This initiative recognises the increasing reliance on unemployment benefit as a means of long term income support. In 1985-86 the measure will assist some 109,000 unemployment beneficiaries at an estimated cost of $9.1m in the current financial year and $56.4m in a full year. A further measure to assist unemployed people, intended to be introduced in a Bill later in the current sittings, is the easing of the income test. From May 1986, unemployment beneficiaries will be able to earn an extra $10 a week and still qualify for full payment. The `allowable income' limit will increase from $20 to $30 a week, making the income test free amount for beneficiaries the same as that for single pensioners. This will help overcome the poverty trap that discourages beneficiaries from seeking part-time work. This measure will benefit approximately 40,000 unemployment beneficiaries in 1985-86 at an estimated cost of $1.6m in the current financial year and $9.7m in a full year. Sickness and Special Benefits Single sickness and special beneficiaries aged 16 to 17 who have received benefits for less than six months will receive the rate of $50 a week from November 1984, an increase of $5. Rent assistance of up to $10 a week will be paid from May 1986 to special beneficiaries aged 18 and above. It will be paid on the same basis as for unemployment beneficiaries. Sickness and special beneficiaries will also benefit from the liberalisation of the income test that will be introduced in legislation at a later stage in these sittings. Some 6,400 sickness beneficiaries and 7,000 special beneficiaries in 1985-86 will benefit from these initiatives, at an estimated cost of $1m in the current financial year and $4.4m in a full year. In addition, certain sickness and special beneficiaries who are paid at the unemployment benefit rate will receive similar increases to those received by unemployment beneficiaries. This will benefit an average of 27,000 sickness and special beneficiaries at an estimated cost of $2.9m in the current financial year and $4.7m in a full year. Other Measures A major initiative in the Bill will facilitate respite care arrangements for parents of handicapped children. From 1 November 1985, the handicapped child's allowance will remain payable for up to 28 days a year while the child is temporarily absent from the family home and in respite care in an institution. This will enable the parents of severely handicapped children to take a break or holiday at least once a year. The estimated cost of this measure is $65,000 in the current financial year and $100,000 in a full year. From 1 November 1985, the waiting period which must be undergone by some persons qualified to receive an unemployment or a sickness benefit will not apply where a beneficiary is transferring from another social security income support payment. In addition, there will be no waiting period for the spouse of a person who receives an additional amount of such a payment, where the spouse qualifies to receive such a payment. The Bill also clarifies and rationalises the rules concerning overpayments of social security pensions. Specific rules will provide for the creation of a legally recoverable debt if payment continues after the pensioner ceases to qualify for the pension. In addition, specific rules will provide for the creation of a legally recoverable debt where the amount of pension to which a pensioner is entitled is reduced, but the pensioner does not duly notify the change in his or her circumstances. The relationship between social security pensions and benefits and repatriation service pensions will also be rationalised to prevent overlap of entitlements and ensure that overlapping payments will be legally recoverable. The Bill also includes provisions which will permit the waiver and write-off of debts arising under the Act to improve administrative efficiency. REPATRIATION ACT 1920 Repatriation service pensions are similar to age and invalid pensions except that, where granted on the ground of age, they are available at the age of 60 for men and 55 for women. Service pension rates are calculated by reference to the rates of pension payable under the Social Security Act 1947. Increases in the additional pension for children and mother's/guardian's allowance payable to social security pensioners will also apply to service pensioners who are in similar circumstances. Some 6,500 service pensioners will benefit from increases in additional pension for children and a further 280 families will benefit from increases in guardian's allowances. These measures will cost an estimated $600,000 in the current financial year and $950,000 in a full year. The Bill provides for increases in allowances paid to veterans suffering certain amputations or loss of vision, in attendant allowance and in pensions paid to orphans. The increases will have effect from 7 November 1985 and represent movements in the consumer price index in the 12 months since increases in last year's Budget. Higher amounts for certain other amputations are adjusted automatically in May and November in line with any movements in the consumer price index in the six-months period ending in December and June, respectively, of the relevant year. The rate of attendant allowance is to be increased from $53.80 to $57.40 a fortnight in the case of the veteran who is blind or is suffering from a cerebro-spinal injury. In the case of a veteran who has had both arms amputated or who is blind and has lost hearing or speech, the allowance is to be increased from $107.60 to $114.80 a fortnight. This allowance is also paid in addition to disability pension. A double orphan's pension will be increased from $76.80 to $82 a fortnight while the increase for a single orphan will be from $38.40 to $41 a fortnight. These measures will cost an estimated $120,000 in the current financial year and $190,000 in a full year. Other initiatives for increases in recreation transport allowance and clothing allowance will be achieved by amendment of the Repatriation regulations and associated regulations. The Repatriation Act provides for the payment of a spouse carer's pension to a man caring for his severely handicapped veteran wife. This pension will be extended, in line with the creation of the social security carer's pension, to cover near relatives caring for severely handicapped veterans. The extension is not expected to affect a large number of people and the costs are expected to be negligible. The Bill will rationalise rules concerning overpayments of pensions along the same lines as the changes to the Social Security Act. Similar provisions for the waiver and write off of debts are also included. SEAMEN'S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES ACT 1940 The Bill also makes consequential amendments to the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940. That Act provides benefits similar to those provided under the Repatriation Act to Australian mariners who suffered a war injury during World War II. The Bill implements two major measures in relation to legislation administered by the Minister for Community Services. AGED OR DISABLED PERSONS HOMES ACT 1954 Under this Act, the Commonwealth pays a personal care subsidy and a hostel care subsidy to eligible organisations which provide hostel type accommodation for aged or disabled people. These subsidies are payable at weekly rates. The Commonwealth also provides a respite care bed subsidy to encourage the provision of respite care beds in hostels. A respite care bed subsidy of $11 a week is payable in respect of an approved respite care bed which is occupied for 14 days or less during a 28-day period. Fifty-five dollars a week is payable where the bed is occupied for at least 15 days during the 28-day period. Unfortunately, this arrangement has tended to cause distortions in availability of respite care beds as advantage is taken of the differential subsidy levels. The report of the Joint Review of Hostel Care Subsidies Arrangements recommended that payment of hostel care subsidy, personal care subsidy and respite care bed subsidy should be converted to a daily basis without reducing the total amount of Commonwealth recurrent subsidies for hostel care (policy recommendation 9 (b)). Accordingly, the Government has decided that hostel care, personal care and respite care bed subsidies will be paid on a daily basis calculated with effect from 18 December 1985 and to be paid in January 1986. The daily rates to apply are $1.80 per day for hostel care, $7.80 per day for personal care and $7 per day for respite care. The revised arrrangements are estimated to add $1.3m to outlays in 1985-86 and $2.3m in 1986-87. NATIONAL HEALTH ACT 1953 Under this Act, benefits are paid by the Commonwealth to approved nursing homes for all qualified patients in such homes. The benefit rates are prescribed in the National Health Regulations and are reviewed annually. In the `May statement', measures were announced which are directed to slowing the rapid growth of nursing home outlays that has occurred over the past decade. One of those measures included freezing the level of Commonwealth nursing home benefits in government nursing homes in all States and Territories, except in some government nursing homes run by non-profit charitable or benevolent organisations. The Bill amends the National Health Act so as to enable different rates of benefit to be prescribed for different classes of approved nursing homes. The measures contained in this Bill demonstrate the Government's commitment to assisting those most in need in our community. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(6.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to implement Government decisions regarding the power of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to make program standards and the inquiry procedures of the Tribunal. The proposed amendments can be summarised as follows. In relation to the power of the Tribunal to make standards, the Bill provides for the preclassification of children's program by the Tribunal and the inclusion of quantitative elements in standards. The provisions relating to the enforcement of standards are based on recommendations of the Administrative Review Council-the ARC-in its 1981 report on the inquiry procedures of the Tribunal. The Council recommended that the Act be amended to confer upon the Tribunal a wider range of powers to respond to breaches of broadcasting standards. Honourable members will recall that amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act were passed last year to streamline the Tribunal's inquiry procedures by the automatic extension of licence periods pending completion of a licence renewal inquiry, and the formation of divisions of the Tribunal. In the autumn sittings of Parliament this year further amendments were passed which provide the framework of uniform procedures for Tribunal inquiries. They empower the Tribunal to dispense with a public hearing where no substantive issues of public concern are raised. The Bill will enable regulations to be made to allow the Tribunal to apply the new uniform inquiry procedures to inquiries which would otherwise be required to be dealt with under old, less efficient procedures. Amendments relating to the enforcement of program standards were also originally scheduled for inclusion in the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985 passed by the Parliament in the autumn sittings. Following the decision of the High Court of Australia in Herald-Sun TV Pty Ltd v. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the amendments were withdrawn to allow for further consideration and consultation with representatives of industry and public interest groups. The amendments contained in the Bill will not alter the costs or revenues of the Commonwealth. The purpose of the legislation is to give the Tribunal the power to make and enforce certain standards. I should point out that, until recently challenged, the Tribunal had already exercised this power in the belief that it was within its authority under the Broadcasting and Television Act. The machinery-that is, the personnel and facilities-are therefore in place and the amendments will not necessitate an increase in the resources of the Tribunal. The Bill provides for the amendment of two Acts, the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 and the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985. In general terms, the amendments will commence on 1 January 1986. The form of the Bill is complicated. However, as a result of the commencment of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985 on that date, that Act preserves the application of the previous Act in some circumstances. The result is that some amendments made in the Bill are in duplicate form. I now turn to the detail of the proposed amendments. Standards-making powers There is a history of doubt about the standards-making powers of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and its predecessor, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. As long ago as 1963 the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Production for Television expressed the opinion that the program standards-making power of the Broadcasting Control Board was confined by legislation to a qualitative determination and did not extend to determinations as to content, type, variety or country or origin of programs. Its concern was that unless the regulating authority had the power to set legally enforceable standards it would not be able to ensure that adequate and comprehensive programs were provided by commercial broadcasters. The Committee recommended amendment of the Act but no such legislation eventuated. In 1978, when the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts inquired into children's television, it commented on the fact that the questions raised by the Senate Select Committee in 1963 had never been resolved. It said: Over the whole matter of industry regulation, there still hangs the question of the Tribunal's powers to regulate effectively. It recommended that if it were considered by the Attorney-General's Department that the Act was in any way inadequate for effective regulation, it should be amended to remove any inadequacies, ambiguities or inconsistencies. Still the Act was not amended. A number of recent court decisions against the Tribunal have now, once more, highlighted the need to amend the Act to affirm the standards-making powers of the Tribunal. The decisions have actually invalidated a number of the Tribunal's standards. Definition of Program Standards The first of these decisions was of the Federal Court in Saatchi and Saatchi Compton (Victoria) Pty Limited v. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The Court ruled that a `Standard' must relate directly to the quality or nature of the material broadcast: That is, the Tribunal's power does not extend to the regulation of circumstances connected with the production of a program were these circumstances are not intrinsically related to the nature of the end product. The Court found that the requirements of the Tribunal's standards relating to the Australian content of advertisements was in no way related to the quality or nature of the advertisement produced. Therefore, these provisions did not qualify as a standard in respect of the televising of advertisements for the purposes of the Act. Subsequently, the Full Federal Court upheld the decision after an appeal by the Tribunal. The effect of these decisions is that many of the Tribunal's current program and advertising standards which purport to impose quantitative rules, and this would possibly include time based rules, could well be void. In this category would fall major aspects of advertising time standards, Australian content program standards, children's program and advertising standards. The Bill redefines `program standard' to include the concept of `condition'. This is to avoid the interpretation given by the Federal Court in the Saatchi case that `Standard' must relate directly to the quality or nature of the material broadcast. The inclusion of `condition' will enable the Tribunal to apply standards which regulate the circumstances connected with the production of a program. In particular, this will enable the Tribunal to apply standards which relate to Australian content in productions. Preclassification of Children's Programs In May of this year 14 commercial television licensees successfully challenged the Tribunal's power to require children's programs to be pre-classified prior to telecast. The High Court of Australia, in the Herald-Sun TV case, decided that the pre-classification requirements in the Tribunal's children's television standards were beyond the Tribunal's power under the Act. Since 1979 the Tribunal has required `children's' or `C' programs to be preclassified prior to their telecast by commercial television licensees. The assessment of programs is carried out by the Tribunal which has the benefit of the recommendations of the Children's Program Committee. The Tribunal has employed the preclassification approach to `Children's' programming as a quality control mechanism and to ensure that these programs, which are produced specifically for the needs and interests of children aged six to 13 years, meet the Tribunal's standards. `Children's' programs are those which: (a) are designed specifically for children older than five years and younger than 14 years; (b) are designed to entertain children; (c) are well produced technically and artistically; (d) can be easily understood and appreciated by children; (e) fulfil some special need of children; (f) contribute to the social, emotional or intellectual development of children; (g) are appropriate for Australian children, not assuming too much of the culture, dialect or environment of some other country; and (h) are not outdated in content or in technical or artistic production. The regulatory action of the Tribunal followed numerous inquiries into children's television. As early as 1953 the Royal Commission on Television examined children's television. It received numerous submissions from parents and teachers concerned about the predicted preponderance of American programs on Australian television, the effects on children of television violence and overt commercialism. The Commission recommended the introduction of special standards regulating the production of television programs; the addition of two members to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to present the interests of the public; and the establishment of a children's advisory committee to advise the Broadcasting Control Board. Other inquiries into television which have demonstrated community concern about children's television include: a Senate select committee inquiry into the encouragement of Australian productions for television, 1963; a Senate standing committee inquiry into `all aspects of television and broadcasting, including the Australian content of television programmes', 1971-1975; and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board's standards inquiry, 1975. In 1977 the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts began its inquiry into the impact of television on the development and learning behaviour of children. It concluded that there was genuine widespread public concern about children's television and that given the economics of commercial television, the prospects for improvement were not bright. This inquiry was conducted concurrently with the Tribunal's self-regulation inquiry of 1977. That inquiry was also highly critical of children's programming. It recommended the establishment of a new classification for children's programs, the establishment of the Children's Program Committee and the introduction of a pre-classification system for children's programs. The pre-classification system was introduced in 1979. In 1981 the Senate Standing Committee presented its report entitled: `Children's television revisited'. This reviewed progress in children's television since its earlier report of 1978. At the time of that review the powers of the Tribunal were under consideration by the Government. The Committee, therefore, did not pursue the matter in detail. Nevertheless, it placed on record its opposition to any amending legislation that would in any way diminish the Tribunal's powers and obligations to regulate in the area of children's television. Earlier this year the Committee examined children's television standards in its examination of annual reports. Its report recommended that the Broadcasting and Television Act be amended so that the Tribunal has the clear power to regulate in the field of children's television including the power to pre-assess `C' programs. In 1984, the Tribunal thoroughly reviewed its approach to children's program regulation and decided that the requirement for preclassification should continue on the basis that it had produced a marked improvement in the quality and variety of children's programs since 1979. At that time it also introduced a new requirement for Australian children's drama programs which was that licensees televise a minimum of 8 hours of first release Australian children's drama each financial year and that this also be submitted to the Tribunal for prior approval. The justification for preclassification of children's `C' programs is overwhelming. Independent inquiries have consistently concluded that children's programs need special treatment. There can be no doubt that preclassification of this very small proportion of programs is not only appropriate but also necessary at this time. The Bill will affirm the Tribunal's power to make program standards for `children's television programs'. The standard may require prior approval for children's programs which are shown during specified hours-referred to as `C' time. These are usually 4 to 5 p.m. on weekdays. They may also provide for the preclassification of children's drama programs. In addition to the affirmation of these powers the Bill will permit sub-classifications of standards for programs designed for children under the age of 14 years. At present the Tribunal standards for children's programs are for those designed for the six to 13 years age group as a whole. It will also enable the Tribunal to extend its preclassification standards to programs designed for younger children-that is, children up to five years of age. The Bill will provide the Tribunal with the power to require preclassification of programs which are to be televised at times other than `C' time but which a licensee wishes to present as meeting the tribunal's conditions for `C' time programs. I would like to point out that under the principal Act any revision of standards by the Tribunal can be undertaken only after consultation with broadcasters. Some concern has been expressed about the application of the preclassification requirements to the production of programs classified as `children's drama'. Commercial television licensees and the television production industry have expressed the wish that children's drama programs be awarded a full `C' classification at script stage prior to actual production of the program. In the past, the Tribunal has awarded a `provisional C' classification at script stage, with the subsequent award of a full `C' classification of the completed program. With these concerns in mind the Tribunal is considering the most appropriate form of preclassification arrangement. It will be consulting with representatives of the television and production industries and other interested organisations about the options available. The Government is not in favour of a general power of preclassification. The Bill, therefore, expressly limits the Tribunal's power to require preclassification to that of children's programs. I would also like to emphasise that `preclassification' is not a form of censorship. Programs which are rejected as unsuitable for a `C' classification can be broadcast at other times. It is also important to remember that `C' time is normally 4 to 5 p.m. Monday to Friday-that is one hour only, 5 days per week. Enforcement Provisions The Bill provides for a significant change in the enforcement of program standards. A breach of a program standard will no longer attract a criminal penalty. The Bill will, of course, require that licensees supervise the broadcasting of their programs to ensure that the program standards are observed but the enforcement of this provision will be decriminalised. The Bill will retain, in a slightly modified form, the power to give directions to a licensee for the purpose of ensuring that the program standards are complied with. A failure to comply with such a direction will remain a criminal offence. The giving of such a direction will, however, be the exercise of a substantive power by the Tribunal and thus must result from an inquiry under the Act which will be subject to the uniform inquiry procedures provided for in the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985 which was passed during the 1985 autumn sittings. The Amendment Act also provides that in matters of urgency the Tribunal may vary the inquiry procedures or adopt different procedures, as appropriate. In its 1981 report the Administrative Review Council proposed that the Tribunal be given the power to impose temporary restrictions on advertising by licensees as a penalty for breaches of the Act or program standards. This would, however, have raised a number of problems with respect to the separation of executive and judicial powers. The Government decided that the current Tribunal's powers to give directions be modified to complement the new scheme of enforcement of program standards as outlined above. A history of breaches of program standards may also be relevant at licence renewal inquiries as such a pattern of behaviour could amount to a breach of licence conditions and of the undertakings given by a licensee on the grant or renewal of a licence. The Bill also includes a new defence provision which applies where the failure of the licensee to adequately supervise broadcasts was due to a reasonable mistake; reasonable reliance on information supplied by another person; or the act or default of another person or any accident or other cause beyond the licensee's control and the licensee took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the breach. This defence is based upon a similar provision in the Trade Practices Act 1974. The Bill also adopts a specific recommendation of the ARC to empower the Tribunal to reprimand or admonish a licensee for a breach of program standards and, most importantly, to direct the licensee to broadcast the reprimand or admonishment in such form and manner as is specified by the Tribunal in its direction. This will be a substantive power of the Tribunal and thus subject to the uniform inquiry procedures provided for under the Act. In addition, the Bill extends the circumstances in which the Tribunal may issue directions and give orders under section 119 of the Act. This section currently permits the Tribunal to place restrictions on individuals broadcasting material or rendering or selecting material for broadcast where they have been either convicted of broadcasting or selecting blasphemous, indecent or obscene matter or where the Tribunal has reason to believe a person has rendered, or selected for broadcast, an item which has, or may, cause offence to a section of the public. The Bill will amend these provisions to enable the Tribunal to call upon an individual who has presented in live broadcast, or who has selected material which has been broadcast in breach of the program standards, to show cause why a direction should not be issued. Such a direction may prohibit or impose restrictions on a person from presenting live broadcasts or from passing or selecting programs for a broadcast. A direction may be given only where the person fails to show cause in accordance with the Act. Further, the issue of such a direction will be the exercise of a `substantive power' of the Tribunal and thus must result from an inquiry under the Tribunal's new uniform inquiry procedures. The objective of this clause is to give the Tribunal a means of enforcing program standards against individuals who may otherwise be able to infringe the standards in circumstances where licensees have limited, practical, supervisory powers. The classic example is where live broadcasts are involved. In fact the Tribunal will not be empowered under this provision to censor material. A licensee may pre-record any such material and subsequently broadcast it. In these circumstances it would, however, be the licensee who would be clearly responsible. Although not specifically stated in the Bill, directions made by the Tribunal in relation to the abovementioned provisions must be reasonable having regard to the breach involved. An unreasonable direction given by the Tribunal would be subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Transitional Amendments The Bill will amend the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985 to provide that regulations may be made to extend the application of the new streamlined uniform inquiry procedures. These procedures will come into operation on 1 January 1986. As the Act currently stands the new procedures could not be used for Tribunal inquiries involving old system licences. The Bill amends the transitional provisions of the 1985 Amendment Act to empower the making of regulations to apply the new procedures to old system licences. The effect of this will be to enable all inquiries conducted pursuant to notices issued after 1 January 1986 to be conducted under the same procedures, that is, the new procedures. The Tribunal inquiries and new arrangements will streamline the Tribunal's inquiries and will overcome the administrative difficulty of having two inquiry procedures operating concurrently. It is proposed to make regulations under this power to apply new procedures to: Inquiries into the grant of licences under section 82 of the amended Act where the return date for applications for licences to the Tribunal-that is the specified date under section 82 (1) (b) (i)-is later than 1 January 1986. This will, however, result in the grant of an old system licence which will need to be subsequently converted to a new system licence pursuant to section 99 of the 1985 Act. New inquiries on applications for supplementary licences referred by the Minister to the Tribunal after 1 January 1986, that is, where the date of referral under section 82A (4) (a) of the amended Act is after 1 January 1986. Licences issued following applications made prior to 1 January 1986 but not referred until after 1 January 1986, would result in old system licences granted pursuant to a tribunal inquiry conducted in accordance with the new uniform inquiry procedures. Conversion of old to new system licences would then subsequently occur. Other applications to the Tribunal made after 1 January 1986 for the exercise of any of its substantive powers-as specified in section 17A (2) of the Amendment Act-in relation to old system licences; and Inquiries into the exercise of the Tribunal's substantive powers into old system licences which are initiated by the Tribunal of its own volition, after 1 January 1986. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(6.40) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of State Head Office building for Telecom Australia, Sydney. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works has reported that there is a need for the construction of a major high rise building in the Sydney central business district to provide a new State head office for Telecom Australia. The new building is to be constructed immediately adjacent to the existing Telecom House between Pitt Street and Castlereagh Street. It will enable Telecom staff and State head office activities to be consolidated on the one site and allow expensive leased space elsewhere in the city to be relinquished. The proposed building will provide about 29,000 square metres of office floor area in 33 levels above ground. Associated works will include modifications to the existing through-site shopping arcade and the provision of additional retail space for rental. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $45.5m at January 1985 prices. Subject to the approval of the House, it is proposed to invite tenders as soon as possible. Construction of the building will be completed by late 1987 or early 1988 and it will be occupied during the bicentennial year. I thank the Committee for its prompt consideration of this proposal. If the House agrees to support the motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Works Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.42) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the paper available to me. The Opposition notes the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. The sum of $45m is large. Given the Government's commitment in its trilogy to curtail government expenditure, we have to raise the question with the Minister: Why should this building be in the centre of Sydney? Rents in that area are of the order of $30 a square foot, whereas out in Chatswood or Hurstville, for example, rents are around $17 a square foot. On the 300,000 square feet proposed in the motion for this building there would be a saving of $13 a square foot, which is of the order of $4m a year. If that were transposed into the capital cost, we might be building in a Sydney suburb at a cost of perhaps $35m, not $45m. We do not think that occupation during the bicentennial year has too much to recommend it at present, given the gross mismanagement of the Australian Bicentennial Authority by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). It is worth saying now that if Telecom Australia were in the private sector there would be a saving of nearly $50m against this motion. This is not the place to canvass the transfer of Telecom to the private sector, but it is well known that the Opposition is reviewing this whole question. Privatisation of Telecom will give better efficiency, better organisation and better returns for the consumers. As I said recently with regard to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, the employees of Telecom have nothing to fear from privatisation. The Opposition will not oppose the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(6.45) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Fitout of office space at Canberra National Convention Centre, Canberra City, for Commonwealth use. This proposed work involves the fitout of 42,000 square metres of general office accommodation in the National Convention Centre complex currently under construction in the Civic area of Canberra. Among the tenants of the completed complex will be the Australian Customs Service. This will be a welcome move for the members of that service who have for many years endured sub-standard accommodation in Barton offices which are commonly referred to as the Barton woolsheds. Indeed, these wooden buildings, which date back prior to World War II and which are an eyesore in an important area of Canberra, will be demolished once the Australian Customs Service is located in its new premises. Another major tenant will be the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. This Department is currently located in a number of dispersed buildings in Canberra and the rationalisation of its accommodation is long overdue. Some elements of the Department of Territories currently dispersed in a number of locations throughout Canberra will also be relocated in this complex. This should improve public access to that Department's services. The work involved in the fitout of the five Commonwealth leased buildings in the complex is typical of work normally required to allow occupancy of leased premises by government departments. It involves: Partitions for offices, conference rooms and interview rooms; alterations to mechanical services, light and power, telephones, and other services to suit specific office layouts; joinery to public counters and reception areas; appropriate finishes to executive and staff amenities areas and guard posts, building perimeter security and other security measures. As normal practice, my Department has consulted extensively with bodies affected by this proposal, including officials of the various staff associations representing the future occupants of this complex. The estimated cost of this work is $12.3m at August 1985 prices. I present plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.47) —Again, I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the paper available. The Opposition notes the motion for the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works to review the fitout of general office accommodation in the National Convention Centre. We hope that the Minister will take the opportunity, when he refers this matter to the Public Works Committee, to ask it to keep in mind certain points. First is the need to organise the design in such a way as to maximise the involvement of the private sector. Second, is the the need to contain costs. Facilities of this type are usually of a one-off nature and costs are mainly irrecoverable. Spending $12m for around 400,000 square feet is a cost of $30 a square foot, which may very well be able to be lowered. The rationalisation of office facilities for the Australian Customs Service, the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce and the Department of Territories gives the Government an opportunity to review and streamline the operations of those departments. In particular, this involves the reduction of equipment and certain functions, more efficient operations and better service to clients. During the election campaign, the Government gave several undertakings about government spending. The Minister should ask his colleagues to review the operations of their departments so that during this change they will become more efficient. As we all know, interest rates remain high at present because the Government is supporting the Australian dollar. Another fall in the value of the dollar would destroy the prices and incomes accord. As the Minister has noted, he expects interest rates to remain high, at least in the short term. These high interest rates are placing a heavy burden on the home owners of Australia and on the fabric of the family. Interest rates are high because monetary policy is bearing the brunt of the load of the Government's economic policy. Interest rates, and hence the burden on the families, will come down only if the Government excercises determination in other economic policy areas, namely, the progressive deregulation of the labour market to make us more competitive internationally and to bring down our overseas debt and, in regard to fiscal policy, the curtailment of government spending. In this last respect, the Minister can take the lead in this matter by persuading his colleagues to use this proposed rationalisation to improve the efficiency of their departments and to cut their costs. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(6.51) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Telecom Australia-Resources Management Centre, Clayton, Victoria. The proposal is to accommodate sophisticated equipment essential to Telecom Australia operations and will comprise three new buildings on an existing Telecom owned site in Clayton, Victoria. An operations building will house data processing equipment, associated engineering services, staff facilities and amenities. It has been designed to operate 24 hours a day. The engineering services building will accommodate emergency generators, supervisory systems, associated staff amenities, office, store and workshop facilities. The support building will provide general office space for programming and administrative staff associated with the new and existing site facilities and provide appropriate amenities for all staff on site. The total estimated cost of the proposed work is $18.3m at July 1985 prices. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.52) —Once again, I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making available the relevant papers. The Opposition supports the motion to review the operations, engineering services and support buildings at Clayton in Victoria. However, we hope that the Minister will ask the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works to keep the following matters in mind: Firstly, the need to maximise the involvement of the private sector in relation to design and development and, secondly, the need to contain costs, particularly given the bipartisan need to curtail government spending. It should be noted yet again that some $18m would be saved if Telecom Australia were part of the private sector. I am glad to note the presence in the House of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) who no doubt could tell us how inefficient Telecom is in certain of its areas of operation. Again, this is not the place to canvass the transfer of Telecom to the private sector. However, as I noted earlier, it is well known that the Opposition is reviewing this matter. Privatisation of Telecom will give better efficiency, organisation and return. As I noted earlier, employees of any efficient organisation have nothing to fear from privatisation. The Opposition will not oppose the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-On behalf of the Government, I am responding to the interim and final reports of the inquiry into the Aboriginal Development Commission by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. The reports were presented to the House on 5 October 1984 and 22 May 1985 respectively. The Aboriginal Development Commission, which was established by this Parliament when the former Government was in office, commenced operation in 1980. The Commission is an independent statutory body under the control of a board whose members are all Aboriginal. Originally it took over the functions of the Aboriginal Loans Commission and the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission as well as the enterprise function from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Since that time, but before this Government took office, it was given the housing grants-in-aid function previously administered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. When this Government took office we were committed to maintaining and supporting the Aboriginal Development Commission as well as ensuring that its methods of operation and decision making were in line with the developing political, social and economic circumstances of Aborigines. That commitment will continue not only for the Commission but for all the effective organisations within or associated with the portfolio. I say this because the House does well to recall that the Expenditure Committee's inquiry was conducted largely in respect of a time when the former Government was in office. It was that Government which denied the ADC the staff and resources it advised Ministers to provide. It was that Government which placed the ADC under a staff ceiling. Yet it was that Government which loaded on to a then new and inexperienced agency the extra, as it turned out, onerous responsibilities for housing grants administration. Since its inception, when it inherited procedures not entirely suitable to its present mode and extent of operation, the ADC has been attempting to modernise its management systems to a point where it can achieve a standard of efficiency commensurate with its current range of functions. Problems have, of course, been encountered during this developmental stage, some of which have been outlined in the interim report. Criticism of the Commission, particularly during the first three years of its existence, can be linked to the inadequacy of resources allocated to it by the government of the day. Unlike its predecessor, this present Government has acted to overcome this problem by removal of staffing restrictions on a trial basis, providing increased funding and by responding positively to the Committee's recommendations. This reflects the Government's commitment to the attainment of equality for Aboriginals. Many of the recommendations in the interim report are associated with management and administration procedures within the Aboriginal Development Commission. It is proper for the Commission to ensure that measures are taken to rectify the problems which have been identified. The commissioners have considered the recommendations of the Committee and new procedures have been implemented and others are being considered. This positive response from the Commission is complete justification of the Government's commitment to the principles of Aboriginal self-determination. I, as Minister, will require regular briefings from the Aboriginal Development Commission on the progress made with any outstanding issues. I stated in the House at the time the interim report was tabled that the Government's response would be provided as soon as possible. Time does not permit me to respond in detail to each of the Committee's recommendations. I therefore seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document which outlines the Government's response to each of the Committee's recommendations. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Role of the ADC Recommendations 1. The Commission's role should be maintained and strengthened. Its emphasis should be increasingly on programs associated with Aboriginal developments, including housing, enterprises and land acquisition, with welfare programs remaining with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or elsewhere. 2. Further fragmentation of responsibilities within the portfolio should not occur. Any new organisation experiences teething problems and requires a settling-in period to function efficiently. Continuing changes of responsibilities and creation of new organisations militates against achieving efficient program delivery. Response 1. The Government supports the recommendation. 2. The Government supports the recommendation to the extent that it does not impede the introduction of changes that may be necessary in the interests of program efficiency and effectiveness. Aims and Objectives of the ADC Recommendations 3. The Commission should, as a matter of high priority, establish a corporate plan for its objectives which should be updated on a regular basis. Whilst the Commission cannot be insensitive to the wishes of the Aboriginal population at large it does have a leadership role to exercise particularly in the area of Aboriginal enterprises, which is not being fully exercised at present. 4. The Commission should be encouraged to develop the freedom inherent in its Act to establish its own objectives and to acquire the resources, including staff, which are necessary to achieve those objectives. Response 3. The Government supports the recommendation. 4. The Government supports the recommendation for the ADC to set its own objectives consistent with the statute under which it is established. Capital Fund Recommendations 5. Greater emphasis should be applied within the Capital Fund to acquisition of assets more directly concerned with Aboriginal purposes. Response 5. The Government notes there is provision in the ADC Act for the ADC to approach the Treasurer for approval to invest moneys from the Capital Fund in a manner other than those specified in the Act. Any approach would be considered on its merits with due regard being had to the Standing Committee's recommendation. Administrative Systems Recommendations 6. High priority should be given to completion of the development of systems for monitoring the programs of expenditure. Examples are the Rural Accounting and Management System and the Housing and Enterprise Loans Systems. Such systems should ensure regional and sub-regional accountability and be instituted to strengthen the decentralisation of ADC personnel at these levels. 7. A much more rigorous filing system of submissions for projects requiring Commission approval should be instituted. Response 6. The Government has been informed by the ADC that the Housing and Enterprise Loans System is now fully operational and that the Rural Accounting and Management System is operational with provision of input data now being made regularly. 7. The ADC has informed the Government that new filing systems are being introduced this financial year. Role of Commissioners Recommendations 8. The role of Commissioners should be to: Monitor the ongoing performance of the Commission decide policy issues approve projects/activities beyond the delegated authority of Commission staff. Exercising this role should lead to a reduction in the amount of material presented to Commissioners for meetings and the material should be confined to: (a) brief reports of activities-current period and year to date, including progress reports of major ongoing projects; (b) policy papers; and (c) submissions on projects/activities beyond the delegated authority of Commission staff. Response 8. The Government supports the recommendation. Register of Commissioner's Interests Recommendations 9. A chronological register of interests of Commissioners should be maintained with the obligation placed on Commissioners to update the register as interests are changed. Response 9. Section 18 of the ADC Act provides that Commissioners should declare any interests in any matters before the Commission. The ADC has informed the Government that a register of interests is to be completed by Commissioners as at 1 July 1985 and to be maintained thereafter. The Government also requires statements from Commissioners, before their appointment, of any matters that could cause a conflict of interest situation to arise. National Aboriginal Conference Car Loans Recommendations 10. The ADC should not have the responsibility for providing motor vehicle loans to NAC members, and that the NAC should take this matter up with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs with a view to satisfactory transport allowances being made for members. Response 10. The Government accepts that the particular circumstances giving rise to this recommendation are unlikely to occur again in the future. Staffing Matters Recommendations 11. The Committee recognises that there are particular staffing difficulties in organisations such as the Commission and that standard ratios of staffing to expenditure should not necessarily apply. The Government should clarify the provisions of section 33(1) of the ADC Act 1980 as to whether the Commission's staff levels are subject to direct Government regulation. 12. The Commission should be given greater freedom to employ the number of people at classifications it sees as necessary to carry out its functions, and be able to self determine the proportion of its budget devoted to staffing and administration expenses. Response 11. The Government has informed the ADC that, for a trial period of two years, it is free to set its own staffing levels in the light of its own budgetary priorities. 12. The Government considers that a balance must be maintained between staffing and administrative costs and the cost of the Commission's programs. Subject to that, however, the recommendation is supported, consistent with the decision set out above in respect of Rec. 11. Training Recommendations 13. The training process should be considered as an integral function of other Commission responsibilities so that funding of housing and enterprise programs can be linked with associated training programs. This is considered to be particularly important in the case of enterprise programs where the basic skills are best learnt on the job rather than in an institutionally provided course. The emphasis on acquisition of enterprises should switch from acquisition per se, to acquisition linked to training and development opportunities. Response 13. The Government supports the recommendation. It notes that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and other Commonwealth and State agencies also have training responsibilities which complement those of the ADC. Employment under Commonwealth Public Service Act Recommendations 14. The majority of persons employed by the Commission should be employed under the Commonwealth Public Service Act with provision for employing a smaller number (say 20%-30%) outside the provisions of the Act. (NOTE: Mr C. W. Tuckey dissents from this recommendation. His dissent is recorded on page 55) (Mr Tuckey's comments are at Attachment A to this document). Response 14. The Government requested the ADC and the Public Service Board to review this recommendation in the light of ss. 33-35 of the ADC Act and current policies relating to public sector employment. Area Officer Networks Recommendations 15. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Commission should maintain separate area officer networks but the administrative resources available to officers of both organisations should be rationalised and integrated. Response 15. The Government is considering rationalisation of administrative elements of the portfolio at local (area office) level. Housing Responsibilities Recommendations 16. The Grants-in-Aid Housing program should remain the responsibility of the Commission. 17. The Commission should take over from the DAA responsibility for the supply of services associated with housing; water supply; sewerage; power. In addition services such as the home-maker scheme, which is training in the process of running and caring for a home and therefore not strictly a welfare function, should also become the province of the Commission. 18. Maintenance of the existing stock of housing should receive more attention: (a) by way of training programs within communities in simple house maintenance tasks associated with the home-maker programs or care of houses and equipment; and (b) by taking into account in the allocation of funding for new housing, the performance on rent collection and house maintenance of the existing stock of housing. Response 16. The Government supports the recommendation. 17. As the first stage in such a transfer of functions, responsibility for housing-related matters in Aboriginal communities will be transferred as from 1 July 1985. 18. The Government is concerned that existing houses be adequately maintained and therefore supports the recommendation. The ADC has been requested to take appropriate steps. Housing Loan Scheme Recommendations 19. The interest rate and eligibility structure for the housing loans scheme should be restructured to ensure those most in need have highest priority for low interest loans. The restructured scheme should have the following features: loan interest rates should be tied to bank home loan interest rates, rather than be fixed rates as at the present time; a discount structure should be established such that the discount from the bank lending rate is a function of the Average Male Weekly Earnings of the person applying for the loan, or some other suitable indicator; persons in the higher earning categories should receive no discount at all. Persons in this category should not be eligible for loans if there is unsatisfied demand by lower income earners; criteria for elibility for loans at concessional interest rates should be broadly consistent with those applying in other comparable assistance schemes; the requirement for borrowers to have been rejected by a lending institution should be abolished; loans at concessional interest rates for all housing loans should be subject to regular, say, biennial or triennial review to check whether the circumstances of the recipient have changed to the extent that a revised interest rate can be charged; one lending institution should operate as the Commission's agent for the scheme. 20. To stretch the current housing loan allocation over a wider number of people, schemes such as loan guarantees modelled on the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation from commercial lending institutions and supplements to commercial loans through low interest second mortgages should be urgently pursued. In this way the housing loan money available to the Commission would be used to supplement funds available from other institutions rather than replace them. 21. The arrears position on housing loans is serious. Tighter administration of loans would improve this situation. In particular, implementation of the Commission's computer program for loan processing should be given high priority. Response 19. The Government agrees that those most in need should have the highest priority for low interest loans. Interest rates and loan terms are a matter for the ADC to determine. The Commission has informed the Government that its housing loans policies, criteria and procedures have been reviewed so as to reflect these recommendations. 20. The ADC has informed the Government that schemes providing housing loan guarantees and second mortgages are already in operation. 21. The ADC has informed the Government that, with the introduction of its housing loan computer system, housing loan arrears should soon be within acceptable limits. Property Acquisitions Recommendations 22. The Commission should develop criteria for social value for properties bought either wholly or largely for social purposes in order that priorities can be allocated for purchase and disposal of such properties. 23. Reasons for acquisition of properties falling in the `social/economic' category should be clearly defined before properties are purchased. 24. Those properties meeting neither social nor economic needs should be considered for disposal. Response 22. The Government supports the development of appropriate criteria against which proposals to acquire and to dispose of land can be considered, and understands that the Commission has set work in train for this purpose. 23. The Government supports the recommendation. 24. The Government agrees that, where properties are of no further value, they should be disposed of. The Commission has informed the Government that a review will be conducted of properties and consideration given to disposal where appropriate. Financial Commitments to Existing Properties Recommendations 25. Financial commitments to existing properties should be fully assessed before further land acquisitions are undertaken. Implementation of the Rural Accounting and Management System should significantly assist these assessments. Response 25. The ADC has informed the Government that, with the introduction of its Rural Accounting Management System, the Commission will have the necessary information available to it during this financial year, and the future. Title to Existing Properties Recommendations 26. The transfer to local Aboriginal communities of titles to properties held in the name of the Commission should be expedited. Response 26. The Government supports this recommendation provided the community is capable of managing the property for the purposes for which it was purchased. Section 27 of the ADC Act makes it clear that the transfer of title in any particular case is a matter for the Commission. Community Based Enterprises Recommendations 27. The use of the enterprise program to establish facilities such as stores for isolated Aboriginal communities is supported. Response 27.The Government supports the recommendation. Commercially Based Enterprises Recommendations 28. Before enterprises are funded those which are to be of a commercial nature should be clearly identified. For such enterprises, the initial emphasis should be on establishing commercial viability; social benefits flowing from the profit generated should be seen as a secondary goal. Confusion of the two aims at an early stage seems to be a reason for failure of enterprises. Boards of enterprises should be limited in number to ensure that the enterprise is not burdened with excessive overheads. 