Tuesday, 15 October 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Prime Minister) —I advise the House of the following ministerial arrangements: The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) will be overseas from today until 28 October 1985 on Government business visiting the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other countries for trade talks. During his absence the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will act as Minister for Trade. I am advised that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has been delayed in transit and will be here for the latter part of Question Time. Mr SPEAKER —Before calling on questions without notice, I advise the House that we have present in the gallery Mr Joseph James Clark-Joe Clark-who was the member for Darling from 1934 until 1969. In other words, he served 35 years and one month in this House and is the seventh longest serving member of the House of Representatives. He was Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker from 1946 to 1949. Joe informs me that he is now 88 years old. I am sure that the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar), the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) and the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) hope as I do that his longevity is a good omen for those who have occupied the Chairman of Committees position. On behalf of the House I offer Mr Clark a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HOWARD —Will the Acting Prime Minister inform the House why he has backtracked from the commitment he gave to the House yesterday to send a message of support on behalf of the Australian Government in relation to the action of the United States Government in seizing the alleged terrorists who hijacked the Achille Lauro? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I cannot understand the question for this reason: A message was sent this morning-- Mr Howard —But it is a backtrack. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is not a backtrack. Let me make it very clear. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether the Prime Minister or the Government had sent a message to the United States Government. I said that I did not know and that I would make inquiries. On that basis I remind the honourable gentleman that the Prime Minister, I now learn, was asked by Maximillian Walsh on Friday, 11 October, whether he would like to comment on what the United States action meant. He said: Well, I'm not acquainted with the detail and all the background. I make the preliminary point that we condemn the international terrorism which occurred in the case of the hijacking of the ship and we regret all that flowed from it . . . I would prefer to have a detailed briefing of what has been involved in the action of the United States before making any further comments. The Prime Minister then went overseas. The Leader of the Opposition asked me yesterday what our position was. I said that I would ascertain the position. I said that I would ascertain whether anything had been done. Mr Howard —You said you would send it. You have been rolled by the Foreign Minister. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have not been rolled by the Foreign Minister at all. The position yesterday was that no message had been sent but it was under consideration by-- Mr Howard —You said you would send one and you haven't. This is a backtrack. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that the Leader of the Opposition wants to make political capital out of the fact that perhaps there might be some disagreement between the Foreign Minister and me. That is not so. We ascertained yesterday that the message had not been sent. The Foreign Affairs Department was working on the message. That is the position. I then gave instructions that, when the message was prepared, it be submitted to the Foreign Minister, who was coming back here. Mr Howard —But is this a message of support for what they did? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think it is. What honourable members have to understand-- Mr Howard —Do you support it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Naturally we support it. Mr Howard —You do support it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that the honourable gentleman is very anxious always to get into the details. The position is very clear. We support the United States in bringing these terrorists to justice. There has been an argument, not in our terms but in terms of international law. For example, President Mubarek of Egypt regards what happened as a breach of international law. Mr Howard —Do you? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I think it can be argued that it is not. From that point of view, let me argue this issue. It could be argued that by definition it was not a hijack of a ship and it could be argued that it was not a hijack of an aircraft in the strict meaning of hijacking on the high seas or in the air. These were the matters that apparently were bedevilling the Foreign Affairs Department as to what it though might be the issue that affected Australia's position in international law vis-a-vis the attitude taken by the President of Egypt. Honourable members will also have noticed that the President of the United States has been very anxious to ensure-to guarantee, in other words-that the Egyptian President is in no way upset by the fact that there may have been, according to the Egyptian story, a breach of international law. Mr Howard —What is your view? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In my view, there is no breach of international law. Mr Howard —So you totally support it? Well, why didn't you say so to the President? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman keeps interrupting all the time on the basis that he wants me to say that there is some problem with what the Government has done. There is no problem at all. The statement is very clear and has now been published. The point I want to make is that yesterday there was no briefing from the Foreign Affairs Department when I answered the question. Let me make it clear. I answered the question on the basis that I did not know whether or not the Prime Minister had had a chance to advert to the matter. As it turned out, he had, and he obviously asked for a further briefing. That briefing eventually came through yesterday on the score of whether there was some difficulty with the international law. We have overcome that problem and the statement has now been issued with the complete concurrence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs-I am pleased to see him back here-and, I might also say, with the concurrence of the Prime Minister. Mr BILNEY —I ask the Treasurer: Has he observed reports in this morning's Press of a certain conviction recorded against a certain person on certain charges related to bottom of the harbour tax evasion schemes? Can the Treasurer explain to the House whether, and if so why, the tax reform measures which have been taken by this Government will assist in preventing a recurrence of the kind of activity detailed in the court action reported this morning? Mr KEATING —I do not want to say anything specific about the court case concerned. However, I am very happy to assure the House that, while an Australian Labor Party Government resides in Canberra, the scandalous tax rorting that occurred under our predecessors will not be repeated. In fact, if the public of Australia need an illustration of the treatment by the major parties of the issue of taxation they need look only at the period of our predecessors in office and the shocking record of tax avoidance and evasion over which they presided and at the role of the current Leader of the Opposition in that process. It became obvious when the bottom of the harbour schemes were rampant in the late 1970s that the telephone book of documents produced by the former Commissioner of Taxation showed how tardy the Leader of the Opposition was in combating these schemes. In fact, the Opposition Leader was first exposed by the McCabe-Lafranchi report in May 1982. He admitted on 27 June 1982 that the Taxation Commissioner had asked him as early as May 1978 to pass a special law against bottom of the harbour schemes. My colleague the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) raised issues on the Notice Paper in relation to particular cases which were brought to the notice of the then Treasurer in 1978. The Tax Commissioner of 1978 told the Leader of the Opposition: Despite the possibility that such prosecutions may be able to be launched, I think that the specific taxation offence of the kind indicated should exist. The relevant law was passed 2 1/2 years later. The Opposition Leader admitted later that the reason he could not get his anti-bottom of the harbour law up was that his Cabinet colleagues were soft on tax evaders. In Parliament on 25 August 1982 he said: One of the reasons why that period elapsed was that there were people in the Government who wondered whether this piece of legislation was necessary. He was caught out again by the Costigan report which was tabled in August 1982 when he and the former Prime Minister slid behind secrecy provisions to try to exonerate themselves from the shocking neglect of the tax system which was the case in their time in office. Finally, the Leader of the Opposition was caught out for a third time by the 1984 report of the bottom of the harbour Special Prosecutor, Roger Gyles, who sheeted home the responsibility in this way. He said: If there had been an adequate administrative, judicial and political response in the first place, the situation would never have arisen. When in government the Opposition was very slow to act. Since going into opposition, honourable members opposite have totally surrendered to the tax avoidance industry. Five times in the Senate now they have rejected bottom of the harbour legislation submitted by us. In the case of the latest Bill, defeated on 19 April 1985, their action has cost the law abiding taxpayers of this country $270m-enough to finance a tax cut of about $44 a year for every taxpayer. By contrast, the Government has taken action where the Opposition failed to do so. We have pledged to act retrospectively against all new avoidance schemes that come to light. We have given the tax office more resources-869 new staff have been put on this financial year, after 727 new staff were provided in the Budget before. This occurred after the tax office had been starved for years and years of proper and adequate resources to deal with the tax avoidance industry. We have updated the law on penalties for taxation offences. Some had not been changed since 1936. The changes included increasing the penalty for defrauding the Commonwealth from three to five years. In this tax package we have wiped out the tax avoidance shelters, the avenues for minimisation and sheltering income. On top of that we have removed the incentive to tax avoidance by aligning the top personal rate with the company rate of taxation. In other words, we have caught up with the Liberals who have been letting their 60 per cent friends through the system for years. What is even more revealing at the moment is that we now find the Opposition coming out against the Australia Card. Opposition members will vote against the Australia Card funding. In other words, the Opposition is gearing up to defend the cheats once more. It will not have the Australia Card. I have a cutting here with the headline: `Howard gives support to ID card plan'. The article says that when Mr Howard was asked where he stood on the proposed ID card he said: `I personally see some merit in having an ID card. As a matter of principle I think there is some merit in giving it favourable consideration'. Now we find that the Opposition has rolled him once again on this question and now the coalition parties will vote against the Australia Card, although we know that the black economy is costing the Commonwealth hundreds of millions of dollars a year in income through income tax avoidance and defrauding of the tax and social security systems. Where is the Opposition now? These people have always defended the tax cheats and the avoiders and now they intend to try to kill the Australia Card off, despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is in favour of it. I conclude on this note: It is obvious that the Opposition has an enormous credibility problem when it comes to the tax system. For years it allowed the system to fall into disrepair and disrepute. For years it allowed cheats to walk through the system. Contrived tax avoidance schemes were never pulled up. The Opposition never legislated against them until it was embarrassed by the Costigan and McCabe-Lafranchi reports. Now, on the question of the ID card, when the Government says that $600m a year-not just once-could be gained in curbing the whole tax avoidance practice, the Opposition says that it will not have an ID card and will vote against the legislation empowering the Health Insurance Commission to be given the funds to set up the ID administration. That clearly contrasts the disrespect the Opposition has for the honest taxpayers in the public with the very clear regard the Government has for making the taxation system fair, reasonable and equitable and giving honest taxpayers a break at the expense of cheats. Mr PEACOCK —My question, which is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, flows from the answer that he gave the Leader of the Opposition. I refer him to the last part of a question asked of him yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, which states: Has the Prime Minister yet conveyed to the United States Government the support of the present Australian Government for the action taken by the United States last Friday against the suspected hijackers of the Achille Lauro? The Acting Prime Minister responded: It is a fair question. I am not aware of it; if it has not been done I will arrange for it to be done. The Acting Prime Minister issued a statement this morning which does not support the actions of the United States. If he agrees, as he has said this morning, that the actions of the United States are in accordance with public international law, why does he not only say that outside the House but, more particularly, do as he said he would do yesterday and support the actions that were taken? If he is not prepared to do so and he stands on the statement issued, why has there been a complete and total backdown? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yesterday a question was asked about what action the Government had taken to indicate support for the action necessarily taken by the United States to bring terrorists to justice. I indicated and I confirmed that I would ascertain what had been done. I have made the point that when I commenced to ascertain what had been done I was aware of the fact that the Prime Minister had already made a statement on Friday in the media, which was published throughout Australia, in which he said: . . . we condemn the international terrorism which occurred in the case of the hijacking of the ship and we regret all that flowed from it. . . . I would prefer to have detailed briefing of what has been involved in the action of the United States. . . . Apparently that briefing was still in the making by the time the Prime Minister took off from Australia. Yesterday, after Question Time, I asked what was the position in relation to the question that was asked of me by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Hodgman —You should have asked what was the position before you answered the question. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know I can be pretty flexible in this case, but I would need to be a miracle man to be able to understand questions I am likely to get from the honourable member. The issue in this case directly relates to whether the Egyptian Government was entitled to object on the basis that there might have been a breach of international law. Mr Howard —Why didn't you convey your support for the United States? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the Leader of the Opposition wants to keep asking questions, he should stand up and ask them. I know that he is jealous of the honourable member for Kooyong, but the issue at the moment is what actually happened. Mr Howard —Why don't you repeat the answer? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Acting Prime Minister might be showing some patience towards the Leader of the Opposition, but he is wearing out my patience. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I make the point that the statement issued today, which was issued in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs to ensure that we observed protocol and propriety, states: The Government of Australia understands and shares the deep concern of the Government of the United States of America at the acts of the terrorists who illegally seized the `Achille Lauro' and murdered an American passenger. It agrees with, and has complete sympathy with, the declaration of the Government of the United States of America that terrorists should be proceeded against according to the established legal processes and that all countries in the international community should meet their proper obligations in this process. Australia certainly will meet its responsibilities in this respect and we have conveyed this commitment to your Government. The Government of Australia understands the concerns of the Government of the United States of America to make these terrorists subject to legal accountability. This incident is the latest in a cycle of violence and counter-violence in the Middle East which will not stop until the underlying causes of the Middle East dispute are addressed and resolved. If that is not a statement of support, I do not know what is; I really do not. That is the issue. From the Opposition's point of view, apparently it is in the position of condemning the Egyptian Government for its attitude. That is the position the Opposition is taking; that is its attitude. The United States has not broken any international law. I do support the United States. But the Opposition's argument is that it is trying to say that there must be something wrong with the Labor Party because Bowen has said something-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Those opposite have never resiled from that situation. Mr Howard —But do you support what the United States did? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Opposition has never resiled from that position. That is why it is where it is, in opposition. It always goes for the idea that there is some conflict or concern. Of course, the issue is-I think everybody in the world would agree-that terrorism has to be stopped. Those who commit acts of terrorism have to be brought to justice. The action of the United States was fully justified; and we support the action. Mr WRIGHT —I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the concern throughout Australia's rural sector regarding the threat to this nation's traditional and established primary product markets because of the dumping, undercutting and subsidising tactics being used by our international competitors such as the European Economic Community and the United States of America. Will he advise the House of the effect to date on Australia's trade and, moreover, what action, if any, can be taken to combat these unfair and questionable trading practices. Mr KERIN —At present Dr Stoeckel of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics is in Europe explaining to opinion-makers and policy-makers in those countries the effect of the common agricultural policy not only on Australia's agricultural exports but also on the economic performance of the European Community itself. The other question that the honourable member for Capricornia referred to could also centre on the effects of the United States export enhancement program. I will deal with that first. The Government has been very concerned since the announcement by the United States of a $2 billion export enhancement program. The Government's concerns about this program have been made known by the Prime Minister to President Reagan and by me to the United States Secretaries of State and of Agriculture. There have been continuing representations at senior officials level. The Government was given assurances by the United States Administration that the EEP would be targeted against subsidising competitors and that the United States would make it clear to recipient countries that it expected non-subsidised commercial trade to be maintained. These assurances were considered very important to Australia. In recent times United States offers of wheat have been made to Egypt and to Yemen. Both these markets are extremely significant to Australia and are not supplied by the EEC. In my view, any sales are likely to be at a cost to Australia and will be hardly noticed by subsidising exporters. The Australian Government will be most concerned if the United States is adopting a policy of targeting commercial markets generally. As things now stand, it is very difficult for me to conclude that it has not done so. The United States must understand that such a policy would have broad implications for both our countries. The Australian Government believes it is bad policy, based on a myth and a hope, that is, a myth and a hope that there are world markets out there and that the United States can claw back markets at the expense of the EEC. Of course, what is happening is that it will be clawing back markets at the expense of competitive exporters such as Australia, Canada and Argentina. The Australian Government will continue to make strong representations to the United States at very senior levels. We are considering a range of options in this regard. With respect to the EEC, I think we are having some success in getting through our point of view. We do not see much sense in the tactics of the honourable gentleman opposite who, in government, thought that the only way to treat the EEC was by way of abuse. The Prime Minister and I were able to gain an understanding from the EEC in terms of putting export restrictions on beef into this region. The honourable member for Capricornia takes a particular interest in the beef industry as it comprises a large proportion of his electorate and certainly that part of Queensland. We have been successful in having our point of view registered in respect of the EEC's own internal review of its sugar program. We have also had accepted many of our comments on the EEC's Green Paper on the future of the common agricultural policy in Europe. Similarly, we are having some success in getting the EEC to understand the effect of its policies on our industries with respect to wine, cheese and barley. My colleague the Minister for Trade and his Department are making strenuous efforts in respect of getting agriculture into a new Multilateral Trade Negotiations round. We are making every effort possible at every level in this country to try to get agriculture fully considered under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It is only eventually through a multilateral arrangement that the interests of Australia's official primary producers will be able to be satisfied to some degree. I believe that this Government is taking a lot more comprehensive and intelligent action in respect of trade. I point out that the previous Government kept the EEC out of the 1977 International Sugar Agreement and that bounced back on us very badly indeed. When Mr Anthony, who was then Deputy Prime Minister, negotiated with the Japanese on beef, he was not even aware that the Japanese and the Americans had done a deal outside those negotiations in respect of diaphragm beef and that wrecked our percentage share of the market. Honourable members opposite, of course, supervised the meat substitution scandal. They wrecked a long term wheat agreement over Afghanistan and even the good old Premier of Queensland has just wrecked the New Zealand sugar market with his only efforts at international diplomacy. Mr HOWARD —Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs, like the Acting Prime Minister, fully support the action taken last week by the Unites States of America in apprehending the suspected hijackers of the Achille Lauro? Mr HAYDEN —Last Wednesday and Thursday I met respectively with the United States Secretary for Defence, Mr Weinberger, and the Secretary of State, Mr Shultz, in Washington. It was obvoius then that considerable activity was under way in connection with this very disturbing incident. Mr Carlton —We heard it on radio. Mr HAYDEN —With respect to the honourable member, I think this is a fairly serious matter, not one for flippancy. It was a matter which I explored with both officials of that Administration to some considerable extent. It is obvious that a properly proud super-power like the United States of America will not allow itself to be continually humiliated by the series of experiences it has had at the hands of terrorists. The problem is what sort of action can it take in these very difficult circumstances? Without going into the details of the nature of the discussion-I certainly would not anyway in public-what was adamantly said by both men was that it was the view of the United States Administration, for which they were both speaking, that any action taken should be legal action and should proceed according to appropriate law-either international law or, where it was applicable, the law of particular countries. If honourable members look at the statement which the Acting Prime Minister has released on behalf of the Australian Government, they will see that it says this: It agrees with, and has complete sympathy with- they are quite explicit enough statements- the declaration of the Government of the USA that terrorists should be proceeded against according to the established legal processes . . . That is a restatement of our position. Before I come to the statement of the Acting Prime Minister I say this: If the Leader of the Opposition cannot accept that as sufficient in these circumstances, what he is saying by implication is that he does not believe that the actions of the United States were legal at any level. The statement is quite explicit. It agrees with and has complete sympathy for all legal actions which are taken in this area, and that is a proper statement. Insofar as an explicit statement is required as a legal opinion as to the legality of that action or otherwise, that is outside my ambit either of ministerial authority and responsibility or of expertise. It is certainly within the area of responsibility and expertise of the First Law Officer of this country, which is the Attorney-General, and he has made his statement on that matter. Opposition members interjecting-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members often complain about the number of questions that can be asked during this period. I suggest that some of the complaints are caused by the fact that some honourable members will not remain quiet and allow others to ask questions. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications. Can he inform the House as to the present position of the industrial dispute currently affecting Australia Post in New South Wales and the Government's position with respect to this dispute? Mr DUFFY —I think it is important for all honourable members to have a full understanding of the facts of this dispute. Mr Tuckey —Cobb and Co. Mr DUFFY —If honourable members listen to the inane interjections that are coming from those opposite nobody is going to get many- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor has had 32 minutes of interjection. That is time enough. If he offends again I will have to act. Mr DUFFY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. There has been industrial action by members of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union in many Sydney mail centres over the past few weeks, directed towards forcing Australia Post management to revert to the former rules of calling overtime; that is, 24 hours notice and all on. This practice for overtime is unique to New South Wales. The restrictive overtime practices of 24 hours notice and all on, irrespective of considerations of work load and mail service standards, have been progressively eliminated from all New South Wales mail centres from May this year following arbitration by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Because of the continuing industrial campaign, and in line with the recommendations made by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 6 May, Australia Post management advised the Union and the Commission on 3 October 1985 that it was introducing as soon as possible a rostering arrangement based on a seven-day operation at Sydney metropolitan mail centres. This would have the effect, inter alia, of reducing reliance on overtime. Australia Post consumers were advised of the situation by advertisements in the Press. On 4 October a hearing was again scheduled before the Commission-- Mr Tuckey —Why don't you make it snappy? Mr DUFFY —The honourable member for Lowe asked for an explanation of what was going on. The question has been asked; why does not the honourable member for O'Connor just shut up and listen? On 4 October a hearing was again scheduled before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Commission indicated that it was seriously concerned that in defiance of an earlier decision in May this year some members of the union have continued a campaign of industrial activity which has seriously disrupted mail performance in New South Wales. Another conference, under the chairmanship of Mr Commissioner Grimshaw, was held on 8 October. After a short period the APTU walked out of that conference. Yesterday there was a 24-hour stoppage by mail sorters at the Sydney metropolitan mail centre. At a stop work meeting they resolved to return to work but threatened further action if Australia Post management attempted to by-pass mail from one centre to another or to introduce a new overtime roster. I am advised that this morning staff at all Sydney mail centres have been walking off the job. Australia Post has advised that it is seeking again to resume negotiations with the APTU under the chairmanship of Commissioner Grimshaw. Australia Post has advised also that it intends to proceed with implementation of the necessary change to rostering arrangements and other inefficient work practices in the Sydney metropolitan mail centres. It has advised me that staff who refuse to carry out the directions of management will continue to be stood down. The Leader of the Opposition does not seem to understand, having regard to his Press statement earlier this week, that employees will continue to be stood down. Commissioner Grimshaw said: The Commission expresses its regret that the Union has seen fit to walk out of these negotiations which were designed to negotiate a number of reforms Australia Post management wish to implement in an effort to get Australia Post mail services in NSW working efficiently, reliably and at a level the public is entitled to expect. Whilst this Commission has recognised Australia Post's right to manage, so too has the Union. However, it seems to the Commission that the underlying thread to the Union's rigid stance remains their demands for overtime for all staff regardless of work requirements and the resentment to a proposed roster system similar to that applying in Australia Post in most other States of Australia. Regrettably this hard line attitude will cause severe loss of earnings to the members of the Union, to those relying on mail services in NSW and the loss of public confidence in the system will no doubt have ramifications for the longer term employment prospects of Australia Post employees. No worthwhile purpose can be gained by continued industrial activity. I support Commissioner Grimshaw's statement. When I called for an improvement in Australia Post's performance in April this year, I noted that it was the service performance in New South Wales which detracted from the highly creditable record-for which the Opposition does not give any credit-of Australia Post in other places. It is now galling for consumers to learn that the current dispute arises out of a set of highly artificial, though remunerative, overtime arrangements which seem to be distinctive to New South Wales. It is, of course, well known that these artificial and damaging arrangements have been in place for years. The majority of the members of the Opposition on the front bench-although it is difficult to remember sometimes who is there-did absolutely nothing about it while they had ministerial responsibility. Australia Post has now moved to bring to an end those arrangements in New South Wales, and I support that move. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of Australia Post employees are sick and tired of the destructive and pointless round of industrial action which we have suffered in New South Wales. In conclusion, as Mr Frank Willis, the former Federal President of the APTU and a very respected member of that union, said on his retirement- Mr Bilney —He is in my electorate. Mr DUFFY —As the honourable member says, he is in the electorate of Kingston. Mr Willis speaks very highly of the honourable member for Port Adelaide. Mr Willis said: Members must remember that jobs and working conditions depend on Australia Post's ability to survive in the market place where we have a very fierce competition. There is no longer a bottomless purse for increased wages and conditions . . . It is in members' own interests that they bear these things in mind in the endeavour to retain their own jobs and also future jobs for their own children. The vast bulk of Australia Post employees are doing a fine job from day to day. The minority of individuals who are pursuing this destructive course must understand that fundamental statement made by Mr Willis. The Opposition has made a considerable-- Mr Sinclair —Make a statement and get on with it. Mr DUFFY —It would not have done any harm if the Leader of the National Party of Australia had made a statement on this issue at any time during the period when he had ministerial responsibility. The right honourable gentleman sat back and watched this organisation being destroyed-he did nothing. The position is that this Government will continue to support the efforts of Australia Post management to bring an end to this disputation in New South Wales-something which the Opposition, when in government, did nothing about. Mr MACPHEE —My question is directed to the Minister for Communications. I remind him that there are 5 million articles of mail involved, that 300 extra jobs could be created if a particular roster system were adopted, and that people who are voluntarily stood down by striking cannot have stand-down provisions used against them. Will the Minister instruct Australia Post to issue an ultimatum today and order that the people involved return to work tomorrow or be sacked? Will he then ask Australia Post to employ people who desperately want work in Sydney and put them through a crash training program which the Government recently announced? Mr DUFFY —Earlier this week the Leader of the Opposition called for the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act to be reintroduced. That was the only contribution that he was capable of making in attempting to solve an extremely difficult dispute. He and the shadow spokesman for communications have both ignored the fact that stand-down provisions have been inserted into the relevant award. Typically, the sledgehammer attitude of honourable members opposite would be used in industrial relations again. I should like to remind those opposite who are giving advice on industrial relations, having regard to the record of the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and looking at the records of previous Ministers in that area, of the performance of honourable members opposite when they were in government and what they did in the industrial relations area. In 1981-82, which was one of their memorable years-it was a ripper-Australia Post lost 323,000 work hours because of industrial disputes and because of the attitudes that they adopted. Over the period when honourable members opposite were in charge of Australia Post, there was an average of 150,000 work hours per year lost as a result of industrial disputes. That is how they performed with their sledgehammer attitude. On the other hand, this Government's record stands to be examined by anyone. Under honourable members opposite, on average there was a loss of 150,000 work hours per year. As far as this Government is concerned, the figure has been under 17,000. Mr Macphee —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The question was: What will the Minister do under section 8 of the Act in the public interest? What will he do-not what is the history of the matter. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr DUFFY —Let the honourable members ask the questions and I shall answer them. The Opposition's line on industrial disputes has always been the same. The Opposition has never had any answer other than to introduce penal sanctions; that is all. The use of penal legislation is the favourite in the Opposition ranks. To reintroduce that would result in a return to the industrial record, the hopelessness, that we saw in this country under that lot. I turn to a recent publication, which has often been quoted, Control, Consensus or Chaos, produced by Professors Niland and Turner. I quote what it said about the Opposition's attitude to industrial relations: Many managers saw the Fraser Government as inept in industrial relations because of ill-timed interventions in particular industrial disputes, which smacked of grandstanding rather than genuine efforts to get matters sorted out. This Government's industrial record is impressive. To bring in the sort of authoritarian and provocative measures that honourable members opposite advocate would fly in the face of this Government's approach to industrial relations. Mr MILDREN —First, will the Minister for Transport indicate what role the Government plays in financially assisting its own rail system, the Australian National Railways Commission? Secondly, does the Government provide any financial assistance to the State rail systems? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. There were two parts to it. First, the assistance we provide to the Australian National Railways Commission is by way of a revenue supplement. That is a one-off supplement to assist the Commission in the performance of its tasks. But the most important role the Federal Government can play in respect of the Commission is to ensure that it improves its efficiency, that we maximise the overall efficiency of the transport system in respect of our economic and export performance and that we improve the level of consultation between the employees, management and clients of the Commission. One of the misconceptions about the allocation of expenditure for railways is that, because the amount of money being provided in this Budget for railways is reduced, in some ways railways have become a lesser priority. In fact, the opposite is the case. In the year we came to government, 1982-83, the revenue supplement was $106m, which reflected the very high level of losses incurred by the Commission. In the current Budget the revenue supplement is $72.5m. That lower figure reflects the vastly improved performance by the Commission-better marketing, a greater level of efficiency, improved productivity and better communication. In real terms it represents a reduction of some 42 per cent in the revenue supplement between 1982-83 and 1985-86. Assistance to the States is an area that is often overlooked in respect of State rail systems. In 1983-84, some $700m in losses were incurred by the State rail systems. What is not generally recognised-I point this out to the honourable member-is that the losses incurred by the States in operating their rail systems are taken into account in determining States' shares of general tax sharing arrangements. So one can say that of the $700m in losses incurred by the State rail systems, about $200m was funded by Federal governments. Overall, the most important thing for both the Federal and State rail systems is to improve their efficiency and consultation, and to give them greater independence and responsibility in the market place. This Government is playing that role. I commend the employees of the Commission. I commend its management and all those associated with the vastly improved result achieved under this Government's policies. Mr SPEAKER —Pursuant to statute, I present the annual reports and financial statements of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, together with the Auditor-General's report thereon for the year ended 30 June 1985. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Prime Minister) —Pursuant to sub-section 19 (2) of the Governor-General Act 1974 I present the first annual report of the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General, for the period 24 December 1984 to 30 June 1985 Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Acting Prime Minister) —Pursuant to sub-section 27 (3) of the Economic Planning Advisory Council Act 1983 I present the Economic Planning Advisory Council annual report for 1984-85 Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of 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 Beale,Mr Ian Cameron,Mr Goodluck and Dr Watson. 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 Halverson,Mr Hawker and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small enterprises finally sell these assets are not ``windfall gains'', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets to sustain them in retirement; Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Fife and Mr McArthur. 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 sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges 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 Mr Dobie,Mr Fife and Mr Ruddock. 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 Carlton and Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and the 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 a 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 and Mr Staples. 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 for 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 hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in revitalising impoverished 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 Ruddock and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australia citizens respectfully points out: That for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10 per cent of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National recycling programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage ans sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils. (c) Developing National employment programs to give priority to irrigation systems and the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. 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 there fore 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 Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that ``that existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.'' 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 respectfully 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 ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: 1. That the functions of local government involve assessing local demand for services and either providing, or facilitating the provision of, those services; 2. That a transfer of responsibility for the provision of services from one level of government to another must be accompanied by a corresponding transfer of funds; 3. That local government in Victoria is becoming increasingly involved in the planning and provision of human services in particular; 4. That the level of services currently provided by or through local government cannot be maintained, and certainly cannot be increased, if the funds made available to local government through the personal income tax-sharing arrangement are not maintained at the present level; 5. That we are totally opposed to any reduction in the percentage of personal income tax allocated to local government. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the funding of local government without the consent of representatives of local government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that your honourable house (The Government) act immediately to raise the Teritary Education Assistance allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of 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, 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 Carlton. 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 the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That we deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-school and child care in the mini-budget as the proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to reverse proposals for cuts in children's services. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Steele Hall. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the government reverse its decision to cut pre-school funding in the mini-budget. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Steele Hall. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of ABC listeners and viewers showeth that the autonomy and non-commercial independent broadcasting services of the ABC is in jeopardy because the ABC is currently having to bear additional costs involved in the AUSSAT satellite operation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1. The Government restores $20 million to the ABC's budget for 1985-86 to ensure that the services the ABC provides the Australian public are maintained and improved, particularly in terms of educational and rural programs, and that ABC staff are not needlessly retrenched. 2. The Government will not introduce corporate sponsorship or any form of advertising into the ABC since this would destroy the independence and autonomy of the ABC. The non-commercial independent broadcasting service provided by the ABC is fundamental to Australian democracy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hand. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That the Fitzroy South Post Office offers an important service to the residents of South Fitzroy which cannot adequately be provided by any other post office in the surrounding area. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Fitzroy South Post Office not be closed. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hand. 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 in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied 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: The proposed service tax on all accommodation provided by hotels and the proposals to disallow legitimate entertainment expenses as a deduction for taxation purposes will lead to a dramatic fall-off in tourism, business travel and will have a deleterious effect on restaurant patronage. This will threaten present employment and extensively curtail job opportunities in the industry. Measures as proposed will seriously jeopardise the livelihood of Australians engaged in the accommodation and hospitality industry. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a service tax not be imposed on short-stay accommodation and that a deduction for tax purposes for legitimate entertainment expenses remain. by Mr Katter. 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 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 petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Veterans' Entitlement Bill dated May 1985 is taking a fair ``earned service'' from the men and women of Australia, who kept this country free so that Governments of today could have the freedom to be able to govern fairly. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensure that the previous legislation in respect of Servicemen and Women and their dependants entitlements be restored. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of Identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory Identity cards. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully 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; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation. 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 give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a referendum. by Mr Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ban on negative gearing and restrictions on property depreciation will adversely affect thousands of disadvantaged people who rent their homes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: End its ill-considered and discriminatory policy on rented property and allow depreciation on all buildings used to produce rental income. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its illconsidered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's total disallowance of tax deductability for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductability for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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. N.S.W. taxpayers cannot afford the cost of a second airport when at a minimum of cost upgrading and expansion of Kingsford Smith will satisfy the needs of N.S.W. 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 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 undeserving hardship and trauma as a result of the Federal Government's decision to freeze 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 Jacobi. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia, employed by Smith Kline &French Laboratories (Australia) Limited in the Electorate of Warringah in the State of New South Wales, respectfully showeth concern that the failure to recognise the importance of brand-name products of research-based companies in the provision of pharmaceuticals in Australia threatens future consumer availability of modern, effective and safe pharmaceuticals. We are aware that: most innovations in the pharmaceutical products have been originated by the research-based brand-name industry; the industry is providing numerous opportunities for employment and advancement of Australians; the industry is stimulating employment in research; the industry is supporting the production of its products with a wealth of thorough, reliable and well-documented information for the benefit of consumers and health professionals. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government adopt policies which encourage the growth of a research-based pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Australia so as to ensure that: Australians have continued access to modern, effective and safe pharmaceuticals, and existing jobs are protected and products are developed for future increases in employment in manufacturing research and product information services. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain companies located in the State of New South Wales respectfully showeth that the pharmaceutical industry in Australia views with concern the failure in Government policy to recognise sufficiently the importance of brand-name products developed by research-based companies. Since the progress in development of new, safe and effective pharmaceuticals is vitally dependent on the economic viability of a research-based pharmaceutical industry; Since the economic viability is a pre-condition for continued employment of our well educated and skilled workforce in all aspects of the industry activity; Since full information and reliable technical back-up can only be provided in easily accessible form from product information available from the research-based companies which are product originators. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray the the Commonwealth Government initiate policies which ensure that continued access of Australians to safe and effective pharmaceuticals is secured through encouraging growth of a research-based pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. 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 Dr Watson. 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 every pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The exaggerated claims of the Government regarding the economic benefits flowing from the Prices and Incomes Accord. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.53) —The publication yesterday of the latest balance of payments figures serves to remind the Australian community just how exaggerated have been the claims made by the Government in recent weeks in particular about all the economic benefits that are supposed to have flowed from the prices and incomes accord between this Government and the Australian trade union movement. Those balance of payments figures yesterday were very bad by anybody's measure. They were figures that indicated that the beneficial effects of the devaluation of the dollar, which the Treasurer has assured us repeatedly will be reflected in our balance of payments, are yet to be so reflected. The figures serve to remind us of one of the reasons why Australia now experiences the highest real interest rates since the years of the Great Depression in the 1930s. They serve to remind us why the Australian dollar, when compared with the trade weighted index, is almost at a record low. More importantly, so far as this matter of public importance is concerned, they serve to remind us how desperate this Government is to avoid a further devaluation of the Australian dollar, and as a consequence, the inevitable renegotiation of the prices and incomes accord that would be necessary in the wake of such a devaluation. Today the Opposition puts to the Parliament that this Government has greatly exaggerated the benefits of the prices and incomes accord. That is an important proposition because it is fundamental to the economic debate in Australia at present and it will be fundamental to the economic debate that is likely to go on in Australia over the coming months. We on this side of the House do not for a moment gainsay that there have been some improvements in the Australian economy over the last couple of years. It would be both contemptible in terms of objective comment and unproductive in the national interest for anybody to pretend that there have not been some improvements. Of course there have been improvements. We have a lower rate of inflation, there has been a pick up in employment and there have been some other improvements. We put to the Government and we will increasingly put to the Australian people-I will come in a moment to the deteriorations that have occurred over the same period-that these improvements are not all due to the prices and incomes accord. The reality is that most of them would have occurred irrespective of the agreement that existed between the Government and the trade union movement. Does the Government seriously believe that the negotiation of the accord had any impact on the effect on this country of the turnaround in the international business cycle? Will the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is at the table, seriously say to us that if it had not been for the accord Australia would not have got the benefits of the turnaround in the international business cycle that occurred in 1983 and 1984? Will the Minister pretend that the prices and incomes accord is the explanation why the rural community benefited from the breaking of the drought in 1983? Will he argue that the prices and incomes accord was the reason why the wages pause, which brought about a cut of 9 per cent, in real wages, did more than anything else to reduce our rate of inflation in 1983 and 1984? The reality is that the prices and incomes accord actually formally ended the wages pause, and most of the gains made against inflation in 1983 and 1984 were due to the fall in real wages brought about by the wages pause-a proposal that was opposed by the present Government, particularly by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when in opposition. We say to the Government and we will increasingly be saying to the Australian people that there have been some improvements and we welcome wholeheartedly and unreservedly the improvements that have taken place, but we put to the House that most of those improvements would have occurred irrespective of whether we had a prices and incomes accord. The argument that is so frequently advanced by the Government that in some way real wages would have risen at a faster level without the prices and incomes accord in the circumstances of the economy in 1983 and 1984 is not an argument that we on this side of the House accept. It is not an argument that Mr Kelty, the Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, accepts. Mr Kelty, who it can hardly be disputed is the mastermind behind the economic and industrial strategy of the Australian trade union movement and who is respected by both his political supporters and opponents as a man of ability, in addressing the Socialist Forum in February of this year said that the trade union movement should be very grateful for the prices and incomes accord because it had brought to the members of the Australian trade union movement wage increases they would not have obtained in the market place. The argument so repeatedly put forward by the Government that without the prices and incomes accord we would not have had this land of economic milk and honey that we are constantly told we are now enjoying, is an erroneous argument. One ought to look at the Budget Papers of August of this year. They demolish one of the great myths surrounding the Hawke Government. Budget Paper No. 2 demonstrates quite clearly that the upswing in the Australian economy over recent years has, by and large, mirrored the expansion in the world economy over the same period. We certainly received an additional fillip from the wages pause. In 1983 the rural sector certainly received a kick along from the breaking of the drought. But, by and large, over the last couple of years we have been the beneficiaries, although lagging in certain areas, of the upswing of the international business cycle, just as were the victims of the downswing, also in a lagged sense, of the international business cycle in the years before that. If we are to have logical economic debate in this country, we ought to get some of those facts in perspective. We ought to understand that the Government is gilding the lilly or, should I say, to use an expression in vogue, that the Prime Minister and his colleagues are erring on the side of generosity in suggesting that the prices and incomes accord has brought such great benefits to the Australian economy over the last couple of years. There have been some improvements; but, as a result of the accord, we have a number of factors building themselves month by month into the Australian economy. The balance of payments is an economic time bomb for this Government. It has been telling us month after month: `Don't worry. It is all on target. The Treasury told us it was going to deteriorate at the rate of $1,000m a month and we have been running a current account deficit of $1,000m a month since the beginning of this year. Everything is okay. It is all on target'. Mr N. A. Brown —Spot on. Mr HOWARD —`Spot on' was the expression used by the Treasurer. He said that we did not have to worry. I would be fascinated if the Treasurer would be prepared to publish the data given to him on the balance of payments at the time the Budget was put together. What we have to understand is that the prices and incomes accord has quite literally locked this Government into a high interest rate strategy. That is the point that we will keep coming back to because that is the rub for the average Australian home buyer, farmer and small businessman. At the sharp end of the accord are people who have to pay real interest rates the like of which this country has not seen since the 1930s. We are now paying real interest rates that are 4 and 5 per cent above the level of real interest rates in the United States of America. We are paying those real interest rates essentially because we must pursue a high interest rate policy in order to support the dollar because, if there is another fall in the value of the Australian dollar, the Government will have to renegotiate the prices and incomes accord. It paid a colossal price in the renegotiation of that accord a month ago and it literally cannot afford to pay that price again. Let nobody imagine that the Government will not have to pay a price for a further negotiation of the accord. We all remember the long agonising that went on inside the Government about discounting of wages for the price effects of devaluation. If there is another fall in the value of the Australian dollar, the Government will once again be faced with the problem of how on earth it can obtain some discounting in the wage fixation process to account for that fall in the value of the Australian dollar. The Government knows, on the basis of past experience, we all know and the Australian community knows that the Government cannot obtain a full discounting for those price effects without paying a very heavy price. So at all costs this Government has to avoid a further devaluation of the Australian dollar. Bit by bit its options are diminishing because, every month that the balance of payments gets worse, the greater is the pressure on the dollar, the greater is the pressure from the monetary authorities to maintain interest rates at a sufficiently high level to support the existing value of the Australian dollar and, as a direct consequence of that, we all pay high interest rates which are having an effect on home buyers, on farmers and on small businessmen. In time they will take an enormous toll on economic growth in Australia. We cannot go on having present levels of economic growth with the present levels of real interest rates. Eventually something will have to give. Yet that high interest rate strategy is a direct consequence of the prices and incomes accord. That is why we say to the Government and to the Australian public that the benefits of that prices and incomes accord have been very greatly exaggerated. It is true that there have been some improvements over the last couple of years. The reality is that most of those improvements would have taken place irrespective of whether the prices and incomes accord had been in place. As each month goes by, the price of maintaining that prices and incomes accord becomes even greater. As each month goes by, the cost of those high real interest rates increases, which means that home buyers are now paying $10 a week more on a $40,000 loan than they were back in April this year. Of course, that is despite the promise that was made in such crystal clear terms by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. They made that promise in November last year when the value of the Australian dollar was 25 per cent higher than it is now. They repeated that promise after the dollar started to slide. They know now that they should not have made that promise. They know now that they have no hope of delivering lower interest rates in 1985. They know that, unless the balance of payments turns around, the prospect is that interest rates will go even higher between now and the early part of 1986 because an additionally tight monetary policy will be required to give the additional amount of support for the Australian dollar. They know that and financial commentators know that. That is why the reactions to yesterday's balance of payments figures have been as cautious and as concerned as they well may be. The price of the prices and incomes accord has been a lot greater than many people would like to admit. We have only to look at the submission made by the Confederation of Australian Industry to the recent national wage case to see that, when we take into account supperannuation, when we take into account the redundancy case, when we take into account all the additional on costs and when we take into account all the other arrangements that have been entered into in lieu of increases in money wages, the movements in real wages and the movement in the cost of employing people is infinitely greater than the Government would have us believe. We are saying to the House that this Government has exaggerated the benefits of the prices and incomes accord. The prices and incomes accord has delivered an increase in real wages above what would have been obtained in the market-place if it had not been operated. My authority for that is none other than Bill Kelty. I am quite content on this occasion to rest my case on what Mr Kelty had to say. The prices and incomes accord has locked this Government and this country into an interest rate structure which, in time, will take a toll of business activity and is already playing a very significant part in increasing the mortgage repayment bills of average Australian families. The prices and incomes accord is locking the rural economies of this country into an interest rate structure and cost structure which, on top of the absurd additional tax burdens, through a capital gains tax and other measures that this Government is dumping on the Australian rural community, could not be coming at a worse time. Over the months ahead I can say to the Minister and I can say to the Government that their exaggeration of the beneficial effects of the prices and incomes accord will become more apparent. They cannot hide behind predictions about the balance of payments when month by month those figures tell a story different from what the Government would like to tell us, when month by month real interest rates continue at their present level and show every prospect of increasing. There is the likelihood, with a further devaluation of the Australian dollar, that we will be back again on the road towards levels of double digit inflation in this country. When we take all those factors into account we see that the prices and incomes accord has not delivered the land of economic milk and honey. Its benefits have clearly been exaggerated by the Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.13) —The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has tried to convince the House that, although we have had some improvements in the economy, they would have been achieved anyway and that the prices and incomes accord is responsible for a higher level of interest rates than would otherwise apply. At the outset let me say that both those assertions are quite false. Let me go back to the origin of the prices and incomes accord and the strategy which lay behind its establishment in the first place. Quite clearly, what we wanted to achieve with the accord was to provide an environment in which there could be sustained economic growth, sustained growth of employment and, therefore, a continuing reduction in unemployment. Of course, that has been very much achieved whilst this Government has been in office. Let me tell honourable members the reason for establishing the accord to achieve that objective. Under the previous Government we had seen on a number of occasions that, when the economy looked as though it might start to take off, no sooner had some recovery begun to occur than inflation took off and that killed the recovery either by itself or because of the actions taken by the then Government to chop off that inflation by recessing the economy. So we had this continuous process of stop-go, moving from one plateau of unemployment to a higher plateau of unemployment. That process was taking this country into a big black hole. It was taking us nowhere except to higher levels of unemployment. The accord was devised to break that cycle of depression and despair and to give us the chance of having a sustained economic recovery in this country. To this stage that is certainly what it has achieved. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecasts that it will continue to achieve that. There is no doubting that, since this Government has been in office, it has massively turned around the economy. There has not been some improvement, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition; there has been a dramatic improvement-a total turnaround in the economy. Instead of going into a period of further soaring unemployment and job loss-that is what we inherited, with 190,000 jobs lost in the 12 months prior to our coming to office and a quarter of a million increase in unemployment in the same period-we have turned the whole thing around. We are now looking at a very strong growth in employment and declining unemployment-so much so that we are now creating jobs at a faster rate than any country in the Western industrialised world. Is this just some improvement, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, that would have occurred anyway? Were we leading the world at any stage when he was Treasurer of this country? Of course not, at no stage. We had a miserable record during that period, with a growth rate of 2.5 per cent on average for the seven years of the Fraser Government. We are now averaging a growth rate of 4.5 to 5 per cent, virtually double what the Fraser Government was achieving and, as a result, we have a much higher employment growth and therefore are reducing and not increasing unemployment. It is absurd to suggest that this is just some improvement that would have occurred anyway because of the breaking of the drought and a pick-up in the international economy. We do not deny that the drought broke and that there was some improvement in the international economy. Clearly that happened, but what has also happened is that this country has had such a strong rate of growth that it is now leading the industrialised world in terms of economic and employment growth, creating jobs faster than any other comparable country. The OECD forecast for this year is for an employment growth of 2.75 per cent for Australia and 1.25 per cent for the OECD region as a whole. For 1986 it has forecast a 2 per cent growth in employment for Australia and a one per cent growth for the OECD. Those forecasts clearly show that the OECD, after looking at the Australian economy and at the policies being pursued, believes that something very good is happening and will continue to happen; that is, that we will provide jobs at a faster rate than anybody else, including the United States of America or any other country, whether they have deregulated or regulated wages systems. So we have a picture not of some improvement that would have occurred anyway, although I can understand the Opposition trying to paint that picture. It is an obvious political ploy and that is what it must be seen as by the Australian people. It is nothing more than a miserable political ploy because the Opposition is looking at a government which is eminently successful on the economic front-infinitely more so than it could ever have hoped to have been when it was in office. It is not just a matter of increasing jobs. We have had an increase of 487,000 jobs in two years and five months and are likely to reach the 500,000 mark in two and a half years instead of the three years we set ourselves. Apart from unemployment coming down we also have substantial improvements in the underlying situation for the economy. The inflation rate is substantially down and, compared to that of the OECD, is in an infinitely better position than it was when we came into office, when we were looking at an OECD inflation rate of 5.8 per cent and an Australian inflation rate of 11.5 per cent. Now we are looking at a comparable picture of 6.7 per cent here and 4.8 per cent for the OECD. The difference has dramatically narrowed between ourselves and the OECD countries. Real unit labour costs have been reduced back to the levels of the late 1960s and the early 70s. The profit share has been restored to the level of the late 1960s and early 1970s-something the previous government could never achieve. It railed and ranted about the fact that there was a real wage overhang and that the profit level was too low, but never was it able to achieve a restoration of the profit share because never was it able to achieve a sustained recovery of the economy which would have brought that improvement. We are looking at a greatly improved picture in regard to private investment. In 1982-83, the last year of the previous Government, the real level of business growth fixed capital expenditure declined by 16 per cent. In 1984-85, last financial year, it increased by 6.6 per cent-a dramatic turnaround on the investment front. And why not? With profits up, demand up and real unit labour costs down, and with competitiveness improved, business is in a far better position to invest and therefore there is increased investment. All of these basic improvements in the economy have come about because of the policies pursued by this Government and because of some external, exogenous factors, but essentially because business is looking ahead. It is not saying that the drought broke two years ago and therefore it will invest. It is looking at an array of improvements in the economic environment and saying that it is an environment in which it can invest and employ in a way in which it could never do under the previous Government. Attention was drawn to the fact that the balance of payments figures came out yesterday. It was said that this is a time bomb waiting to explode under this Government. Let me say something about the balance of payments. Certainly it is the situation that this Government, since it has been in office, has had to go through a period of substantial devaluation. That devaluation came about because of the success of this Government in achieving sustained economic recovery. Mr Carlton —That is good for a laugh. Mr WILLIS —The Opposition spokesman on economic affairs laughs. That is the best thing he can do in this House, because he never says anything very sensible. There is no doubt that if we had not had sustained growth of the economy we would not have exposed the weakness in the balance of payments we inherited from the previous Government, which was being hidden by the fact of constant recession. The strong economic growth which occurred in this country displayed the fact that there was some weakness in the balance of payments and that had to be corrected. When that became obvious, we suffered a substantial devaluation, the largest since the 1930s. We have faced the challenge of responding to the devaluation and ensuring that we capitalise on it in a way which will ensure that the inflationary impetus from that devaluation is not built into the system. It will be a temporary facet of the Australian economy which will be passed out of the system as soon as possible. We will achieve that through the re-negotiation of the accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the agreement to discount 2 per cent from the consumer price index at the next national wage case and the postponement of the implementation of any benefits coming from the productivity case. Those two elements of that agreement will give us the capacity to bring the inflation rate tracking back to 5 per cent by 1987-88. That will mean that we will have overcome the inflationary hump brought in by the devaluation. We will achieve that because we have the accord. It is absolutely crucial to have an understanding of what is going on in the economy today, compared with what would happen without the accord. Because we have the accord, we can negotiate with the unions and get their agreement to that discount and adjustment of wages policy which is essential. We can therefore achieve that adjustment without having to have recession and depression of the economy, which is the way the Opposition would have to achieve that adjustment were it in office and suffered a substantial devaluation. Let me rhetorically ask the Leader of the Opposition how he would have dealt with a substantial devaluation of the economy if he were still Treasurer of this country and pursuing a deregulate wages policy. I will tell the House what he would have done. The only way in which he could have achieved that reduction in wage outcomes, which was necessary to ensure that inflation did not get built in and the benefits of the devaluation did not get built in and the benefits of the devaluation were lost, would have been by toughening his budgetary and monetary policies so that he could depress the economy and squeeze inflation out of the system. That would cost a great loss of economic growth and a great loss of jobs. The former Treasurer did that several times while he was Treasurer and there is no reason to believe that he would not do it again. The Australian people must realise that because the accord is there we have the capacity to adjust to that devaluation without suffering a recession of the economy and a loss of economic and employment growth. If we did not have the accord and could not make that aggregate wages adjustment, which we can do with the benefit of the accord, we would have to force the effects of the devaluation out of the system by creating unemployment. That is how the Opposition would do it. It would fight inflation by creating unemployment. That is what the Fraser Government did time and again. That is the only way in which the Opposition, if it were in government and facing this devaluation, having no accord, would have to deal with the devaluation. In other words, without the accord we would be looking at much more unemployment, a much lower level of economic growth and higher interest rates, because to get that recession of the economy one would have to toughen one's macro-economic and monetary policies further. That would mean that there would be even more pressure on interest rates than there is at present. So let not Opposition members come to us with this bleeding heart story about the fact that we have high interest rates and that this is the fault of the accord. If it were not for the accord, we would be looking at higher levels of interest rates in this country, tougher macro-economic policy, much lower levels of aggregate economic growth, lower levels of employment growth-if any employment growth at all-and soaring unemployment. That is the absolute and stark reality which this nation has to realise. Rather than condemning the Government and the ACTU for making an inadequate adjustment to wages policy, the Opposition should be recognising what many people in this country do recognise, including, indeed, all commentators who have any understanding of these matters, and that is that what we have achieved with the accord has been a dramatic and amazingly innovative economic adjustment to the system which has enabled us to avoid the recession of the economy, the loss of employment growth and the increase in unemployment which would have occurred had we not had the accord. I think it is a nonsense for the Opposition to argue that we have exaggerated the benefits of the accord. We have not said that everything that has happened has been the consequence of the accord. But undoubtedly it is the reason we have been able to have strong economic and employment growth sustained, and it is the reason why we will be able to continue to sustain them over the next 18 months or so, the foreseeable future, and will be able to do that despite the biggest devaluation that this country has seen in the last 50 years. That is a remarkable achievement. It is one that the OECD recognises. We will go on with high employment growth, reducing unemployment faster than any other country in the Western industrialised world. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(3.27) —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) concludes by repeating the claims about the prices and incomes accord made as an article of faith-that it has contributed all that he alleges to the recent performance of the economy. It is, of course, precisely the thrust of this matter of public importance to demonstrate that that is not correct. The Minister began his address by stating yet again the theory of the accord, which is that through it the Government attempts to restrain wages directly, in order to pursue more expansionary or, more appropriately at this moment, less contractionary fiscal and monetary policies, and thus achieve higher levels of economic activity and employment with less inflation than would otherwise be possible. That is the theory; I will come back to that presently. He then went on, of course, to give us the usual hyperbole about the great performance of the economy, all due to the accord, with no reference to the upswing in the international economy, the breaking of the drought, the wages pause of the Fraser Government, and so on. I want to go back and start with what is, in fact, the fundamental of the present economic situation which the Government will neglect at its peril, and that is the simple fact that Australia is living beyond its means and that it has been doing so for the last two or three years. As with individuals, it is a situation which cannot go on indefinitely. I suppose the most visible and culpable manifestation of this country's living beyond its means are the Government's own Budget deficits-$8 billion in 1983-84, $6.7 billion last year, and nearly $6 billion this year, if we look at the detail of it. I do not suggest that the matter does not go wider than that, raising the whole question of the nation's standard of living generally and, indeed, the appropriateness and sustainability of that standard of living. But how this country's living beyond its means shows up, of course, is in the massive deficit in the balance of payments. The 1984-85 deficit, the excess of what we have to pay out over what we earn in exports, was at an all time high of $10.2 billion, which we meet by borrowing in one form or another, adding in that way to the already very large overseas debt. The judgment of the international community has been visited on us in the form of the 20 per cent devaluation of our currency. That 20 per cent devaluation could be the beginning of the adjustment process-if it were given a chance to work. This was recognised by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), particularly in his Budget Speech, in which he referred to the fact that, if the price effects of the devaluation were passed on to wages via indexation decisions, our cost increases would exceed those of our competitors and `we would be throwing away any prospect of sustaining the growth rates required to get unemployment down'. Mr N. A. Brown —The competitive edge. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes, they were also the Treasurer's very words. He said: `Our competitive edge would be lost'. The Treasurer went on to say that in the next two wage indexation cases the Government would be arguing for an adjustment of the wage increase for the price effects of the devaluation. But what happened? The Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Government's masters in this area, as in tax matters, said `no'. The fact is that the accord we are talking about was not able to, or designed to, accommodate such an adjustment for devaluation. Mr N. A. Brown —They surrendered. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Of course it was bent. A deal was done. The upshot of that deal was that the Government would be attempting to achieve a full 3.8 per cent increase in the current wage case with two percentage points of discounting next April-and that in return for a pretty high price that I will not go into. That will prove too little, too late-a fatally delayed adjustment. Was the agreement with the unions the best that could be achieved in terms of the accord? Was this accord mark II restraint? I quote as witness that union activist, Mr Halfpenny, who said: `This is a deal too good to refuse!'. If Mr Halfpenny said that, honourable members can be sure that the proposal was pretty generous. Mr N. A. Brown —It was their Munich pact. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes. Just because of the generosity of that agreement, which is not appropriate for the furtherance of the economy, the accord had to be assisted. What we get is a tightening of monetary policy. We get very high interest rates, not only to shore up the balance of payments and, thereby, the Australian dollar, but also to keep a tight reign on business borrowing to finance its operations and, in particular, its capacity to offer wage increases. So, as I said earlier in expounding what the theory was all about, the result of the accord not being adequate is that the Government of necessity has had to fall back on more contractionary monetary and fiscal policy-in particular, monetary policy, despite all that the Minister was saying a while ago about the misdeeds of the previous Government in this area. So we get the pattern of interest rates to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) referred. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask whether I may incorporate in Hansard a table showing interest rates in Australia compared with those in West Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Only if one contemplates that table does one get the full impact, impression of just how high interest rates are in this country compared with those in West Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Table 6 NATIONAL WAGE CASE-SEPTEMBER 1985 Commercial Interest Rates International Comparisons Day-to-day Money Rates At December Australia West Germany Japan United Kingdom United States 1981... 12.84 10.75 6.70 9.13 12.37 1982... 11.04 6.07 6.92 6.70 8.95 1983... 4.56 5.60 6.47 7.77 9.36 1984... 10.88 5.62 6.41 6.31 8.38 June 1985... 15.12 5.55 6.15 10.17 7.51 Representative Money-market Rates 1981... 16.00 10.50 6.30 15.69 12.78 1982... 10.65 6.20 6.80 10.50 8.81 1983... 9.50 6.30 6.52 9.31 9.75 1984... 12.50 5.75 6.29 9.88 8.34 June 1985... 15.05 5.60 6.30 12.44 7.70 Commercial Bank Lending Rates to prime borrowers 1981... 15.75 13.00 6.95 14.50 15.75 1982... 15.00 8.75 6.28 10.00 11.50 1983... 12.75 7.75 6.10 9.00 11.00 1984... 13.50 7.75 5.70 9.50 10.75 June 1985... 17.75 7.75 6.70 12.50 9.50 Domestic Corporate Bond Yields-Long Term Issues 1981... 16.50 10.50 7.70 16.55 15.50 1982... 15.00 8.20 7.55 12.34 11.75 1983... 13.50 8.30 7.09 11.57 12.63 1984... 14.00 7.20 6.21 11.64 12.25 June 1985... 13.90 7.20 6.70 11.61 11.25 Source: CA1. Submission to September National Wage Case. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —The table shows the actual money rates. The pattern of real money rates in those economies is similarly adverse to Australia. Mr Webster —We must have the facts. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —Yes, we must have facts before us. In conclusion, the Opposition would challenge, front on, the claim that the accord and particularly the mark II version of the accord is delivering more wage restraint than would have ocurred under a different system. I submit that from the September 1983 wage indexation case until now by and large the level of wages has been higher or as high as it would have been under a different system. That includes both award wages and increases outside the award system which the unions are supposed to eschew in return for full indexation; the latter have also been significant and are beginning to emerge as more so. Witness the Victorian sweetheart deal for the nurses. Moreover, in addition to actual wage increases-since 1983 there has been a 2.4 per cent real increase-we have had the favourable decisions of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission regarding termination and redundancy. We have had the occupational superannuation scheme in the construction industry and, highly significantly looking ahead, we have the undertaking given in return for the two percentage points of wage discount next April of an economy-wide superannuation arrangement amounting to a significant further increase in wages. The Leader of the Opposition quoted Bill Kelty of the union movement who said: The Australian union movement will make gains under the accord that would be unchallenged by any other union organisation in the world. Is that statement consistent with the sort of restraint that is said to have been conferred by the accord? So we have an accelerating rate of inflation and costs, record high interest rates, flat business investment which enhances concern about the massive deficit in the balance of payments, a vast increase in our debt and the weak Australian dollar. It really is a lot of hyperbole to see this as the high road to long term prosperity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(3.37) —When I was asked to speak in this debate I was told that it was to be a debate on the prices and incomes accord and I said that I would be very happy to speak. However, when I was given a copy of the document that set out the terms of the matter of public importance this afternoon, I was amazed to find that it reads: The exaggerated claims of the Government regarding the economic benefits flowing from the Prices and Incomes Accord. I was amazed because it seems that the Opposition is simply raising this matter in the House this afternoon-it is all we have heard from it-because it is unhappy about the fact that the Government has been going around this nation advertising the success it has had under the prices and incomes accord. Quite frankly, I say to the Australian people: `What is wrong with that?'. Those who have listened to the debate this afternoon no doubt will have been amazed by the humbug, posturing and posing they have heard from the other side. They have not heard much else. The bottom line fact in the debate ought to be that we have created jobs, jobs, jobs since we have been in government. If one asks people in the Australian community what they want most out of the Australian Government's economic policies one will be told that they want jobs, jobs, jobs. Mr N. A. Brown —Full time jobs, not part time jobs like yours. Mr DUNCAN —What a cheek it is for the Opposition to start talking about jobs in this Parliament. We never heard a bloody word about jobs while honourable members opposite were in government. For the whole time, for seven years, when John Howard was the Treasurer of this nation, all we saw-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The Chair invites the honourable member to exercise greater restraint. Mr DUNCAN —I will be happy to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker. In seven years all we had from present Opposition members who were then in government was a situation whereby the unemployment levels of this country went from crisis to crisis. When the previous government came to power in 1975 we started with an unemployment level of about 5 per cent. When it went out of government the level was 10.7 per cent. That was a major crisis for this nation and that is what we were confronted with when we came into government. What did we do? We treated it as a crisis. We wanted to stop the job rot, and we have done that. The way we did it was to say to the trade union movement of this country: `We want to enter an accord for the good of this nation'. We put it to the union movement that we had a crisis of great magnitude on our hands and that we wanted to do something about it as a government. The trade union movement, acting as responsible citizens of this nation, came to the party and agreed to enter an accord; and that accord has been the cornerstone of this Government's policy since its term in office commenced in 1983. The score is now on the board. When we listen to what has been said this afternoon by members of the Opposition we realise why they actually raised this matter. They were concerned, are concerned and will continue to be concerned about the fact that the accord is working so well and that this Government's economic policies are right and correct. We have the fundamentals basically in place now for a sustained long term recovery. That is going to ensure that we will be re-elected at the next election and that John Howard and his leadership of the Liberal Party and the Opposition will be cast into the political dustbin. What is the response from the Opposition to this scenario it is now confronted with? It is to say: `The first thing we have to do is to destroy as best we can the confidence of the Australian people in the prices and incomes accord'. That obviously is the tactic behind this matter of public importance that the Opposition has pumped up before the House this afternoon. It will not work, because when we talk to ordinary people about the prices and incomes accord they say: `I am not too sure about the details of it, but it seems to be a pretty good thing'. The opinion polls are showing more and more support for the accord, as the score is on the board to demonstrate how successful we have been. The opinion polls have shown that the accord is becoming more and more popular. Quite obviously that means that this Government's economic policies are becoming more and more popular and that means that the economic policies of the Howard-led Opposition are going to become less and less popular. That is hardly surprising because, as I said before, what the economy needs and wants is jobs, jobs and more jobs. That is what our policies are providing for the Australian people. That is what our priorities provide for. If Australians want more jobs, quite obviously what they will do at the next election is to vote for the Australian Labor Party Government, which has given them this strong economic recovery. When one looks at the track record of the Fraser Government, with Treasurer Howard as the architect of its economic policies, one might ask about the cheek of the Leader of the Opposition bringing up in this Parliament such a matter. Has he no shame? It is extraordinary to think that somebody with his economic track record would have the temerity to bring up in this place a matter critical of the prices and incomes accord, which has been the cornerstone of the recovery and which has led this nation out of the economic recession he put us in. If one does not want to accept the Government's word for this, there is plenty of evidence elsewhere about how successful the recovery has been and how enthusiastic people throughout the rest of the Western world have been for the prices and incomes accord. We have had almost a parade of overseas experts, commentators, bureaucrats and government leaders coming to this country to discuss the policies of this Government and to talk about the successes we have had with the prices and incomes accord. Documents have been published overseas by a range of organisations. In 10 minutes quite obviously I cannot deal with very much of the information that is put forth, but I suppose that the most celebrated report is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economic survey in June 1985. What it had to say about the record of this Government and of the prices and incomes accord was very interesting. On page 9 under the heading `The Australian policy framework', which of course means the Australian Labor Party Government's policy framework, it is said that these policies have achieved a very considerable degree of success. It is talking about the policies of this Government which in total are the fiscal policy, which has been broadly expansionary; the prices and incomes accord, which we are debating here this afternoon; the monetary policy, which has been said to promote sustained lower inflation whilst ensuring a pick-up in demand; and moves towards deregulation in the economy. The OECD said: These policies have achieved a considerable degree of success . . Price inflation has been reduced by half, and the current wage determination system appears broadly successful in restraining wage increases. Mr N. A. Brown —They must be naive. Mr DUNCAN —That is the latest document from the OECD. It does the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party no credit to challenge that. In previous years those opposite have been very enthusiastic about OECD reports. Now that those reports are giving credit where credit is due to this Government, they do not want to recognise them. I believe that the Opposition Leader ought to give credit where credit is due. He ought to admit the mess he made as Treasurer of this country, a mess widely recognised-- Mr Tuckey —Rubbish! Mr DUNCAN —Those opposite say that that is rubbish, but he went out of office leaving the highest deficit in living memory-$9.7 billion. That is what was handed over to us. As I mentioned, unemployment went up like a rocket under his jurisdiction from 5 per cent to 10.7 per cent-double. He is offering the people of Australia more of the same. When one looks at the evidence one could think that the Leader of the Opposition was suffering in some way because quite obviously he has not learnt from his experience. The definition of a person who does not learn from experience is a psychopath, and these are psychopathic tendencies we are seeing. He does not learn. He keeps coming back here pushing again and again. It will not work because the Australian people, as I have said, are interested quite simply, at the bottom line, in economic policies which are going to produce jobs, jobs and more jobs, and that is what they are getting from this Government. That is what they want. There is no doubt that the Opposition Leader is in a lot of trouble over the economy of this nation and is going to continue to be so. We on this side of the House are proud of the accord. We are proud of the achievements this Government has made economically and we will continue to go around this nation saying to the people that these economic results, these scores that are now on the board, are as a result of the economic policies of this Government. We will be proud of them. We will advertise them and we will continue to do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: Companies (Fees) Amendment Bill 1985 Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1985 Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Amendment Bill 1985 Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr MacKellar be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority to fill the vacancy now existing on the Committee. Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(3.50) —The House this afternoon is considering the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill 1985, an omnibus Bill which is mechanical in nature, and which primarily gives effect to Budget measures and decisions taken by the Government. It requires changes to and amends the following Acts: The Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954, the National Health Act 1953, the Repatriation Act 1920, the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940 and the Social Security Act 1947. The Opposition does not oppose this legislation; in fact it supports many of the provisions contained in it. It is my intention this afternoon, recognising that the House is behind schedule, to make brief comments on each of the sections of this Bill in order to facilitate a more complete debate on the part of those members who wish to participate. The first matter I wish to comment on is the changes proposed to the Aged or Disabled Persons Home Act 1954. The amendment to this Act restructures the weekly rates payable in the form of hostel, personal and respite care subsidies as daily rates. Currently the respite care 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, or of $55 a week where the bed is occupied for at least 15 days during a 28-day period. Obviously this differential rate has caused distortions in the availability of beds for respite care. Respite care beds have been available for a duration of 15 days or more but have been in short supply for periods of 14 days or less. Hopefully this proposed change by the Government will do something to alleviate the difficulties that have arisen from the previous payment conditions which have resulted in preference being given to longer stay patients. While I am on the subject of nursing homes, it is necessary to comment on the present Government's overall policy in this area. Some 15 months after coming to office in March 1983, the Federal Government virtually froze all nursing home applications and since then it has had a most restricted policy on guidelines applying to applications for new nursing homes which make it extremely difficult for any applicant to gain approval for the establishment of a new home. During the 1983 election campaign, the Labor Party made much of its promise to establish an office of aged care. It made much of this promise again in the 1984 election campaign. In the intervening period the Government did virtually nothing, which allowed Government members to recycle the promise and use it twice. Apparently some action is being taken by the Government at present to establish this much vaunted, much talked about and much promised office of aged care but up to the present I am led to believe that very little has happened and that the proposal has been considerably watered down in relation to the Government's original intentions. The private nursing home sector's greatest problem is the difficulties it encounters in relation to bureaucratic regulation and control of this sector. It is one thing for the Government to be concerned about fixing up the anomalies in this area of respite care subsidies, but it is quite another for the Government to look carefully at its whole policy of aged care to ensure that we do not have a continuation of difficulties experienced by private sector entrepreneurs wishing to establish nursing homes and anxiety on the part of people who recognise that as their age increases they will need nursing home care. Such people are often concerned that care facilities and beds might not be available for them. We do not want mounting pressure on families in the community who have elderly relatives and who are not in a position, because of their economic situation or because of their children, to care for them at home. The next points that I wish to comment on relate to the amendments to the National Health Act 1953. The amendments to this Act enable the rates of benefit prescribed by the National Health regulations to differentiate between classes of approved nursing homes-that is, between Government nursing homes and private nursing homes. The explanatory memorandum circulated with the authority of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) states that this will allow: . . . freezing of the level of benefits in government nursing homes, but allow for the level of benefits in non-government nursing homes to be increased by prescribing different benefit rates in the regulations for these two classes of approved nursing homes. The wording of the actual Act does not spell this out. It merely states that the Government may use regulations to prescribe different amounts of benefits for different classes of approved nursing homes. Thus, if the Government so desired it could regulate to freeze the benefit to private nursing homes and increase the benefit to government nursing homes. If we could examine a hypothetical situation for a moment, we find that if the Government gazetted these regulations less than 15 sitting days before a parliamentary recess, it could literally be months before such an action could be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. While I would not go so far as to suggest that the ambiguity in this clause is intentional, even though it is clear that this Government is ideologically opposed to private nursing home care, the wording of this clause could be much tighter. Mr Howe —Rubbish! Mr BLUNT —The Minister at the table says `rubbish'. Why then for 15 months did he not approve a nursing home application? Notwithstanding the Minister's comments, I wish to progress to the rest of the amendments proposed in this Bill. These relate to the Repatriation Act 1920 and the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940. The Opposition has no argument with the amendments to these Acts contained in the Bill. Basically these amendments increase the benefits payable to orphans, amputees and other beneficiaries under these Acts. My colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who is the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, will comment in more detail about the Government's proposals in these areas. However, I would like to take this opportunity to note that over the weekend the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt), has backed off and watered down the Government's totally unreasonable position with respect to the original proposals contained in the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. I am personally pleased to see that the Government has walked away from the inequitable and discriminatory 40-year rule. However, I am concerned that it has not clarified many other of the rather discriminatory proposals contained in that Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! I hope that the honourable member is not anticipating the debate on a Bill that is yet to come before the House. Mr BLUNT —No, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Opposition is looking forward to the introduction of this Bill so that we can ascertain what the Government is proposing. However, I am concerned by recent announcements by the Minister that he will adjust the travel allowance payments made to veterans seeking medical care away from their homes or using their own private vehicles. The reality is that payments made on a kilometre basis for veterans' travelling have been reduced and brought out of alignment with the reimbursement made to members of the Commonwealth Public Service. Frankly I do not think this is fair; it is a discriminatory approach and indicative of the Government's attitude to veterans. The fifth part of this Act relates to the Social Security Act 1947. The amendments to this Act basically give effect to the Government's Budget initiatives relating to social security pensions and benefits. The Opposition welcomes these measures, particularly the increased allowable earnings for unemployment beneficiaries and the provision of rent assistance for the long term unemployed. While the increase in basic rates for unemployment benefits and children's and guardian's allowances will undoubtedly be welcomed by those in receipt of social security pensions and benefits, these amendments make no attempt to remove the poverty traps experienced by those with income just above the cut-off levels. Pensioners with incomes just above the cut-off levels will still be subject to effective marginal rates of taxation of some 68 per cent, while for some unemployment and sickness benefit recipients, the figure will still be as high as 112 per cent. In addressing the welfare needs of clients of the Department of Social Security, the Government should give consideration to a more innovative approach to eliminating the so-called proverty traps. All the Government has really done in this area-I acknowledge that it has recognised the need for increases-is to move the margin of discontent to a higher income level. The same is true of the Government's approach to poverty traps in its latest series of tax proposals which have been discussed by this House and will be discussed again later in the week. Until our social security and taxation systems are properly integrated, these traps will still remain. Unfortunately the Government has again put this issue into the too-hard basket. It is disappointing to me that the Bill that is currently before the House presented an opportunity for the Government to address the question of poverty traps and the income test free area. However, it has chosen not to do so at present. Another matter that concerns me about the amendments to the Social Security Act is that they propose to absorb family allowance payments within the secondary allowance scheme. As a result of this measure, as from 15 January 1986, family allowance payments will cease where a child receives payments under the secondary allowance scheme. In the May mini-Budget, the Government took away family allowances in respect of dependent students over 18 years of age. Even if the students did not qualify for the tertiary education allowance scheme, their families could no longer receive the family allowance for them. This caused great distress and hardship, especially in the case of country families. I am aware of one instance of a family with four student children all away from home attending tertiary institutions. As a result of this Government's measures in that May package of cutbacks, two of those children have been forced to drop out of their tertiary courses because the family is no longer able to sustain their living expenses while they live away from home and complete their education. This legislation makes the secondary allowance scheme a prescribed education scheme, thereby further eroding family allowances. By absorbing family allowance payments within the secondary allowance scheme, family allowances for 16- and 17-year-old students will now be subjected to an income test, just as has already occurred in the case of students over 18. This means that for the purposes of assessing eligibility for the secondary allowance scheme or for TEAS allowances, this Government chooses to treat 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds as dependants, taking into account their families' incomes. When it comes to determining family allowance payments, it treats them as adults with independent means. This is obviously a double standard and is inconsistent. The Government's move also sets the stage for the means testing of all family allowances-a step which gained the approval of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in July of this year. I believe that it is only a matter of time before the Government announces that family allowances will be means tested. I note that this Bill also clarifies and rationalises the rules concerning overpayments of social security pensions, a move which I personally welcome and which I welcome with regard to the contents of the recent Auditor-General's report on the projected massive level of overpayments ascertained as a result of this audit of the Social Security Department's regional offices. The Opposition welcomes especially the amendments which provide for automatic cessation of a pension where a pensioner ceases to qualify for a pension. The Auditor-General's recent report found that the Department of Social Security's current guidelines allow for up to six additional instalments of a widow's pension and a supporting parent's benefit to be paid to a recipient after notification of a change in circumstances and up to three instalments after actual determination of cancellation or suspension. I repeat that the guidelines provides for up to three payments of benefit after actual determination of cancellation or suspension. The question that arises is what procedures the Department will institute to recover overpayments. The Auditor-General suggested in his report that the level of unrecovered overpayments was considerably above that which he considered to be a realistic level. Amazingly, such overpayments have been accepted by the Department as the result of administrative delay and, in many instances, no action has been taken to recover them. The amendments currently under consideration will make any payment after the automatic cancellation or reduction in rate either wholly or partially recoverable at law. We welcome this move. However, if the Government is really serious about reducing social security overpayments, it should do something about ensuring that the officers of the Department of Social Security recognise their responsibilities not only to the clients of the Department but also to the taxpayers of Australia. It would be appropriate for the Government to reintroduce the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, because, as the Auditor-General found in his report, a large proportion of the overpayments made by the Department arose because of the imposition of work bans by officers of the Department. Under those work bans, the officers performed only part of their duties. Those duties they performed did not include the recovery of overpayments or checking to ensure that overpayments did not occur. Mr Slipper —Did they get paid their full wages? Mr BLUNT —It is inequitable for officers of the Department of Social Security to be paid their full wages while not performing their full jobs. The circumstances were made worse because, while receiving full payment and not performing their duties in accordance with the regulations laid down, they actually incurred a greater expense to the taxpayers of Australia by allowing overpayments to occur and by not taking action recover them. The Government, except for the fact that it is hamstrung by the attitude of the ACTU and the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association on the question of the CE (EP) Act, could deal effectively with Public Service work bans and comply with the need for remedying this rather disturbing and expensive problem within the Department by reintroducing that Act. It is essential that the Government do everything that it possibly can to ensure that the level of overpayments made by the Department of Social Security is minimised and that those overpayments that are made are recovered without delay. The Opposition supports the Bill. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(4.06) —The Bill that the House is debating this afternoon is the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill 1985. It deals primarily with the measures introduced by the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) and the Minister for for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) in association with the Budget of this year. The Bill provides for some amendments to a number of existing pieces of legislation. It would be fair to say that those amendments provide the dividends of the Government's good economic management over the last few years. The Bill contains good news for people in Australia who are in somewhat difficult financial circumstances, unlike the gloom and doom that they had for many years from the previous Fraser Government. I found it very depressing to stand up and speak in the Parliament in Budget debates in years gone by as all one heard from the present Opposition, which was then in government, was that it was unfortunate that it had to cut this, that and something else and that it could not provide funds for any additional measures. In this Budget, the Government has provided for an increase in social security and welfare payments of approximately $110m for 1985-86 and $245m in a full year. That is in addition to the increases that automatically flow from the indexation of pensions and benefits and, in some instances, the increases in the number of beneficiaries. The Bill provides for substantial increases in assistance to those most in need, such as low income families and those with dependent children. I am pleased to see introduced in this legislation some proposals that I have argued for in this Parliament over the years. A number of them have flown from a report on programs for the aged that I presented on behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure. From 1 November of this year a number of additional benefits will become available to people. I think it is worthwhile outlining some of those benefits so people will be aware of the good news in the welfare side of the Budget. The additional benefits payable for every child of a pensioner or beneficiary will be increased by $2 a week to $16. The family income supplement for dependent children will be increased from $14 a week to $16. From 1 May 1986 there will be a 20 per cent increase in the rate of the mother's-guardian's allowance. That will be increased to $12 per week. Those are benefits which will assist young families and parents who are struggling to care for their children. From 1 November 1985 a new category of pension-the carer's pension-will be provided. In my view, that is a most important innovation. It will replace the spouse carer's pension, which was paid to a man who maintained constant care of a sick spouse. We all know that in many instances it is not just a husband who cares for an aged person. Women form the largest group of people who care for aged relations. In many instances daughters have given up their whole lives to care for their aged parents. Until this legislation was introduced, those people were never recognised. The Carer's Association of New South Wales, in particular, its Chairperson, Clare Stevenson, has done a considerable amount of lobbying to help bring about this positive change. They should be commended for the work that they did. The carer's pension represents an area in which there was great need for a hole to be plugged in the benefits system in this country. It is also an important benefit in that for the first time it takes account of the part often played by daughters in many families. When one considers the reliance that the present Opposition places on the family providing assistance for welfare, it is interesting that when it was in government it did nothing about it. The rhetoric of the Opposition was not fulfilled by anything that it did in government. I will say a few words later about some of the things that the Opposition has been saying. On 15 November this year, special additional assistance will be provided for large families. There will be assistance for people who have multiple births-$150 a month for triplets and $200 a month for quads or larger families. When one considers the cost of maintaining a family in Australia nowadays, there was a need for the Government to increase assistance to large families. The previous government which talked ad infinitum about the family, what the family ought to do and how important the family is, never provided any financial assistance for large families. This legislation will also provide assistance for people with handicapped children. A child who attracts a handicapped children's allowance will be able to live away from home for up to 28 days a year. That will enable such children to go into hospital or to have respite care which will do two things: It will ensure that the child gets some of the medical assistance it needs and also it will give the parents a break. Under the previous Government the allowance was not as generous. If the child was away from home for more than 28 days a year, under the previous Government's provisions, the entitlement was lost. There was a great deal of stress and strain upon any family with a handicapped child. The provision of that respite for the family and the continuation of the allowance are very important changes in the benefit system. 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. We always hear Opposition members talking about how terrible it is that people are unemployed, but mainly they talk about how terrible the unemployed are. In fact, they seem to want to levy some penalty against such people because in the rhetoric of members of the Opposition they believe that it is a person's fault that he is out of work. It is the same sort of genteel approach that members of the Opposition adopt to poverty. They believe that somehow or other we should go back to the days of the old work shop. They believe that if people cannot look after themselves there is something wrong with them. The previous Government excluded the unemployment benefit for single adults from the automatic provision of indexation. In my view, that was a shameful thing and this Government has rectified that. Indeed, under the previous Government's proposals we saw a decline in real terms in the value of the unemployment benefit paid to single adults. That was disgraceful. From November 1985, the unemployment benefit for single people aged 21 and over will increase by $3 a week and, with an indexation increase of $3.25 a week, will rise to $91.45 a week by the end of the period. To my mind, the Government is setting right a wrong which the previous Government did absolutely nothing about. The junior rate of unemployment benefit-that is, for those under 18 years of age-will be increased by $5 a week to $50 a week, which is another very important change in the legislation to ensure that young people who are having great difficulty finding work are not further economically disadvantaged as was the case with the type of assistance that was provided to them by the Fraser Government. In line with this Government's attitude of putting dignity into the lives of those people who are unemployed, we have decided to provide rental assistance for those people over 18 years of age who are receiving the unemployment benefit. I remember over a number of years making speeches in this Parliament when the Fraser Government was spending its time belting the unemployed. A family whose breadwinner was out of work was in a more perilous position than anyone in our society but the previous Government would not supply rental assistance when the family had to live in rented premises. Once again, the previous Liberal Government's attitude was that it penalised people who were out of work or poor. The present Government's view is diametrically opposed to that. Our view is that people who need assistance will receive assistance from this Government and will reap their part of the economic dividend flowing to the whole country as a result of the Hawke Government's sensible management of our economy. We will also look at removing some of the poverty traps that existed under the previous legislation. I was interested to hear the previous speaker, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), talk about poverty traps in this legislation. I say to the honourable member, who was not here when his Party was in government, that, if he thinks there are poverty traps in this legislation, which there are not, he should have seen the poverty traps involved in the legislation that Malcolm Fraser and his Cabinet brought into this Parliament. That legislation contained more traps than there are bear traps in the forest. It was a crying shame; one would have thought that the Liberal Government actually set out to disadvantage people. It is disgraceful to have members of the Opposition come in here and lecture us about poverty traps when we consider the sorts of poverty traps that they erected in legislation. We will remove some of the traps that were placed in legislation by the previous Government. The income test on unemployment and sickness beneficiaries will be liberalised. We will raise that from $20 a week to $30 a week from 1 May this year. We heard much from the Liberal Party about how people should be self-reliant but, of course, it never allowed people to be self-reliant. People were never allowed to earn any money to supplement their social security benefit. We will increase by 50 per cent the amount that a person can earn before it will affect the unemployment or sickness benefit. We will also abolish the waiting period for unemployment or sickness benefits where a beneficiary is transferred from another social security support payment. It was disgraceful in the past that, when a person on one benefit became entitled to another benefit, there was a waiting period. Under the Liberal Government it was a case of: If you are down and out, we will make sure that you stay down and out a whole lot longer. Under the Hawke Labor Government we are redressing those circumstances. We are doing it in two ways. In the time that we have been in government, we have created nearly 500,000 new jobs by sensible economic management and we are also doing something for those people who have not been able to get work or who, because of other circumstances, are not able to engage in employment. We will ensure that they have a reasonable existence. As part of the dividend that they should attract from the Government's sensible economic management, we will increase the benefits paid to them. We are also increasing the funds available under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act so that those people who are in hostel type accommodation will receive a respite bed subsidy increase. Under the Fraser Government there was no such thing as respite beds. In the main, people went into a nursing home to die. The previous Government cared nothing about such people. People went into a nursing home and, as far as the Fraser Government was concerned, that was the end of them. Under this Government, the Minister for Community Services, Senator Grimes, and the Minister for Health, the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), the Government is taking a positive approach to nursing homes and hostels. They will not necessarily be the last place to which one goes on the way through life. We see nursing homes as a place where people can go and actually be rehabilitated out of them. Under the respite care provision, we see nursing homes as a place where an aged relative can go for a short period to receive medical attention or to give the people caring for that person a rest. Under the previous government, there was no provision for anything like that. To it, nursing homes were the places where one shut away one's aged relations and forgot about them. In fact, the previous Government deliberately put impediments in the way so that we would not have the flexibility in the system that we are putting into it in this legislation and in previous legislation that has been enacted in this Parliament by the Hawke Labor Government. As I said earlier, it is important for us, after looking at the Government's position, to look at where the Opposition stands. Daily, members of the Opposition come into this House and say that they are the alternative government of Australia. I think the people of Australia should be reminded about the sort of deal they will get from the Opposition in the welfare area if it is ever elected to government. The doom and gloom merchants on the other side of the House would certainly try to take Australia back to the era that Dickens spoke about. It is interesting to read what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said on 28 August 1985 to the National Press Club. He said: The main cause of a blowout in government expenditure in recent years has taken place in the welfare area, particularly in the area of unemployment payments and supporting parents' benefits. Together they have accounted for probably 60 per cent of the increase in the