29. The evaluation, feasibility and approval process for acquiring commercially based enterprises should be tightened up to: (a) ensure that full feasibility studies containing future cash flow projections are made before the acquisition takes place; (b) ensure that reports of the feasibility of the enterprise are obtained from competent, independent persons in the field of the enterprise; (c) ensure that both the Commission and the enterprise directly have sufficient managerial expertise available to maximise the possibility of success; particular consideration should be given to these resources in the early years of acquisition; (d) recognise that acquisition of commercial enterprises may generate considerable local hostility and ensure that the plan of acquisition takes steps to minimise this hostility when it may be prejudicial to the future of the enterprise; (e) appoint outside directors with experience in that industry to the board of the enterprise; (f) provide on-going monitoring of each enterprise program to ensure that it is achieving its objectives whether social or economic or a combination of these; (g) prevent funding of the enterprise if resources are not available to provide this monitoring and direction. Response 28. The Government supports the recommendation. 29. The Government supports this recommendation and has been informed by the Commission that it is intending to review its policy and procedures in this area. ADC Officers as Directors of Enterprises Recommendations 30. The roles and responsibilities of Commission officers appointed as directors to boards of enterprises should be clearly spelt out, particularly with regard to their responsibilities to keep the Commission informed of the enterprise's progress compared with plans. Commission officers should be indemnified against action that can be taken against them, for matters other than personal negligence, in their role as directors. Response 30. The Government agrees that the roles of officers appointed as Director, etc., should be clearly defined and is of the view that they should be afforded the same protection as Commonwealth Public Servants are in similar circumstances. Aboriginal Ownership and Control of Projects Recommendations 31. Aboriginal ownership and control of projects should remain a focus of the enterprise program but where Aboriginals have few relevant skills gradual transfer of ownership and control as expertise is built up should be considered. 32. The joint venture approach whereby the Commission is able to supply capital to an existing entrepreneur and acquire a share of the business (not necessarily a controlling one) in return for a program of employment and training for Aboriginal staff should be utilised. Response 31. The Government agrees with this recommendation. 32. The Government agrees with this recommendation. Training and the Enterprise Program Recommendations 33. The enterprise function should be considered integrally with the training function so that training in management and entrepreneurial skills is given equal, if not greater importance, than actually acquiring Aboriginal enterprises. Response 33. The Government has been informed that the ADC has taken steps in this direction and is currently reviewing its training policy in the context of this recommendation. (See also response to recommendation 13.) Conversion of Enterprise Loans to Grants Recommendations 34. The necessary changes to administrative procedures to obviate the need in some circumstances to initially make grants to social organisations as loans should be implemented as soon as possible. 35. Under only exceptional circumstances should loans be converted to grants. The Commission should consider rescheduling loans in instances of seasonal hardship or other unforeseen circumstances but where mismanagement has occurred, foreclosure should be instituted. Response 34. The ADC has informed the Government that this recommendation has been put into effect. 35. The Government supports the recommendation. In relation to foreclosure action, the Commission has stated that it follows a policy of considering each case on its merits. RECOMMENDATION 14-DISSENT The ADC Act has as its principal objective the granting of autonomy on decision-making to the Aboriginal people. It should not be necessary to impose Public Service Board staff or auditors upon the Commission to achieve its proper function. The extent to which the Commission is already inhibited by Public Service controls is an example of the problems that extension to full Public Service coverage would create. The suggestion that there be persons employed inside and outside the Public Service must create problems including the opportunity to make selective appointments outside the Public Service. Recommendation 14 presumes that the Public Service Board is the repository of the skills and knowledge suitable for the operations of the ADC. I believe the private sector, particularly the merchant banks, would be a better source for many positions. The suggestion that the Public Service Board would offer protection for Commission employees from improper interference from the Chairman or Commissioners ignores the responsibility of the Minister in his appointment of the Commissioners. C. W. TUCKEY, MP Mr HOLDING —Mr Speaker, I turn now to the final report. The final report makes no new recommendations but does present some findings to the House. The findings relate to allegations made to the Committee about certain actions of people connected with the ADC, including the former Chairman and now Secretary of my Department. The majority of the Committee notes the explanations given and has accepted that the allegations are groundless; some of the honourable members opposite have, however, put in a dissenting report. I have already informed the House of my views on this matter and do not propose to do so again. I should inform the House, however, that the Government does not intend to appoint a judge to inquire into the administration of the Aboriginal affairs portfolio. We see no grounds to do so, and those providing the dissenting report have not made out even a prima facie case for such an investigation. I commend to the House the Government's response to the reports. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —by leave-The events leading up to the statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in response to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure inquiring into the Aboriginal Development Commission have caused great disquiet to the Opposition. Firstly, I point out for the benefit of the House that this is the first report, of which I am aware, on which a committee was forced to divide and bring down a minority report. In fact, the Opposition has been concerned that the manner in which this inquiry was conducted and the failure of the Government members, particularly the Chairman, to support the recommendations contained in the minority reports-which essentially contained the fact that the matters examined should be referred to a judicial inquiry-has had the effect of denying natural justice to those witnesses who appeared before the Committee and whose reputations may have been damaged by the Committee's failure to give them the opportunity of a thorough examination of the allegations against them. As the Minister has pointed out, one of those people was in fact the Secretary to his Department. The reputations may therefore remain forever in what I call the limbo of public conjecture. The Expenditure Committee of the Parliament cannot function effectively unless there is a large measure of bipartisan support. The events which culminated in the tabling of the Committee's report show clearly that the Committee is seriously divided and while it remains so on issues such as this, it will lose credibility and it will be incapable of carrying out its traditional functions of advising the Parliament on the efficiency of government expenditure. Both the standing and quality of any parliamentary committee depend ultimately on the ability of the Chairman to manage the affairs of the Committee in a proper, reasonable and responsible manner. If I may go to the detail of the comments made by the Minister this evening in relation specifically to the ADC, I point out that this organisation was established as an independent national corporation by the previous Fraser Government in 1980. The Minister has gone to some pains to emphasise that any shortcomings in the administration of the Authority during the period covered by the initial and the subsequent report were in fact the responsibility of that government. Nevertheless, when that organisation was established it replaced the Aboriginal Loans Commission and the Aboriginal Land Fund, which had been set up in the mid-1970s. It was controlled by a board of about 10 Aboriginal commissioners. The ADC's main tasks are to distribute housing grants and low interest home loans to Aboriginals, assist indigenous enterprises and to help communities to acquire land. I agree with the Minister that the objectives of the ADC are excellent and provided they are conducted in an efficient and effective manner one would hope that in due course we will see that the indigenous people of Australia in particular gain substantially from their association with it. The aim of the ADC is to become self-sufficient. I regard it as a matter of some concern that the present government has in fact allowed the contributions to the capital account to fall to zero. That may create major problems in the future. In terms of funding of the ADC and, in fact, in terms of funding of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in toto, it should be noted that total grants to the ADC since its inception were some $322.1m, while total grants to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs since 1982 alone are in excess of $1,010m. The attitude of the Minister is to give handouts of money without necessarily looking in depth at the real problems facing the Aboriginal community. I had the occasion to point this out to the Minister last night. It is a very multi-party problem that effectively for at least the last 15 years vast sums of money have been spent in trying to solve the problems of the Aboriginal community of Australia. I am sorry to say that if one looks at health and various other areas, we still have an enormous way to go. The World Health Organisation figures show in some areas that we have in fact gone backwards, despite the substantial funding that has been allocated. All I am simply saying is that we need to look in greater depth at the problems and make sure that the solutions to them are cost effective. There is reason to doubt that. As the then Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I conducted the first investigation into the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in 1976-77 and identified many of these problems. I am not at all certain that the identification has necessarily led to satisfactory solutions in all cases. No doubt the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), who was with me in those days, would perhaps find similar reasons as well. In terms of the Authority, the reason why Opposition members emphasised in their minority report that they believed a judicial inquiry was necessary was based on the recommendations of the Coombs report which was given to the Committee and which has not been made public. As I understand it, it has never been tabled in this House. Mr Holding —The Coombs report has been. Mr CONNOLLY —I am glad to hear that. Legal counsel was employed by the Committee at a cost of some $5,000. There is sufficient reason in the comments contained in that report to give substance to the claim of the Opposition members that a further judicial inquiry ought to be carried out. The fact of the matter is that these recommendations contain certain matters relating to the Australian Federal Police. Members of the Committee chose to ignore that advice and proceeded with the investigations themselves, although they were advised that to do so they were venturing into a field effectively beyond the expertise of any parliamentary committee. Is it any wonder, therefore, that honourable members on this side of the chamber believe having identified individuals but not having necessarily carried out a thorough investigation, that it is preferable that those matters be examined by extra-parliamentary bodies, which are better equipped to do that sort of work. The Public Accounts Committe on many occasions has found a similar sort of problem in that there are difficulties for Parliamentary committees to get into areas which may be on the edge of illegality. It is for that reason, as well as the fact I mentioned earlier that some $322.1m has already been allocated to the ADC since its inception, and the continuous stream of allegations, suggestions, Press reports and other sources of intelligence, all leading to the conclusion that the level of administration of the ADC is open to some doubt, that this inquiry was conducted in the first place. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to a fact that he is probably aware of, that on no less than three occasions between 1982 and September 1985 the Auditor-General has drawn attention to matters concerning the administration of the ADC. For example, in his September 1982 report he said: Results of the audit of the Commission as at March 1981 revealed weaknesses in internal control, absence of written instructions and procedures, and incomplete accounts for fixed assets, advances, investments and shares. In September 1984 the Auditor-General, referring to accounting and other records, reported that: Deficiencies in internal controls and accounting and other records and non-compliance with certain approved procedures were disclosed during the audit. These included certain items. For the benefit of the House, I seek leave to incorporate the further comments in Hansard. Leave not granted. Mr CONNOLLY —In that case I will read it into Hansard. The report continues: These included: assets acquired and disposed of during the year had not been recorded in the Commission's asset register the results of the stocktake of assets, which had been conducted in 1982-83, had not been reconciled with the asset register instances were noted where approved procedures for periodic reviews had not been followed to ensure that borrowers were still engaged in the business enterprises for which loans had been made and that securities for loans were adequately insured That is a very serious allegation. The report continues: instances were noted of overpayments of allowances and of non-compliance with prescribed procedures in the processing of salary variations and the maintenance of personnel records control over the approval and acquittance of travel advances was inadequate in some cases, and accounting records and other documentation was deficient in respect of a number of housing loans. In September 1985 the Auditor-General went on to say, again referring to accounting and other records: Deficiencies in internal controls and accounting and other records and non-compliance with certain approved procedures were disclosed during the audit. These included: inadequate maintenance of the asset register and no reconciliation to the general ledger inaccurate general ledger records and lack of reconciliation with subsidiary data for housing and enterprise loans, and absence of formal Commission policy regarding conditions for the conversion of loans to grants. The financial statements of the Commission for 1983-84 record that a review of related documentation disclosed a total of $234,267 (at cost) in assets that could not be substantiated by stocktake records. It is noted in the accounts that, in the interest of a conservative statement of assets, this amount was written off during the year. There are reasons why people continue to be concerned about the administration of the ADC. Since then other allegations have been made in this particular area. It is worth noting that the current Secretary to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs said in November 1983 to a semi-private meeting on Thursday Island that about 460 Commission business enterprises were going bad, and I quote: We have got what they call a moratorium on business enterprises for individuals. Why we have done this is because we've got 460 business enterprises out at the moment and they're all going bad . . . or most of them are, anyhow. We're having great difficulty with them. That is the Secretary to the Department, who was previously the head of the Aboriginal Development Commission. Mr Hand —What is the source of that? Mr CONNOLLY —It is a newspaper source. The ADC has been accused by Aboriginals of being an exclusive group of commissioners and staff that does not bother to consult with ordinary Aboriginal people about its programs and therefore does not know what is going on. In June 1984 a former Chairman of the National Aboriginal Conference claimed that the ADC had a lot to answer for to the Aboriginal people of Australia and that only a royal commission would get to the bottom of the problem. So not only the Opposition but also members of the Aboriginal community are asking for an inquiry. The co-ordinator of the South Australian Aboriginal trachoma and eye health program said that there is a great deal of disquiet in Aboriginal communities about how the ADC spends its money. A former ADC project officer and Deputy Chairman of Aboriginal Hostels Limited said that there is no doubt that all the decision-making power in Aboriginals affairs is concentrated in a small elite group in Canberra. These accusations have continued. The ADC has been accused by the Ralkon Agricultural Company of South Australia, a farming company controlled by Aboriginals of the Point McLeay area on the Eyre Peninsula, of attempting to influence improperly the outcome of elections for the Point McLeay community council, threatening to suspend funding to the community unless the council passed resolutions requested by the ADC to support ADC action, and paying consultants for purposes not authorised by the Act under which the ADC operates. In addition, we have other examples such as the Gwydir Property Aboriginal Corporation. The ADC is meeting the funding for the Corporation's capital and recurrent accounts. The organisation operates a separate rent account into which all rent receipts are or should be paid. There is no trusteeship or co-signatory arrangement for this account, which is operated entirely by the directors. It is in the area of receipts for this account that moneys have been misused. The accountant's dual role of financial adviser and trustee contains an inherent conflict. The antipathy felt by the directors towards the accountant, because of his policing role in the administration of the grant funds, has strained communication to the point where it is very difficult for the accountant to provide training or effective advice to the Corporation. We are told of extremely poorly run organisation and unaccounted rent receipts. None of the Corporation's 10 houses is insured, rates are owed to the council in respect of both 1981 and the current year, and there is a lack of simple maintenance of dwellings, even of houses whose tenants are not in rent arrears. Both the area office and the Corporation's accountant stated that it is almost impossible to arrange a meeting with the directors to discuss financial or other matters of concern. When pressed about the standard of the Corporation's records and general administration, the directors and employees professed some ignorance of such complexities. The deterioration of the records suggests at least an unwillingness to observe rudimentary management practices. In addition, we have the situation of the Inada arts and craft shop in Perth. Inada Holdings is renting a retail outlet in Perth at a total cost of $18,000 a year, or $1,500 a month. The shop is alleged to have hardly opened its doors in the last eight months. Inada has already received about $500,000 from the ADC and is expected to receive a similar amount in its second year. I refer also to the ADC's involvement with the company Boomerang Insurances. Boomerang Insurances went into liquidation in 1983. A firm of solicitors claimed that its client, the Mercantile Mutual Life Insurance group, had not received $43,000 it lent to the company in 1982 which had been guaranteed by the ADC. In 1984 a former commissioner of the ADC failed to supply details of how a $90,000 grant to an Aboriginal community in Western Australia would be spent. The $90,000 grant from the Commission was to help establish a cattle enterprise on reserve land in north-western Australia. It is reported that the commissioner had refused to take advice on how the money should be allocated or how priorities should be drawn up, or even follow basic economic principles such as obtaining quotes. A $100,000 mackerel fishing venture by an Aboriginal group collapsed after being plagued by a constant drain of funds and loose overall control by the ADC. The point I am trying to make is that giving Aboriginal organisations money but not being prepared to give them adequate backup and administrative support is a guaranteed way of ultimately doing no good for the Aboriginal community and certainly of wasting taxpayers' funds. Ultimately, when ventures of this type fail it is the Aboriginal community that is often left holding the baby and being held responsible. For all these reasons the Opposition was completely justified in coming forward at the time of the tabling of this report and recommending that there be a legal inquiry into the affairs of the Aboriginal Development Commission. I simply say to the Minister, on the basis of what he said tonight, that he has accepted responsibility and we will hold him to it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(7.15) —Mr Speaker, tonight I would like to raise an important matter in relation to the Australian War Memorial, a national institution which enjoys a very special place in the hearts and minds of most Australians, especially those who have served their country in time of war. I might add that it has been in recent years the most visited institution in the national capital, reflecting the high standing of the War Memorial and related museum, as thousands upon thousands of Australians have attended, amongst other things to pay their respects to those who made the supreme sacrifice for their country. Administration of the Australian War Memorial now comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Arthur Gietzelt, who became the Minister responsible following the 1 December election last year and the subsequent transfer of the Australian War Memorial from the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. There is an appointed Council for the Australian War Memorial under the chairmanship of Dame Beryl Beaurepaire, and I point out that it is a council which elects its own chairman. The Council includes the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) and a wide cross-section of people with particular reference to the armed forces and the veterans' community. The Director is Air Vice-Marshal J. H. Flemming, AO, DFC, AM (United States), FAIM, and he has served in that position for some two and a half years. Before proceeding further, it is fair to say that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has had ministerial responsibility for only a relatively short time-in fact, less than one year. Nevertheless, ministerial responsibility does rest with that Minister, and yesterday he chose to give an explanation in relation to management problems at the Australian War Memorial. Those remarks followed on the comments of a former senior curator of military technology at the Australian War Memorial from 1980 to 1985, Mr J. R. Heaton, who said, amongst other things: There are problems that have greatly reduced the ability of the staff at the institution to provide a full service to the public. It takes a considerable time to develop a full understanding of the aims and objectives of the Memorial and to acquire a detailed knowledge of its vast and complex collections. The current top management, however, has allowed staff morale to fall to a critically low level. The rapid staff turnover provides ample proof of this. There are more than 30 professional staff positions, but over the past 18 months the Memorial has lost an assistant director of collections, two senior curators, the senior exhibitions designer, the head of the conservation section and two specialised conservators, and a curator in the research area, along with a senior administrative officer. Mr Heaton adds his contention that the staff are speaking with their feet by leaving. He says that a considerable number of other experienced curatorial staff members are either actively seeking employment elsewhere or, though unwilling to move, are unhappy with the existing management. Mr Heaton concludes that the Australian War Memorial is `in a state of internal crisis which indeed deserves a closer scrutiny of its top management'. Information made available to me would indicate that the comments made by Mr Heaton are relevant and accurate and highlight the fact that many key people have left the Australian War Memorial over recent times. Let us refer to the Minister's statement. Senator Gietzelt said yesterday in another place: I have satisfied myself, that to a great extent, his allegations have very little substance. All those who have held senior positions at the Australian War Memorial and have left in recent years have done so for personal reasons associated with domestic problems, career advancement or moving to institutions of a similar nature. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs was simply wrong in his contention and advice to the Senate yesterday. Indeed, his response smacks of a cover up in the best Yes Minister style or, alternatively, a real failure to investigate the situation fully. The facts are that the Australian War memorial has been haemorrhaging badly at the specialist middle management level, with a loss of personnel far in excess of what might be regarded as normal turnover. There are particular reasons for this, and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has the absolute responsibility to investigate comprehensively and then take corrective action. I serve notice that I will continue to monitor the Australian War Memorial situation closely for a host of reasons, not the least of which is its very special place as a national institution in honour of those who served their country in time of war and who made the supreme sacrifice. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(7.20) —Tonight I rise to tell honourable members the story of one of my constituents. I do not normally bring constituent matters before the House in this way, but I believe it is an appropriate course of action to take in this case. The constituent involved is a man by the name of John Wiseman. Mr Wiseman is a qualified ship's radio operator and until 1976 he had experienced a long and satisfactory career in this field. One could say he had a good employment record. In that year an incident occurred which was to change his life dramatically and, I might add, not for the better. The incident to which I refer happened early in June 1976 on board the British flag, Australian chartered chemical tanker, the Silver Harrier. As she crossed Bass Strait, the ship struck a storm of intense fury, described as a force 10 gale. My constituent was the radio officer on board and during the crossing he lost the capacity to transmit emergency calls. As such, the ship and its crew were in a position of great risk. Luckily, the ship was able to make it to port quite safely. Mr Wiseman, of course, reported the loss of radio signal to the ship's master and made a formal report of the affair. Having considerable knowledge of radio operations he made an initial investigation to determine the cause of the signal loss. He came up with the theory that the radio transmitter's signal had been interrupted because of sea spray thrown up on the aerials during the rough passage. The main problem, he believed, lay with the aerial insulators which were made of fibreglass. Fibreglass holds salt particularly well and wet salt is a well-known conductor of electricity, the aerials being charged with a high voltage to signal. Following the storm, Mr Wiseman believed the ship unsafe to sail. He refused to travel to Melbourne when asked by the ship's master and was given a bad conduct discharge. As a result of this he has found it almost impossible to get work within Australian waters. In the nine years since the incident he has had only 37 months work, mainly in overseas operations. Believing he was correct, Mr Wiseman did not let the matter rest, he studied the problem further and has now written some seven articles in well-known international magazines about his investigations. The latest of these appears in the August 1985 edition of Safety at Sea which is published