welfare bill over the past 10 to 15 years. I suppose that one should ask oneself: Why did that happen? Why was there unemployment in those years? Did it just happen? Did there just happen to be unemployment when Malcolm Fraser was the Prime Minister of Australia? Of course not! The way in which the previous Government managed the economy caused the unemployment. Members of the Opposition even have the hide to come into the House now and say: `We caused this unemployment. Is it not terrible that there is now a cost for it?' It is disgraceful that they should have that sort of approach. The Leader of the Opposition, in his same speech to the National Press Club, said: Fifteen years ago we had an unemployment rate of less than 2 per cent. It now hovers between 8 and 9 per cent. Whose fault was that? Who was in government in those times? Not us for the majority of the time. In fact, the participation rate of Australians in the work force declined more rapidly under the previous Liberal Government than it did under any government in recent history in Australia. Let us have a look at what a few other members of the Opposition have had to say. It is interesting to see what Senator Messner, the Opposition spokesman in this area, had to say on the AM program on 2 August 1985. He got up with a hotch-potch of ideas and he said that the only way we could really get the Australian economy into gear was by cutting overpayments and welfare payments. The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who is one of the economic rationalists on the other side of the House, is reported in the Courier-Mail of 2 August as follows: Mr White called for cuts to unemployment benefits and an examination of the supporting parents' benefits. The article said that he said we ought to cut the supporting parents' benefit and the unemployment benefit. According to the Liberal Party, we should find the most vulnerable people in our society and we should kick them to death. We should punish them rather than look at what has happened in the system to cause that. Mr Valder, the Federal President of the Liberal Party is on record on the notorious private video channel run by the Westpac Banking Corporation as saying that the only way we can save on revenue is by cutting welfare payments. We have this consistent thread running through the Opposition's line of thought that what one has to do to get the economy back into gear is to cut welfare payments. Of course, the Government rejects that absolutely. We have the runs on the board to show that our approach has been successful. The Liberals failed; they had seven lonely years of failure. In a short period the present Government has turned the economy around and created nearly 500,000 new jobs. The way to cut unemployment funding is not to cut the benefits for people but to create the jobs so that they can get back to work and do the things that they want to do. But I suppose that it is the philosophy of members of the Liberal Party-the philosophy of the people who would like to be the leaders of Australia-that causes them to take this approach of cutting benefits and getting into people. The day after the Leader of the Opposition was elected he was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying that his Party would review all its policies in the welfare area while acknowledging that there were big differences of opinion on social issues. He said that he was relatively conservative, though not reactionary. In the company he keeps I suppose that he can be very conservative without being reactionary. When we have a look at what some of the other Opposition members have had to say we see that it all comes down to their wanting to make someone else pay for the mistakes that they caused. That is not the approach of the Government. The Government believes that the benefits we are improving in this legislation will help people to participate in the economic recovery of Australia. Even Malcolm Fraser would not have liked to have been in the company of the people on the other side of the House today because Malcolm Fraser had a better developed social conscience than most of the people in the present Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(4.26) —The Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill is designed to implement the Labor Government's Budget decisions in the social security and repatriation areas. This legislation covers a wide range of issues. This afternoon I want to examine some fundamental issues. It is very easy for us to quote money increases in this or that benefit and adjustments to this or that means test. It is very easy then to try to gain short term political advantage from people who see an immediate benefit. It is the politician's old appeal to the hip pocket nerve, but Australians deserve something better than just palliatives that make their hip pocket nerve respond favourably. This legislation, amongst its many provisions, deals with the problems related to the unemployment benefit paid to young people. As such, it really does not address some of the fundamental and underlying issues that concern and affect young people and determine their future. It is the role of parliaments to ensure that young people have adequate opportunities for education and training as well as opportunities for employment and, where they cannot find employment, adequate social security incomes for those who are not in paid employment. I want to make four points which I will then amplify. In legislating to promote the well-being of young people it is important, first, that parliamentarians, members of this House, the Government and those who serve the Government understand that the youth phase of life should be put in its life cycle perspective. Secondly, it is important that the nature of the transition of this phase of life be understood. Thirdly, it is important that the significance to young people of the achievement of independence, particularly economic independence, be recognised. Fourthly, it is important that social expenditure in providing income security to those young people who are not in the employed work force be acknowledged as a burden which must be borne by the economy, whether it is public expenditure paid for out of tax funds or private social expenditure paid for by families and friends. The years of youth follow infancy and childhood. They lead to adulthood, family formation and work force participation and then, in our modern, affluent society, to an increasing number of years in retirement. The children who become young men and women are individuals. Our concern, first and foremost, should be for them as individuals with their own personalities, hopes and desires. Our concern should not be for them as members of a mindless and manipulative crowd. Often that is the hallmark of the present Government's attitude to policies for youth. I ask all honourable members to recall their own youth and to remember the observations that they might have made of their children as they were growing up. In a government-sponsored survey, conducted last year by the organisation known as Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd, it was found that young people see leaving childhood as a process of becoming independent, a gradual process achieved at no particular age but linked primarily with financial independence resulting from earnings derived from having a job. It is interesting that the survey identified a difference between the independence sought by youth and adulthood, a role they pursued with much more reluctance. Indeed, adulthood is seen as a status they attain when they become mature, more serious and more responsible, when the years of youth for them are over. Young people, those in transition from childhood to adulthood, find themselves faced with many dilemmas, and I mention but two: First, the prospect of getting a job is seen as the key to optimism, whereas the perceived lack of employment opportunities is a source of fear. Secondly, financial independence is an aspiration the achievement of which they find is inconsistent with the pressure to study longer and to train more. There can be no doubt that unacceptable levels of unemployment have added to the natural uncertainty experienced by young people in their search for self-image and self-confidence on the way to the maturity of adulthood. The youth phase of life, therefore, can be a time of optimism or pessimism, idealism or cynicism, belonging or alienation, participation or escapism. If public policies are to assist young people in the important process of finding their identity and achieving human dignity, governments must have economic policies which are designed not only to increase the number of job opportunities but also to develop social security policies which provide those who are unemployed or involved in education and training with a proper degree of personal economic independence. There is a need for a critical and appropriate adjustment in the relationship between the level of youth and adult wages and the introduction of measures to create a much more flexible labour market in which wages and hours adjust to the numbers seeking employment rather than the numbers in employment adjusting to artificially determined wage rates and inflexible working hours. As time goes on we will all spend a small proportion of our lives in the employed work force. As a result, social security policies will continue to rise in importance on the political agenda. It should not be assumed that the only way to guarantee income security objectives is to increase public sector spending; nor should universal schemes be rejected on the ground of cost for they need not necessarily be more expensive in terms of public sector expenditure. It is important that these income support policies for people who are dependent be seen not as public sector social expenditure but as the nation's social expenditure, whether it is made by parents in support of children, spouses in support of another spouse, or through the government mechanism. So we need to study carefully whether the system as a whole is working-not whether the government system by itself is cost effective but whether the whole system is providing to individuals who otherwise would be dependent because they have not got paid employment the degree of economic independence they deserve and the total income security they require to feed, clothe and accommodate themselves. The trouble in this country has been that governments of all persuasions have concentrated only on what governments do and have forgotten what families do. In concentrating on the way in which they have thought they can do it cheaply for governments they have so put a burden on the private sector that families are opting out. I now turn to what is being done in this legislation for the young unemployed. The unemployment benefit for people under 18 years of age is to be increased to $50. That in itself is very commendable, but the unemployed under 18 are only a small proportion of the total population between 16 and 18 who have not got paid employment. The rest of them are dependent upon their families, yet we tax those families out of economic existence. Is it any wonder that participation rates in education are declining and that many families are being forced to adjust their social behaviour in making decisions about the future education of their children by saying: `Look, if you live at home and are unsuccessful in finding a job you can get the unemployment benefit and bring home $50. But if you stay at school you will get nothing extra'? What a crazy system. I am not criticising the needs of the young unemployed. I am trying to bring to the attention of the House the importance of focusing on the needs of the student child and his family. The system the Government is introducing, raising the unemployment benefit for the young unemployed, makes no adjustment as between those young unemployed who live at home and those who live away from home, as between those who live alone and those who live with others, whether at home or elsewhere. There is clear evidence to show that there are economies of scale. After all, we recognise that by having a married rate pension rather than giving two married pensioners standard rate pensions. In the process of recognising that, we put a penalty on marriage because in bureaucratic terms it is much easier to ask `Are you married?' then to ask `Are you living in a house with someone else?'. In that area, as well as in the area of the young unemployed, we should be asking the beneficiary: `Do you live alone? If you do, you should be entitled to some additional benefit. If you do not, you should have a benefit that reflects the economies of scale that arise from living in a household with others who have incomes'. The Government is proposing to introduce an intermediate unemployment benefit rate for those between 18 and 20 years of age. In effect that will freeze the rate for those people in order that it can bring that rate into equality with the tertiary education allowance. That says something, does it not? It says that the Government has formed a view that the tertiary education allowance is adequate. Yet when it gets them in equality it will say: `We have done wonders'. It will not have done wonders at all. The discrimination between student and unemployed will still exist. Those 18 years of age and older, whether students or unemployed, are adults. Unemployed youths get their unemployment benefit on the basis of a personal income test. Students get their benefits only on the basis of a family income test. That is neither fair nor just. It discriminates against young adults whose parents happen to have an income. It discriminates between those who choose to go straight from school to university and those who, sometimes for very good reasons and at other times for purely mercenary reasons, work for two years or register as unemployed for two years, pick up the unemployment benefit and then, having either worked or been on the unemployment benefit, qualify for a tertiary education allowance upon the basis of their own means. Again, what a crazy system. The whole system should be fair in its treatment of people of similar ages. A benefit rate which is equal will not solve the differentials between the student child and the unemployed child. I turn now to the income test, which is being liberalised slightly in respect of unemployment beneficiaries and other beneficiaries. It is interesting to note that in a speech made earlier this year the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) said: Nevertheless, substantial overlap still exists, with the effect that about a quarter of a million pensioners and beneficiaries are facing effective levels of withdrawal significantly higher than those facing taxpayers generally. For example, pensioners and beneficiaries whose payments are both income-tested and taxed are experiencing effective marginal tax rates, often in excess of 60 per cent and sometimes exceeding even 100 per cent. It is the classic poverty trap. The Minister went on to say: It is impossible to argue that such high levels of effective marginal tax rates for those on low incomes are equitable. Yet implicitly the Government has argued that those high marginal withdrawal rates are equitable. Instead of attempting to adjust them-to taper more gently the withdrawal rates as they affect the young unemployed, as well as unemployed people generally-all it has done is advance the level of the poverty trap; I suspect, not even to the extent of the inflation effect, since it was last adjusted. In fact the income test is being tightened and will continue to have an adverse effect on the opportunities for people to become self-reliant. For every dollar they earn, once they get to that poverty trap level, they get such a small return that many of them ask whether it is really worth it. The Australian tax and social security systems treat very harshly the intact family. This legislation will do nothing to assist it to survive economically. For example, a single income family, with one breadwinner supporting a dependent spouse and two children, receives $1,030 relief through the spouse rebate and $664 by way of family allowance; a total of $1,694. That is in contrast to a system that did not have either the allowances or the tax rebate. If the real value of these rebates and allowances had been maintained by the Labor Government-it has not-we would be legislating now to increase the spouse rebate from $1,030 to $1,292 and the family allowance for two children from $664 to $760. The loss in value of those rebates and allowances is $266 per year, or $5 per week, for a family with a dependent spouse and two dependent children. If the family breaks up, whether because of economic pressures or other reasons, and the dependent spouse becomes dependent on the social security system, he or she will receive, as a result of this legislation, almost $5,000 by way of the supporting parent pension, $624 by way of the mothers or guardians allowance, $1,666 by virtue of an additional child allowance and $664 from the family allowance which is available universally to all families with children. That is a total of $7,952, which is nearly five times the assistance given to an intact family. This sum is collected from the taxpayers and adds to the tax burden and the harshness with which the tax and social security systems treat the single income family already supporting a dependent spouse and children. There is no doubt that sole parents and their children need the income support that they receive now, but the intact family also needs it. Can anyone doubt that the social security system influences social behaviour? Can anyone doubt the social security and tax systems which treat net outcomes so differentially? The assistance and recognition for dependents is provided by private individuals. The failure to recognise that as adequately as we recognise the needs of sole parents is causing some of the problems with which we are now faced. We need in this country tax and social security systems that look at the life cycle. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(4.46) —In speaking to the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill I wish to make a number of comments off the cuff, as it were. Since I became a student of politics, it has been orthodoxy that both of the major parties have represented something that could be described in the context of tweedledum and tweedledee. Having listened to our opponents articulating their views on issues such as social security, it not only sticks in my craw but also reinforces my fundamental view that the Australian Labor Party, for all its faults from time to time, is still very much the best vehicle for ensuring that those who are less well able to look after themselves in our community will be looked after by the Government. I refer to Chifley's famous statement: Social security must be set in a framework of policies aimed, directly and indirectly, at full employment. In essence that has been the approach of this Government. It is easy for the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) to go through what he perceives to be the record of the previous Government. It is easy for him to say `It is easy to quote money increases', but it was not easy for him, when he was in government, nor was it easy for any of his colleagues. They very rarely increased the funds available to those less able to support themselves in our community. The rhetoric that we hear time and again had its genesis in the destabilisation of the leadership of the former Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), it was used as a stalking horse to undermine him. It is the case now that people are locked into these weird and wonderful policy approaches. I suspect very strongly that in due course the electorate will cast judgment and will reject the idea that we ought to act like a pack of school bullies or bar room bullies and single out those less able to look after themselves; those less able to marshall political support. When we talk about cutting the availability of funds to single supporting mothers, we forget very conveniently that we are not talking only about single supporting mothers. By definition we are talking about their children and in most cases they are obviously less able to articulate their own cause. This Government deserves some censure in terms of its approach to these issues. It deserves censure, quite simply, because it has not articulated to the community precisely what is its record in this area. It is a record to be proud of in terms of redistribution. This Government stands to the equal of the Whitlam Government in terms of presiding over the fundamental equation-a growth rate equation-to enable the Government properly to redistribute resources to those in greatest need, while providing massive increases in the number of jobs available. It has very much of which to be proud. It really excites in me some passion, unlike most of the debates in this House, when I hear those people cloaked in privilege who will advocate, for example, that the provision of certain social security measures be vested in private enterprise. I might just reflect for a moment on a report brought down in the Senate some months ago. I refer to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, presided over by Senator Pat Giles, which dealt with the state of nursing home accommodation in Australia. Honourable members will not need to be reminded of the quite horrifying circumstances which were shown up in that report. It articulated quite clearly the fundamental problems that we have when trying to balance the desire to maximise profits against the responsibility, ostensibly, for looking after individuals in very dire circumstances. A reading of that report ought to be compulsory for all those who embrace the rhetoric of the other side of the House. I hope that in future honourable members opposite will be more circumspect before so easily embracing, as does the honourable member for Sturt, the view that private enterprise ought to be involved in this area. Of course, even in the terms of his own rhetoric, the honourable member for Sturt is hoist with the Opposition's petard-that is, the Liberal Council meeting, at which the honourable member was a prominent contributor, which recently adopted a motion calling for the restriction of welfare payments to those in genuine need; but at the same time-and how absurd is this-the meeting indicated that the Opposition would continue to oppose the assets test, a test that affects some 2 per cent or so of the very wealthy who previously were in receipt of pension benefits. The Opposition must get its act together. If Opposition members are going to embrace the rhetoric, they really have to have the guts to go to those forums within their own party and argue consistently, and if they do not believe that government resources ought to be directed to other than those in genuine need, they must start spelling out where their cuts are going to be. In this House yesterday the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) gave a very long list indeed of the possible statutory and other targets for the cost cutting that is a consistent theme of the Opposition's rhetoric. The Opposition has not yet had the guts-nor, in my view, will it before the next election-to articulate where that axe will fall. Members of the Opposition realise, as everyone in this House realises, that there is a big difference between sitting on the Opposition benches embracing rhetoric, and running a government and attempting to overturn the fundamental inequalities that were very much a feature of consecutive conservative administrations. The honourable member for Sturt, who is now chairman of the coalition's social welfare and health committee, is quoted in the Age of 18 July 1985 as follows: . . . tax relief should be given to those who provide social protection that would otherwise have to be carried by government. The engine of public social expenditure growth has not been the welfare objectives but the readiness with which it has been assumed that the free market is unable to guarantee the well-being we desire. We advocate free enterprise, yet among our number we find vigorous advocates of the maintenance of socialised health care, education and incomes policies for the dependent. The time has come to be bold and imaginative. If we want smaller government and a lower tax burden, we must take a fresh look at shifting social responsibility towards individuals and families. Government should not abdicate responsibility for social policy but should give up their present primary function of being producers and providers. I find that approach the approach of the bully. It is an approach that is cloaked in privilege. For those who have adopted the old adage of choosing one's parents carefully, it is well and good; but when one is sitting on the Government side of the House it is easy to see on the other side the greatest concentration of the sons and daughters of privilege that one would ever find in any small selection anywhere in Australia. It is easy for these people to sit around and articulate weird and wonderful theories that will impact upon those least able to support themselves. Members of the Opposition can say, of course, that they have struggled up the ladder. Most of them had to climb