in England. At the same time, he took up the matter with the responsible authorities. His formal report of the incident was sent to the Department of Transport, which has responsibility for maritime safety. In turn, the Postal and Telecommunications Department, as it was known then, became involved because the telecommunications aspects of sea safety are delegated to this Department, the Department of Transport having no one of sufficient technical expertise to investigate such matters. The Postal and Telecommunications Department did a survey of the radio installations on board the Silver Harrier after the storm. The report stated that the vessel was fit for sea. Further surveys confirmed the original assessment. Mr Wiseman was dissatisfied with these results and, as I mentioned earlier, spent considerable time building up his case on the Silver Harrier and the problems of fibreglass insulators. He took up the question of the survey results with some vengeance following his return to Australia, after a period overseas, in 1983. Using material obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and as a result of a leaked document he obtained, Mr Wiseman became most concerned that the original survey had not been properly undertaken; that is, that the conditions which the Silver Harrier met in Bass Strait were not reproduced accurately in the survey tests. My constituent now alleges that the two departments involved tried to cover up the fact that the original survey was bodgy. I remind honourable members that this occurred some years ago, prior to this Government coming into office. For the information of honourable members, I will provide a couple of choice quotes which appear to support Mr Wiseman's claims. The first is, from a file note of the original surveyor of the Silver Harrier dated January 1977. It states: I am disturbed at the implications of querying surveyors ability . . . if they (the British Board of Trade which determines the regulations) are going to alter the aerials of the Silver Harrier it places us in a very difficult position of having 5-6 of our official surveys contradicted. The second is from the leaked document which I mentioned earlier, entitled `Minute to Radio Surveyor 10/1982'. In part, it stated: Tests conducted in various states by the Department- the Department of Communications in conjunction with the Department of Transport- confirms that such insulation- that is, fibreglass- becomes most inefficient in wet weather . . . and represents a safely hazard and may prevent emergency communications in adverse weather conditions. In a private handwritten note at the bottom of a letter sent to Mr Wiseman, the Ombudsman said: `Mr Wiseman is probably on sound technical ground and we may have `missed the boat' in our earlier investigation, understandably because the insulator resistance/seawater conducting question was never satisfactorily explained to us. What about giving Mr Wiseman a fair go? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(7.25) —Yesterday, a very exciting event occurred in Hamilton. For the benefit of honourable members, Hamilton is the geographical centre of the electorate of Wannon. It is also very proud to boast the title of the wool capital of the world. Yesterday, Hamilton very proudly unveiled the Victorian premier town award and the award for youth and recreation. These awards are given out every three years and cover the whole of Victoria. The electorate of Wannon can further boast that two towns were in the final five competitors for the premier town award. The other town was Portland on the coast. Mr Hand —What about Warrnambool? Mr HAWKER —I will get to Warrnambool in a minute. Not only does Wannon boast Hamilton as the premier town but also Portland was in the last five competitors. This indicates the strength, character and civic pride of the people of western Victoria. The depth of this area goes much further. In 1979, for the benefit of the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), Warrnambool won the premier town award. Mr Hand —I was living there at the time. It is a great city too, I might add. Mr HAWKER —I hope that the honourable member made a contribution. The achievement of Hamilton will be quite unique because Hamilton is the premier town during Victoria's one hundred and fiftieth celebrations. It will still be Victoria's premier town in 1988 when we have Australia's bicentennial celebrations. On behalf of everyone here tonight, to the Mayor, Councillor Laurie Noskie, the Premier Town Civic Committee Chairman, Councillor Bob Bowden, the Hamilton Promotion Officer, Mr Kevin Thomas and everyone in Hamilton we offer our warm congratulations on a great achievement. Whilst Portland, also in the electorate of Wannon, was a finalist in the premier town award it has other achievements in this competition. It won the community services award. In November 1984 Portland also won the Victoria award in geothermal energy- an Australia-wide competition. It is something the people of Portland are very proud of. We all ought to congratulate the Mayor of Portland, Councillor Robert Halliday, the Portland Council and everyone in Portland. In describing the achievements of Hamilton, Portland and Warrnambool, all great places in the electorate of Wannon, we should pay tribute to the people. It is the achievements of the people which have earned these successes. Mr McGauran —What about the man who represents them? Mr HAWKER —I thank the honourable member. Furthermore, Hamilton, Portland and Warrnambool, together with the south-east of South Australia, form part of an area known as the Green Triangle. It comprises most of the electorate of Wannon and part of the electorate of Barker, which is represented by my colleague the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). These areas have all contributed to the betterment of the Green Triangle. The achievement of the three major centres in Wannon will do much to enhance the Green Triangle. In conclusion, I say that it is a great honour, as the member for Wannon, to be able to represent such a great area in this Parliament. I think the towns of Hamilton, Portland and Warrnambool, have all, in their own right, demonstrated what a great part of Australia is south-western Victoria and what a great contribution it will make to the future. As I have said, it is not just the towns but the people in them who have achieved this success. They have achieved it in an area with limited natural advantages. We do not have snow fields and we have limited beach facilities, yet the people have won premier town awards. Mr Hand —We have more beaches than the southern coast. What are you talking about? Mr HAWKER —We have some special attractions. I remind the honourable member for Melbourne that we have the southern right whale which comes to the beaches of Warrnambool every winter. To anyone who has not seen it it is well worth a visit. It is one of the great marvels of the sea. The whales almost became extinct a few years ago. Fortunately, they are slowly breeding up, but I understand that even today there are few more than 1,500 southern right whales in the world. Warrnambool is one of only three places in the world where these whales can be seen from the beach. I congratulate Hamilton and Portland on their achievements in the premier town award and Warrnambool on its achievement in 1979. Mrs CHILD(Henty)(7.30) —Today, along with every other member of the House, I had delivered to my room a package which contained a number of toiletry articles. It came with a letter from the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association of Australia. There are two things I wish briefly to say about this. One is that whatever letters I get, whether they come from my electorate or even my State, I am always happy to take up whatever problems are contained in them. In this case it runs parallel with an advertisement that was in the papers today about certain percentages of sales tax on things for men and some on things for women. I am perfectly happy to look at the letter and the problems set out in the letter. What I have taken offence at is having a parcel or an unsolicited present delivered to me in Parliament House. Mr Slipper —Will you be returning it? Mrs CHILD —I will be returning mine, and I hope that every other member of the House will be returning his or her's. I do not believe that members of Parliament in carrying out their duties and their responsibilities should have unsolicited presents delivered to them in their rooms. In fact, I felt that I had been intruded upon. Mr Slipper —It was a bribe. Mrs CHILD —The honourable member may see it as a bribe, but I am not saying that the firm gave it as a bribe. What I am saying is that I do not care for the presentation, I do not care for the way it was done. I felt that it was an affront to me as a member of Parliament to have my support sought in this way. I can assure the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association of Australia that I will give its letter and complaint due consideration. I would give it that consideration with or without a box of unsolicited goods. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(7.33) —Nearly 2,000 years ago Roman emperors initiated policies designed to placate their restless populations. The free bread and circuses policies, as they were known, were no more than a blatant and cynical attempt to take the minds of citizens from the problems of a declining empire and, instead, to focus those minds on immediate pleasures with no thought for the future. Like some flickering re-run of a Cecil B. De Mille movie, South Australians are witnessing the decline and fall of the Bannon Government as it desperately seeks the quick-fix solutions to the deep-rooted problems which it has, with Labor in Canberra, caused and with which it is quite unable to cope. Eight days ago the South Australian Government initiated a free bread and circuses policy of its own-a policy designed, as it was 2,000 years ago, to divert the attention of an electorate-in this case one increasingly tired of State Labor's incompetence. I refer to the decision on 1 October by the Bannon Government to subsidise increases in current building society interest rates for just six months. Under the scheme the South Australian financing authority will invest $30m and in the process forgo $3m of interest. The money is to be used to pay South Australian building societies so that a recent 0.75 per cent increase in interest rates is not passed on to existing building society borrowers, at least for the next six months. Why would the State Government have done such a curious thing? For no other reason than to prop up the flagging fortunes of the Bannon Government because it hopes that in the process somehow it may be able to recover a few percentage points in the opinion polls and win the next State election. Mr Andrew —Just six months. Mr DOWNER —The move will provide assistance to some 25,000 people who, not surprisingly, are concentrated in several key State electorates-electorates which must be won or retained if the Bannon Government is to survive, which it will not. But it will not assist the other 250,000 South Australians who have home loans with the State Bank, the Commonwealth Bank, the private trading banks and so on. It will not help most South Australians faced with spiralling interest rates. They are all being ignored. It will not help new borrowers from building societies; it will not help small businesses struggling to service their loans. It will help just a tiny minority who are being used for political purposes, and it will help them, as the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) rightly said, for just six months. Honourable members do not need to be reminded that by the end of that six months the State election will have come and gone. No wonder that the unanimous verdict of Press commentators, bankers, businessmen and economists is that this is little more than a cynical political move, a pork-barrelling exercise of the worst kind. Even the Federal Government has refused to endorse this cynical scheme-and I hear no endorsement coming from the other side of the House tonight. The Federal Labor Party knows, as does everyone else, that this band-aid measure will do nothing to mitigate the impact of spiralling interest rates. It knows that it is just a waste of money. Whether he likes it or not, the Premier of South Australia and his colleagues the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) hold total responsibility for the increases in interest rates which are causing hardship in the mortgage belts of Adelaide and in other capital cities. Their incompetence has caused the collapse of the Australian dollar, and that collapse has guaranteed the rise in interest rates. Interest rates in South Australia are now in real terms five times as high as they were when the Tonkin Government was defeated in 1982. That is the legacy partly of the Bannon Government and partly of the present Federal Government. Whenever the next State election is held, Mr Bannon will be confronting the electors with this cynical exercise under his belt, and with other cynical exercises, such as the tax cuts he promised not for a long time but for just one year and a freeze on State bank loans for just three months. These measures are designed to deceive the South Australian people and that deceit will be rewarded at the next State election by the ejection of the Premier, Mr Bannon, and his deceitful and absurd Government and will result in the election of Mr Olsen. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(7.38) —Tonight I want to take a few minutes of the time of the House to raise an issue on behalf of a man who has just left the Royal Australian Air Force-Brendan Prendergast, from Stratford in Victoria. Brendan served in the RAAF for some nine years and for the last six years was responsible for guard dog work and guard dog work in that service. Over the last six years Brendan worked with a dog called Sheriff. No doubt many people have heard of this case in the last few weeks because it has become somewhat of an issue whether this dog's life should be saved or whether it should be put down. Some months back, in April, Brendan Prendergast applied to the RAAF for permission to take the dog with him when he was discharged from the Air Force. The process was put into operation for the dog to be assessed and in the first instance Brendan was given permission for the dog to be released with him. It appeared at that stage that his request would be carried out. However, on about 2 September the dog had to undergo a special test. In that test the dog, which is now nine years old-way past the normal age for a dog working in the RAAF-performed extremely well in its duties as a guard dog. This created a problem in regard to the dog's release. Under the orders and agreements within the RAAF under which dogs can be released, a dog has to show some sign that it is losing interest as a guard dog in order for it to be eligible for release with its handler. Another requirement is that the dog must be able to be handled by other people. These two areas have caused problems in deciding whether the dog shall be released. There seem to be discrepancies in the opinions of experts on this case. This matter was raised with me and I took it up with the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). Brendan left the Force a few weeks back and we have been able to have a stay of execution on the dog until such time as an investigation takes place. We have now reached the situation where in normal circumstances the dog itself would be treated as a guard dog and be put down, but there has been such public interest in this issue that I have received possibly more letters on this matter than on most other issues I deal with. I think other people have also received many representations. Consideration must also be given to the public good. A guard dog should not be released in a local town if there is a possibility that it could attack somebody if it is upset. So, a very strong case can be argued one way or the other in this situation. No doubt a major decision will have to be taken in regard to this Alsatian or German Shepherd dog. I quite clearly appreciate the RAAF's position. If the indications are that the dog cannot be deprogrammed and returned to normal society, I think the RAAF would have a responsibility to see that the dog was not released. However, regardless of what happens, I am not of the opinion that the dog should be put down. I think a dog that has served the amount of time that this dog has with the RAAF should in some way be allowed to see its life out and not be destroyed. There must be some use for it within society. The position at the moment is that the Minister has called for reports on the dog. We are still waiting on a reply from him. I am making a plea to him that the dog should not under any circumstances be put down. I think the life of the dog should be preserved. I also understand Brendan Prendergast's position. He has worked with the dog for six years and is quite confident that he can look after it. Therefore, I hope that the decision on this matter will turn out for the good, one way or the other. I do not think that a beautiful animal such as this should be put down when it has served so well for so many years. I hope that the Minister can give us an answer within a week about the future of the dog. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(7.43) —I rise to support in one sense the comments of the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) and, in another sense, to query the matters that he has put before the House. As the honourable member would be aware, I support his plea to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) to save the life of the dog known as Sheriff. I also know Brendan Prendergast and his family. I have been involved for some time now in this affair that has become so widely known and which has involved so many sympathisers who have written to me and expressed concern. My query relates to the form of inquiry which the honourable member for McMillan and the Minister have announced. I understand that the inquiry will involve nothing more than the seeking of advice from the Department of Defence on possibly deprogramming Sheriff and his release into the community. I join with the honourable member for McMillan in making a plea for the life of Sheriff. However, I also make a plea to the Minister to conduct an independent bona fide inquiry and not merely one that is a rubber stamp of the Department's views. From the very start of my inquiries I have been advised by the Royal Australian Air force at every level that this dog would be a complete and utter danger to the community if released in the care of Brendan. I am quite certain what the advice would be if the Minister simply asks his Department for an opinion on the deprogramming of this dog. The advice will amount to simply nothing more than a temporary stay of execution, to use the words of the honourable member for McMillan. It is incumbent upon the honourable member and the Minister to quash the concerns which are increasing day by day that this inquiry will be a complete and utter sham. What sort of inquiry will it be if the RAAF gives the Minister the views that it has already expressed to me on numerous occasions? Where would be the independence in such an inquiry? Moreover, what opportunity will Brendan Prendergast and his family have to put the independent views of experts to this so-called inquiry? I understand that the Prendergast family are able to obtain sworn documents from a whole range of experts in regard to German Shepherd guard dogs which show that this dog can be deprogrammed and is not a menace to society. What opportunity will there be for these matters to be put before an inquiry? Instead, it is becoming increasingly clear that either the honourable member for McMillan, the Minister, or both, have cynically resorted to cynical opportunism to quash what is a matter of real public concern. The Minister acted quickly as soon as the publicity about this dog started steamrolling right throughout the printed and electronic media in Victoria. I invite the honourable member for McMillan to explain the nature of that inquiry to this chamber and to the Prendergast family. If he is unable to show that the inquiry will be independently conducted and that the Prendergasts and experts will have the opportunity to appear before that inquiry and submit evidence, the whole exercise will be a sham and the honourable member and the Minister will rightly stand convicted of political opportunism and cynicism of the worst kind. I support what the honourable member has said about the dog. I am instructed by the family that it is not what is called a siege dog. He is, instead, a guard dog which has attended public displays and has been handled many times by other handlers during his nine years in the RAAF. However, that is circumstantial evidence. Like the honourable member for McMillan, I would like expert evidence to be given before we act in the public interest and release the dog into the hands of Brendan Prendergast. My absolute concern and the concern of many of my constituents, not least the Prendergast family, who have contacted me, is that there will be no independent inquiry. I warn the honourable member and the Minister that if there is no independent inquiry and the Minister acts only on the advice of the RAAF, which has made its views abundantly clear, I will raise the matter again in this Parliament. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(7.47) —I think it is important to say to the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) that I cannot imagine the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) being part of some sham or some exercise from which the honourable member has tried to dissent. To correct the record, I should point out that I think the honourable member is just a little out of sorts because the honourable member for McMillan got in first. That is a principle of politics. If the honourable member for Gippsland wants to be in this place a little longer, he should not get so uptight when people are engaging in a sincere activity. The honourable member for McMillan has the matter in hand. He has talked to the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I think the honourable member should understand that everything is going to be organised properly because people on this side of the House do things properly. The honourable member for Gippsland should be reminded that such matters are in appropriate hands on this side of the House. He should just settle down and stay with the puppies rather than with the big dogs. I wish to address myself very clearly to a problem that has arisen in Scarborough in my electorate concerning a high-rise block that the Bond Corporation has built near the beach for use during the America's Cup. This development has caused a major problem for the residents of Scarborough whose television reception is being totally disrupted. In fact, hundreds and hundreds of residents of this area are receiving a shadowed television signal. The people of Scarborough are now seeking some redress from the Bond Corporation, which, to its credit, has been engaged in negotiations with myself and the State member for Scarborough to try to resolve the problem. We believe that the only way the problem can be resolved is by installing a relay transmitter on top of the Bond Corporation building at a cost of between $50,000 and $60,000. The relay, in effect, will turn the original VHF television signal into a UHF signal to enable people to receive a clear television picture. However, the problem has become very acute because television provides a major form of entertainment for some people in my area who are very old or invalid. The husband of one person who wrote to me is an invalid pensioner who suffered injuries during the war. More recently he has had a stroke. In fact, he cannot speak and his only form of entertainment is watching television. He is an example of the people whose lives have been totally disrupted by the construction of this building. Television interference is so great that they cannot receive any television signal from any of the available channels, namely, channels 2, 7 and 9. Unfortunately, recent information which has been given to the people of Scarborough indicates that the problem is likely to go away in some 30 working days when a crane will be taken down from the top of the building. The reality is that the problem will not go away. The crane will not come down in some 30 working days. In fact, the Bond Corporation has said to me that the problem will remain until next February. But even after that point, because of the amount of structural steel that is in this concrete and steel structure, the problem may never disappear. That brings us squarely to the position: Why have we got the problem? We have the problem because the building has been approved by what was then the Liberal dominated Metropolitan Regional Planning Authority. It showed no concern at all for the local people. The Liberal-controlled local council has also shown no concern. My view is that the local people ought to be taking legal action because there clearly is a case of negligence to be established in terms of the planners. There also should be a much quicker reaction by the Bond Corporation. The reason for that very simply is that for some months now people have had this disruption to their lives. I say simply to the people of Scarborough that if they are having television interference they should not get a new television or a new antenna. In fact, they should seek as a community to redress the problem. I am happy to work with them in seeking some redress. I am hopeful that the Bond Corporation will see the good sense in the need to install a transmitter on top of the building to try to overcome the problem. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(7.52) —In 1978 I attended a parliamentary conference in Sri Lanka on population and development. It was the first time I had been out of Australia. Things that occurred at that conference have probably left an indelible mark on me in the sense that the island of Sri Lanka is the size of Tasmania; Tasmania has a population of 400,000 and Sri Lanka has a population of 14 million, which is roughly the same population as that of Australia. Of course, Australia seems to be the lucky country. We certainly were in those days. In 1978 we had a belief that zero population growth would occur by the year 2000. One thinks about population and development because, I suppose, they are inextricably bound together. I thought about Australia being a lucky country, about the year 2000 and zero population growth, and about Australia being a large continent. But also one wondered about the reason for zero population growth. At that time, I think from memory, there were about 90,000 abortions and we allowed about 90,000 people to come into Australia for immigration and compassionate reasons. So one could understand that other countries would look at Australia in a peculiar sort of way. As soon as one walked out of the hotel into the streets in Sri Lanka one saw absolute poverty-babies being bathed in the street gutters and poor people with the look of loneliness in their eyes, the look of wanting something but not being able to get it at all. I continually made comparisons with what I know in Australia. So, of course, I changed dramatically. Since that time I have been to quite a few conferences on this subject but I have found that it is not a very fashionable subject to talk about. If one talked about uranium or peace and disarmament many people would listen. Mr Cadman —We have never seen this quite compassionate side of your nature. Mr GOODLUCK —No. Usually Hansard hates me when I speak and the Speaker wakes up. I start ranting and raving about the things that may occur in this country. But I think very seriously about other things. I am pleased that my colleague realises that. I went to India and after talking to people there I realised that we in Australia should start to realise that two-thirds of the total world population live in absolute poverty compared with what we have. For example, babies die in India because the mothers cannot read the prescription which would save the babies from dying of diarrhoea. There are lots of things we can do. I believe that parliamentarians should get involved in this subject. I think a committee should be formed in this Parliament to talk about it and to have contact with other countries, particularly developing countries, which have these massive problems. We do not have them in Australia. We have our arguments about immigration and other matters. But we need to be aware that developing countries have massive problems to which parliamentarians should sometimes address themselves rather than these other fashionable subjects into which many people put a lot of effort. But really they do not do us very much good in the long term. I think we need to do that. I will be talking to Mr Speaker with the hope that I can form just a very small committee to talk about this very important subject of population and development which will have a massive effect on what we do in Australia in the long term. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 7.56 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 9 October 1985: Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission- By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)- Amendment No. 60. Telecommunications (General)-Amendment No. 45.