up only one or two rungs to the top. They would not know what the politics of the pinched gut are. They would not understand the impacts on the sons and daughters of single supporting parents of policies affecting their benefits, or what it means to be $5 or $10 under the current rate for the supporting mother's benefit. They would not realise how that impacts in terms of the personal life-style. They do not realise, for example, that this involves missing out not only on reasonable opportunities for education or regular meals but also on what I have always described as the relative factor of poverty; that is, when one goes to school in clothing quite clearly inferior to that of one's colleagues and one is unable to go on class excursions and so on. The embarrassment and hurt caused by this leaves a long term scar on people who find themselves in those circumstances. One ought to take a global view, or a long term view, when one addresses these issues. Some eight years, I think, after the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, it is worth reflecting on precisely what has been the impact of circumstances, under consecutive conservative governments, on those least able to look after themselves in our community. In terms of the overall impact-and any objective observer will agree, including most on the Opposition benches, at least privately-it is one of growing and deepening poverty and the corollary of despair that that means. In terms of the Fraser and Howard heritage, we have entrenched poverty. This Government has approached it in a way that I believe is the appropriate policy approach. The Government has, for example, put together an economic policy predicated on continuing levels of economic growth-something that those opposite were never able to do. This is not rhetoric; this is fact. Honourable members opposite can dispute, as I have heard them do, aspects of our economic record, but they cannot dispute this one point: On most major economic indices, not only is this a government that can hold its head up in terms of comparison with previous governments; this is a government that, according to most overseas commentators, is leading the world. When Opposition members can come to this House and claim a record such as that of this Government, they might be in a position to be taken seriously out in the electorate. I doubt very much that they will have that opportunity for a very long period. Not only did the Opposition's approach of maintaining nominal levels of social security and pension benefits cause over time massive declines in real value; in terms of the whole social wage, the Opposition attacked the living standards of those who are least able to look after themselves. For example, Opposition members attacked those living standards through the abolition of Medibank. They attacked those standards by the crime of reducing expenditure on public housing by some two-thirds. I believe that is a crime-a social and economic crime-that Opposition members ought to be ashamed of. They attacked those standards by reducing the number of child care places available to those most in need to some 4.3 per cent of those children eligible for that benefit. We can go on and on. We often hear the rhetoric about Australia being a high tax country. Of course, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average taxation level is 36.9 per cent of gross domestic product. Compare this with Australia's 29.7 per cent. We are all aware of those comparisons, but we very rarely hear the Opposition articulating that in this House. Australia does not have a good record in social security expenditure. The 19 per cent average expenditure of the OECD compares with Australia's average of 12 per cent. Even discounting for a moment the relatively large impact on infrastructure costs we have to bear in such a large country, surely we can do better than that. I could go on to talk about the whole range of areas that the Opposition neglected and the impact they have had on individuals. For example, some three months after we came to government, the rate of unemployment in this country peaked at 10.4 per cent. Once again, the Opposition has very little understanding of what this means. These are just figures to the Opposition. We now have the rate of unemployment down to 8.1 per cent. Shortly we will have the honour of presiding over economic policies that will have delivered, from the time we were elected, some half a million jobs to this economy, something of which this Government ought to be proud. If honourable members opposite do not stand up in this House when the figure is cited and have the guts to congratulate the Government on its record on a bipartisan basis, they ought to be ashamed of themselves. The overall impact of increasing benefits to those most in need has been articulated by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis)-an excellent Minister-and by my colleague, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay). The Priority One: Young Australia package, the tax reform package we have put together and our proposals for national superannuation are all fundamental, not only to the social wage but also to delivering support to those most in need. I remind honourable members of a Press release put out by the shadow Minister for Community Services, Senator Tony Messner, wherein he indicated that supporting mothers were to be the target of cost cutting-supporting mothers for goodness sake! If honourable members opposite had the guts to challenge some of the large corporate interests in this country that have sucked far more out of this economy over decades than any group of supporting mothers will ever do, they would come to this House with some degree of credibility. It is easy to embrace rhetoric, particularly when that rhetoric is used as a stalking horse to undermine a particular leader. It is easy to embrace rhetoric when one is cloaked in privilege. It is easy to pick out supporting mothers, pensioners and a whole range of other people in the community who are less able to defend themselves and target them in some global view, in some embrace of the mad Thatcherite and Reaganite economics that have been a conspicuous failure and that are reaping a whirlwind in terms of the riots in Brixton with policemen being shot in the street. Such events are all fundamentally related to these dry economic policies. If honourable members opposite think that people are getting out on the street and rioting, putting their lives at risk, simply because they do not agree with rhetoric, they have rocks in their heads. These people are out on the streets rioting because they are capitives of an economic system and theory that will for decades sentence them to a lifestyle that will be unable to deliver them proper housing or a proper means of income. They are rioting out of sheer frustration. It will be a very great shame indeed if members of the Opposition are given the opportunity to put this Rajneesh philosophy into action in Australia. If honourable members showed the same guts they allegedly show in terms of their dry economic policies when they go to their Liberal Party fora and if they argued consistently, they at least would have people saying that they were consistent in their madness. But they are not consistent in their madness. They are selective because they do not have the political guts to stand up to those who can give them a belt around the ears at election time. Mr REITH(Flinders)(5.05) —I have very much enjoyed the debate this afternoon. I thought that the contribution by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) may well have set the tone for the continuation of the debate this afternoon. Unfortunately, the contribution by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) was characterised by a series of misquotations and misrepresentations and the unfortunate use of a couple of examples. The honourable member talked about Priority One: Young Australia. As we saw last week in an interesting debate in this House, Priority One saw the Government giving number one priority to advertisements featuring the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). A further priority was given to one of the Government's former colleagues, the former member for Casey, who seems to have enjoyed a pretty good consultancy as a result of that program. We also heard the honourable member for Maryibrynong talking about Medicare. Do honourable members know who copped the abuses and problems of Medicare? It is the very people that the Government claims to be- Mr Griffiths —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I know that I will have an opportunity later in the day to correct these misquotations, but I did not mention Medicare once. I mentioned Medibank. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member does not have a point of order. He has been here for long enough to know that if he wishes to make a personal explanation the time to do it is after the presentation of ministerial statements. I call the honourable member for Flinders. Mr REITH —The point I was making was that the honourable member for Maribyrnong referred to Medibank, or Medicare, in regard to his alleged concern for the needy in this community. The fact is that the very people who are at the end of the queues in the public hospital systems are the people the honourable member claims to be representing here and concerned about. We also heard the honourable member attempt to draw up a list of the so-called benefits of various Australian Labor Party policies going back over a number of years. As a member of the coalition and as a Liberal, I say that we saw a number of important initiatives introduced by the Fraser Government. If we want to talk about who has done what in Australian political life in the last few years, let us talk about the Fraser Government's introduction of family allowances. Let us talk about the tapered means test introduced by a Liberal Government. Let us talk about Whitlam introducing taxation of aged pensions. Let us talk about the Liberal Government that abolished the assets test last time and will abolish it next time. Let us talk about the hundreds of thousands of facilities for the aged such as elderly care, the elderly citizens clubs, nursing homes and other facilities provided at the initiative of numerous Liberal governments. Let us talk about some of the work of our State Liberal governments. The Liberals have an excellent record in regard to the care of the aged and the needy. It was a State Liberal government that introduced concessions for water rates, the sort of everyday things the benefit of which many people in need have felt pleased to receive. I wanted to speak in this debate today for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that the whole matter of social security and welfare is very pertinent to my electorate. I represent an electorate with a high proportion of people who are over the age of 55 years. Like, I suppose, many honourable members, I spend a lot of time in my electorate office at Hastings with my staff doing a lot of work for people on a one-to-one basis to assist them with their problems. The second reason I wanted to speak in the debate is that social security and welfare are a huge component of Federal Government expenditure. According to page 373 of Budget Paper No. 1, social security and welfare expenditure in 1975-76 was $5,031m, which was 23.1 per cent of total outlays. It had grown in 1984-85 to $17,833m, which represented 28 per cent of total outlays, and we have had over that period an average annual compound rate of increase in nominal prices of 15.1 per cent. The estimated figure for 1985-86 is $19,077m, which is 27.6 per cent of total outlays. In the last five years one of the big areas to see some real growth in expenditure has been assistance to the unemployed and sick persons. That category or function is 18 per cent of the total social security and welfare budget and has accounted for 24 per cent of the growth for that function in that five-year period. It is common sense that the number of unemployment beneficiaries is very much related to the state of the economy. My word, we have heard some rhetoric from those on the other side with regard to the state of the economy and their contribution to it. It is interesting to note that a few years back the issue was unemployment, but those on the other side have turned it around. What they like to talk about now is the other side of the coin, that is, the level of employment, not unemployment. No wonder that is the case, because unfortunately in this country the sort of impact the Labor Party and its policies have had on unemployment is not as great as it would like us to believe. They love to go back to the Fraser years. When one takes out the figures, it is interesting to realise that six of the seven years when Malcolm Fraser was Prime Minister saw a better unemployment record than anything the Labor Party has been able to achieve since 1983. Mr Hand —That is not the truth. Mr REITH —I know that the truth hurts, but the facts are on the board; the runs are on the board. Unemployment in this country is particularly bad among young people, and the reason is pretty simple. If we expect employers to pay high levels of real wages to young people it is quite obvious that those young people will not be able to get jobs. That is what has happened. For all the talk we hear from the other side, I think that is a bit of common sense that most ordinary Australians have no trouble understanding. One really wondered what was happening in this country when one heard a few weeks ago that a young kid on work experience in the building industry was required by the Builders Labourers Federation to cough up $94 in union fees for two weeks work and the union expected the employer to pay him $300 or $400 in wages. It is no wonder that young people are out of work. The other thing that adds to the level of unemployment in this country is the accord, which is the agreement between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Labor Government. That accord institutionalises high real wages. Yesterday the latest trade figures were issued. In terms of unemployment in this country they really mean that this Government is teetering on the brink of the necessity to negotiate accord mark 3. The Government is now facing a situation in which the only way to keep the Australian dollar from devaluing further will be to build up interest rates to attract funds back into Australia. The people who really cop it from higher and higher interest rates are the very people for whom the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) claims to have some concern. It is the social security beneficiaries who are having trouble getting housing and paying high rentals, because high interest rates are a component in the cost of housing. Those people are paying high interest rates because very often they are the ones in the market place for hire purchase and the ones who most often have need to use Bankcard. Without high interest rates the Australian dollar is going to go down. That is going to lead to an ever-increasing demand for increased wages, and that is going to lead to increasing inflation, which will hurt those very same beneficiaries. This inability to stand up to the ACTU makes a mockery of the Government's concern for the needy. When it bows to the ACTU it is really saying: `We will organise the effects of devaluation. We will protect your wages, but everybody else in the country and the other social security beneficiaries will have to suffer a drop in living standards'. They include the aged, the needy, the single parents-all those who have to face the increases in prices at the supermarkets and the increases in petrol prices, after we were promised at the 1983 election a reduction in petrol prices, and all those people with a few savings in their bank accounts which are going to be eroded by inflation. That is the harsh reality. At the local and micro levels, the Government's concern really does not match its rhetoric. There are 43 civilians at Portsea who do not know what their future holds because we cannot get a decision from the Government in regard to future uses of that site. There are another 20 people at Healesville. Again the rhetoric about concern for the unemployed does not match the action. I want to pick up one other issue relating to the over-payments which are dealt with in part in the Bill before us today. I welcome the moves. I think they are constructive. I simply want to contrast those moves with the Government's introduction of a national identification system. A national identification system is not going to work. It will end up as a massive intrusion into the privacy of every Australian. We will have more and more bureaucrats. It will be the honest Australian who will have to pay the extra taxes to support that increased bureaucracy. One of its side issues is that it will distract the Government away from the sorts of measures in this Bill that it ought to be addressing to overcome fraud and some of the other problems in the tax area which are its superficial justification for the scheme. I welcome the increase in pensions embodied in this Bill, and the Bill has our support. It must be of no comfort that most people will view it in the context of Labor's superannuation tax slug that hits the retired; the assets test, which has affected many people in my electorate, including veterans and others; the cut-back in the pension for the over-70s; and the failure of the Government to meet its promise of building pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. I must say that it will not erase the memory of veterans of the shameful way in which the Government treated the veteran community in May, when we on this side of the House saw the Government at all hours of the night rushing through without any consultation legislation which affected the entitlements of veterans and which represented a breach of a long-standing tradition of consultation with that group. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(5.18) —I support the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill 1985. Before proceeding to the speech I have prepared, I want to refer to some of the comments made in the debate so far. First of all, I refer to the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), who mentioned-I strongly support his views-that we have inherited many of the problems of unemployment and of poverty traps from those on the Opposition benches who were in government in the seven-year period to 1983. One of the most interesting contributors to the debate was the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), who sees this Bill as a political ploy aimed at satisfying hip pocket nerves. He fails to see the real needs in our community. He referred to the `mindless and manipulative crowd opposite', meaning this Government. That was a contemptible, untruthful jibe which was unworthy of that member. Unfortunately, he is not in the House at the moment. It does not reflect the realities of what this Government is attempting to do in this area of social security. The contribution of the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) was excellent and he pointed out that there were redistributive impacts of our Government's policies which have been pursued persistently since we came to office. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) found it strange that we, on this side of the House, should talk more about employment and less about unemployment. What an inanity. He is admitting that we on this side of the House are for creating employment, while members on the other side of the House are concerned only with unemployment. This Bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to improving pensions and benefits for those in need. It provides for an increase in expenditure on social security and welfare of an additional $110m in 1985-86 and $245m in a full year. It consolidates the initiatives in this area that have been taken by the Government in the previous two Budgets to provide additional assistance to those in greatest need in our community. In particular, this Bill addresses the needs of low income families, single parents and people who are unemployed. Additional assistance will also be given to people receiving sickness and special benefits. The Bill provides substantial increases to those who are most in need. For example, 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. Through this Bill the Government is on the right track to rectify some of the financial problems of those in need. I am reminded of a comment made by Dr Don Edgar, Director of the Institute of Family Studies, at the time of the tax summit. His words are very relevant to the present debate. He said: Much of the discussions and many of the tax proposals made so far ignore the basic purpose of raising taxes in the first place. Taxes are raised to improve the quality of life, to ensure everyone has a basic share of the nation's resources and to provide services that neither individuals nor families on their own can provide. He went on to point out that there had been a 54.4 per cent increase in the number of two-parent families and a 38.6 per cent increase in the number of one-parent families below the poverty line between 1979 and 1982. That was the period which we then inherited in 1983. The measures proposed in this Bill will greatly assist these families. I turn to another matter-that of emergency relief. This matter was mentioned in passing by one of the Opposition members earlier this afternoon. Recently in an adjournment debate I drew attention to the fact that we in this country still have a long way to go before we have reached that goal of adequate support for those in need. With our policies we are making sure that we are on the right track to reach that goal. I remind the House of a comment made in the final communique of the National Economic Summit. I quote: It remains the overwhelming desire of the nation to ensure that those in genuine need are adequately supported, whether they be sick, the aged, the disabled, the unemployed, or the impoverished. To this end the Summit believes that a real improvement of their entitlement should be a major priority. This Government, through this Bill, is attempting to target those most in need of assistance in order to give them the assistance required. I now turn to the issue which can be described as the crises in emergency relief in this country. The Commonwealth has generally regarded the welfare services as being primarily the responsibility of the States. There are exceptions; for example. services for Aborigines are provided in response to specific constitutional responsibilities. In other cases the Commonwealth has established new services to complement existing commitments. Rehabilitation and child care services are examples of that category. On occasions the Commonwealth has taken the initiative in establishing services for needy groups in areas of primary State responsibility where the States themselves have failed to foot the bill. Often this has been in response to pressure from voluntary agencies. Until the financial year 1979-80 the Commonwealth played no role in providing funds for emergency relief. That year the Commonwealth made an initial contribution of $500,000 to the funds of non-government agencies. This has now been increased to $6m in the last Budget. Notwithstanding this increase in funding by the Commonwealth to non-government agencies, the latter have been faced with ever increasing demands for emergency relief. The Victorian emergency relief project, which represents some 358 agencies giving emergency relief in that State, indicates that the average value of assistance has fallen in recent years. It states: Despite a tenfold increase in federal emergency relief grants between 1981 and 1984, the average value of assistance given to a family in Victoria has fallen significantly. The withdrawal of States from emergency relief delivery will have a number of undesirable consequences. This has been signalled by the States. It will have a significant impact in terms of funds available for emergency relief as most States, with the exception of Victoria, deliver these funds through the statutory agencies. This will lead, first, to an overall reduction in emergency relief funds available to clients, with increased hardship to those dependent on such aid; secondly, to the non-government sector being unable to meet the demands on its resources; and, thirdly, to country people in need being particularly disadvantaged due to lack of access to welfare services. There are a number of measures that could be implemented. The Australian Council of Social Service has argued that a number of budgetary measures which are due for implementation next year should be brought forward to November 1985. It has also argued for an increase in the Federal allocation from $6m to $24m. ACOSS also stated that greater attention should be paid to the need for public housing and concessions by public instrumentalities including transport, electricity, gas and water charges. The Commonwealth should ask Telecom to introduce a concessional payment system for those in genuine need. A telephone can no longer be regarded as a non-essential item in the home. Telephones help to break the social isolation experienced by poorer people and are essential where there is ill health in the family. There appears to be a need for the establishment of a committee or task force with representations from the Commonwealth, State and non-government sectors to consider the issue of emergency relief in relation to levels of social security pensions and benefits and in relation to concessions. No political party and no government can claim a monopoly on assisting those in need, and I trust that this issue of emergency relief can be treated in a non-partisan way. I conclude my remarks by again indicating my support for the Bill before the House. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(5.31) —The House is considering the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill 1985, which embraces all the initiatives of one kind or another relating to social security in the Budget of this year, with a spill over into the field of repatriation. As the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the repatriation apsects of the Bill particularly attract my attention. Before turning to that area of the Bill, I wish to address the House on some general social security aspects. As we move through 1985 we are reaching the situation of having a massive rural financial crisis which will have enormous ramifications for Australia and for the social security system in particular. In one sense, there are two economies operating side by side in Australia. On the one hand there is the urban economy, which seems to feature most heavily in the statistical reports of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and elsewhere as allegedly swimming along in reasonable shape and reflecting a degree of expansion which we often hear the Treasurer (Mr Keating) talking about. On the other hand, there is the rural economy, in particular that section which is subject to indifferent seasonal conditions, the huge burden of high interest rates, indifferent international markets and a degree of taxation and government charges, both State and Federal, which have resulted in there being real poverty and expanding poverty traps in a savage form right across rural Australia, the likes of which we have not seen in this country since the Depression. I must point out that poverty takes different forms and, further, that in some ways the poverty that goes with the rural financial crisis is disguised by the pride of the people involved and disguised by the weaponry that is available to them-their self-independence and their resiliance in adjusting to situations when they occur. So it is that a family on a dry land property some 100 kilometres from Balranald, where there has been indifferent rainfall for many a season and, again, for this season, will switch back to an all red meat diet, with few or no fresh vegetables being available to it. That family will eat tinned vegetables because it can no longer afford to come to town on a sufficiently regular basis to buy fresh fruit or fresh vegetables, and it does not have sufficient water available to grow vegetables on its property. That is a realistic summation of the situation which is unfolding in many parts of rural Australia. Those who live more than 100 kilometres from the nearest small town-it is generally a very small town-can no longer afford to go to town to purchase many of the essentials that we associate with day by day living and they have adjusted accordingly. Generally speaking, one commodity they have available to them in one form or another is large quantities of red meat killed on their properties. But a diet of red meat only is certainly not very satisfactory, it is not very nourishing to children. Whilst I do not want to paint an extreme picture in my remarks on the social security and repatriation legislation that this House is considering, I nevertheless put the House on notice that there are severe hardships and severe poverty traps in rural Australia at this time as a consequence of the rural financial crisis gripping so much of it. There is an acceptable case for a safety net to be inserted in this legislation in respect of rural Australia. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), mentioned the problems associated with access by isolated people in rural Australia to the social security benefits that should properly be available to them when they are destitute to a degree and have a substandard diet because of an overall downturn in their circumstances and their income. Those people are resorting to just living week by week in isolated areas without being able to afford to go to town to gain access to a range of commodities, especially fresh fruit and vegetables, which 90 per cent of Australians would take for granted. It is about time that the 90 per cent of Australians who take for granted their supply of fresh fruit and vegetables spared a thought for the 10 per cent of Australians in isolated circumstances who are now suffering from the real crunch in the rural economy and whose children are suffering in particular. In addressing the social security and repatriation legislation, I serve notice that I, as the member for Farrer, and my colleagues in the Parliamentary National Party and indeed the Liberal Party members of the coalition are very conscious of the circumstances which exist in rural Australia in areas which have been subject no only to the general economic downturn but also to a seasonal downturn. As such, they are in a double bind. Sadly, we are only beginning to see the consequences of this financial crisis. We will be seeing a greater demand for social security payments by people who are eligible for them. I say to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, that eligibility is part of the problem. Those who notionally hold land assets can often be denied access to the safety net and to the provisions available through the Minister's Department of Social Security. Mr Howe —What about small business? Mr TIM FISCHER —I agree that small business-not just primary producers-could possibly fall into that category, especially small businesses in isolated areas. Mr Howe —People with assets. Mr TIM FISCHER —Let us turn to the question of assets. The Minister will regret that interjection. I remind the House and point out to the Minister that so many of those people with so-called assets in terms of the values appended to them by various governmental authorities are in circumstances such that they cannot get rid of or market those assets even if they wanted to. For example, if the landholders of the drought-stricken parts of Western Australia were, en masse, to put their properties on the market in order to adjust to their situation and to move to Perth, Sydney or Melbourne to gain more direct access to the social security system, and I hope that is not what the Minister was proposing by way of his interjections, he would live to regret it too, because that is not a commonsense proposal. I invite the Minister to come to a Balranald or a Wentworth, to visit the isolated parts of Australia, and see for himself the state of the rural financial crisis and the state of the nutrition available to those in isolated homesteads. The children in these homesteads have received the sharp end of the impact of the rural financial crisis. Having visited those areas, the Minister can then make comments on whether those people should sell their thousands of acres of dust which, in a sense, are worthless right at this moment but which retain the potential to produce income in a return to good seasons. The reality is that they cannot realise their assets in the way the Minister suggests they can. Mr Howe —There are a lot of poor Aboriginal people in rural Australia. Mr Lloyd —Why do you hate farmers? You just hate them, don't you? Mr TIM FISCHER —I take on board the interjection of the honourable member for Murray. The comments of the Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, are not only out of touch; they reflect the underlying careless attitude towards country Australia. I invite the Minister for Social Security to visit the isolated parts of my electorate; also, it would be a great pleasure to see the Treasurer of this country, Mr Keating, occasionally get off the circuit of the boardrooms of Sydney and Melbourne, his Department in Canberra and Parliament House and see what is happening in rural Australia. He should come and attend some of the rural financial crisis meetings such as have been held at Jerilderie and elsewhere. That would be a step in the right direction. Mr Howe —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. It is not unreasonable in the course of debate for the honourable member to describe matters that may be relevant to the Bill, but I think he is really- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr TIM FISCHER —I reiterate the massive concern in rural Australia about the rual financial crisis and how that relates to the office of the Minister for Social Security and the programs of the Department of Social Security, with particular reference to the accessibility of people in isolated circumstances in rural Australia to social security, given all that is happening in reality in the remote areas of Australia at this time. I turn to the repatriation aspects of the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill and draw the attention of the House to the age discrimination-- Mr Howe —If you ever do that to me again, I will smash you in the face. Mr Hodgman —What are you talking about? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Mr Hodgman —He has gone mad. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for Farrer. Mr Hodgman —He has gone absolutely nutty. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison and the Minister will keep order in the House. Mr TIM FISCHER —I am sorry to see a fight developing between the Minister for Social Security and the honourable member for Denison. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Would the two honourable gentlemen leave the House if they want to have a discussion. Mr Hodgman —I do not want to talk to him. He threatened me. He is as nutty as a fruit cake. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Farrer. Mr TIM FISCHER —The House of Representatives is a dangerous place this afternoon. I return to the repatriation aspects of the Bill and make the point that the repatriation section of this legislation continues to embrace an age discrimination based on sex. I know that the Minister will concede this. It is a matter of fact. It picks up the ages of 60 and 55 for the service pension, a five-year difference which is similar to that which exists in the parent social security legislation. I point out that under the provisions of this legislation, the service pension will be available at the age of 60 for men and 55 for women. I add that the exposure draft of the not unrelated Veterans' Entitlements Bill also embraces an age discrimination. We will have to wait until next Thursday to see whether that is addressed fully. I accept that this is something which cannot be written out of legislation overnight. I accept the general objective of Government policy and coalition policy, which are to see sex discrimination written out of legislation. I invite the Minister, in his summing up, to address this point that here again in 1985 we are passing amending legislation which continues a sex discrimination on age in respect of service pensions. Of course, the Bill provides a number of adjustments in allowances, including adjustments in respect of certain amputations and loss of vision. Those provisions relate particularly to veterans, and naturally we welcome the steps taken in those measures. The legislation also includes an increase in the recreation, transport and clothing allowances by associated amendments to the repatriation and associated regulations. This allows me to draw attention to another measure flowing from the Budget, whereby the travel allowance of veterans going for medical treatment or medical review has been halved since 1 July by administrative arrangement. That certainly is a matter of great concern and one that I will continue to address at every opportunity. It creates hardship, when the Bill purports to seek to overcome hardship and address poverty traps. In fact, quite often, it seems to be heading in the other direction. With regard to the repatriation aspects of this legislation, I draw the attention of the House to a paper produced by the Commonwealth Department of Veterans' Affairs and entitled `Care of Veterans to the Year 2000'. It is particularly relevant that it is estimated that the number of entitled treatment beneficiaries of 75 years of age and over will increase from 47,800 at the time the paper was produced, which I think was last year, to 81,000 in 1990 and to 152,600 by June 2000. In other words, while the number of World War II veterans is declining by some 20,000 a year, the number of veterans overall of age 75 and over will triple between now and the year 2000. I make the point that this will require an extensive and very careful program of health care and of adjustments to the hostel and nursing home provisions, for veterans in particular but right across the community, if we are to address, ahead of demand rather than lagging behind demand, the question of adequate nursing home and hostel accommodation not only within the repatriation system but also beyond that. Other provisions in the Bill are acceptable in their general application, but I wish to close by reiterating the concern at Labor's assets test which in the financial year 1984-85 has seen 13,272 veterans have their pensions reduced or cancelled completely; their pensions have been slashed by the application of Labor's assets test. This has affected veterans far more than other pensioners. When we see the alterations to the dental treatment scheme provided under the Department of Veterans' Affairs, we see again the real attitude of the Hawke Labor Government to veterans. But perhaps we should withhold judgment just a little longer, until the revised Veterans' Entitlements Bill, in all its detail, is re-presented to the Parliament. It could well be that, whilst some progress was made on the Veterans' Entitlements Bill last weekend, as has been announced by the Minister, some clauses in that legislation will further reflect the policy of cutbacks in the area of veterans' entitlements that we have seen in the measures before the House. Finally, I reiterate the concern in my electorate and right across rural Australia about this period of great rural financial crises. There is remote area poverty in homesteads that are more than 100 kilometres from the nearest town, along roads which in dry or wet conditions are quite often impassable and extremely costly to use in terms of vehicle maintenance. This is leading to many people suffering destitution in terms of the variety of diet available to them and in terms of their access to what most families in Sydney and Melbourne would regard as reasonable recreation. I place the House on notice that I and my colleagues in the National Party of Australia and in the coalition will continue to press the case for the people who are being affected by the rural financial crises, to see that they get adequate access to our social security system. But better still, we will press the case so that solutions emerge and proper measures are introduced to deal with the rural financial crises in a postive manner which will get the Government off the back of rural Australia. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(5.51) —It was a Labor government under Ben Chifley that provided a framework for post-war reconstruction and set the directions for social security policy for the next 30 years. But in the 10 years after that, our traditional objectives of redistributing income became stifled because of economic constraints and low economic growth rates. It has now become a very difficult task indeed to increase public expenditure for the reduction of poverty and inequality. Our Government recognises this. We recognise and we are addressing the major long term problems of unemployment, economic growth and housing. But the short term priorities must also be addressed and that is to be done through the social security system. Social security payments remain the principal redistributive mechanism for the poorest individuals and families. In spite of the initiatives of this Government, the position of beneficiaries with children has deteriorated over the last decade relative to wage earners. Between 1976-77 and 1984-85 the real disposable incomes of pensioner and beneficiary families with dependent children declined in general terms largely because non-indexed payments for children did not keep pace with inflation. An additional factor has been that, although principal payments are indexed, increases in average earnings have generally exceeded increases in the consumer price index since 1979. Over the last decade there has been a dramatic increase in social security outlays. This is due to increases in the real rates of income support and in the numbers receiving social security payments, particularly in those very large areas of unemployment beneficiaries and supporting parents. These are the short term priorities that our Government is tackling in our continuing policy of progressively addressing poverty in Australia. In our third Budget we have continued the process of redistribution through the social security system which we began when we were elected in 1983. There is still a very long way to go. Our task is made all the harder by the effects of the entrenched poverty left behind as the legacy of the last Liberal Government. I will not dwell too long on what we inherited; honourable members on this side of the House remember very well and the electorates certainly remember. As we look at the Government's assault on poverty we need to be reminded of the callous disregard the Opposition had for recipients of welfare payments during its disastrous term of office. As I have previously pointed out, non-indexed benefits and allowances declined significantly in real terms. Indexation of pensions and benefits was changed from six-monthly to annually and was reversed only after vigorous community protest. For single adults on the unemployment benefit, indexation was abolished altogether. As a result, those single adults on the unemployment benefit were subjected to discrimination and were asked to bear the greatest burden during the economic recession. Those least able to bear the burden were asked to bear a burden heavier than that of anyone else. At the same time the more severe cuts to the social wage that our friends on the other side of the chamber made as soon as they grabbed government included the destruction of Medibank which was our first attempt at a universal health insurance system. Our funding for public housing was cut by two-thirds in real terms and, by 1983, there were child care places for only 5 per cent of children under the age of five. The Labor Government is now addressing the problems. Our major concern has been economic recovery leading to full employment. The only long term solution to poverty is a strong economy. As Chifley said: Social security must be set in a framework of policies aimed directly and indirectly at full employment. With that in mind the Government has approached social security with three aims: To improve the flexibility of the system, to direct resources to those in greatest need and to ease the transition from welfare to work. A range of measures in this year's Budget and, in particular, in the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill will adapt the social security system to special needs. Many of these needs are felt by women. As I have said in the House before, women bear the greatest brunt of poverty in Australia. Some of the measures in this Bill which will help women in particular include the new carer's pension, respite care arrangements and the multiple births allowance. The new carer's pension will help people caring full time at home for an infirm or handicapped pensioner spouse or near relative. This new category of pension will replace the existing spouse carer's pension which is paid only to husbands caring for a wife. The new carer's pension will be paid, for example, to a person caring for an aged parent. It is long overdue. It took a Labor government to take this very important step towards helping a group that previously was not eligible. For too long people in this category have been living in poverty. The Government's decision has already generated an enthusiastic response from welfare groups and members on both sides of the House. The respite care arrangement will allow parents of a handicapped child to continue to receive the handicapped child's allowance for up to 28 days a year while the child is temporarily absent from the home in respite care. It will give parents and others in the family an important break and it will help to alleviate the inevitable tensions in a household caring for a handicapped child. The multiple births allowance will be paid to parents of triplets and quadruplets at the rate of $150 or $200 a month. For too long this group of parents has been neglected. I do not think anyone quite understands what it is like suddenly to have three extra children in a family until it happens. This measure recognises the sudden extra cost of those children. The Government is continuing the process of directing resources to those most in need-low income families, single parents and children in poverty-and it continues the process of dismantling the in-built biases against the unemployed constructed by successive Liberal governments. Amongst these is the rent assistance measure which is of major significance for people who are unemployed. For the first time, from 1 May 1986, people over 18 years of age who have been receiving the unemployment benefit for six months or more and who rent privately will receive rent assistance of up to $10 a week. This is particularly good news for people on the unemployment benefit living in my electorate of Phillip where the rental housing crisis is one of the worst in Sydney. In addition, single adults who are unemployed will get an ad hoc rise of $3. This means that the gap between the single adult unemployment rate and the single pension rate will be cut to $6 which is half the gap we inherited in 1983. Nothing more reflects the callous disregard of policy that I have referred to before by the Fraser-Howard Government than its refusal to pay unemployed adults the same as other people on social security. This Budget will also ease the transition from welfare to work by attacking poverty traps-a matter that has already been well dealt with by previous speakers on this side of the House. As I have stressed, there is still a very long road to travel in eliminating poverty. The Government recognises that it is neither practical nor affordable to solve all the problems through the social security system. The measures adopted this year alone will cost about $245m in a full year. The only enduring solution is to integrate social policy with economic strategy with the goal of full employment, as this Government is doing. What do the conservatives offer? Our opponents on the other side of the House offer a return to the bad old days, only more so, and they seem proud of it. The triumph of John Howard represents the political victory of the historically unacceptable face of conservatism. John Howard's mentor, John Valder, has actually earmarked-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member should refer to the honourable gentleman by his title. Ms McHUGH —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The current Leader of the Opposition's political mentor, Mr John Valder, has earmarked welfare expenditure as the area for greatest cuts. How do members of the Opposition have the hide to intend to do such a thing and to speak on this Bill? The new conservative think-tanks, such as the Institute of Public Affairs and the Centre for Policy Studies, are busy drawing up their plans to cut the social wage. We can sum up their approach as being a return to the Victorian concept of the deserving versus the undeserving poor; a horrendous concept which we cannot understand and cannot accept. We are about attacking proverty where it exists, and the measures in this Bill and this Budget are steps along that way. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.01) —Australia's pensioners, veterans and their dependants now rightly regard the Hawke socialist Government as a lying Judas Government- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member knows better than to use that term. Mr HODGMAN —It is an untruthful Judas Government which has betrayed them and betrayed them shamefully. It must be said that no government has treated the pensioners of Australia, particularly our service pensioners, more shabbily than the Hawke socialist Government. The betrayal of Australia's 650,000 ex-service men and women and their dependants-- Mr Hand —You are the greatest failure. Mr HODGMAN —If that has stirred them up there is more to come. The betrayal of Australia's ex-service men and women and their dependants followed a number of betrayals inflicted upon non-service pensioners since the Hawke socialist Government wheedled its way into power under false pretences in March 1983. This is the Government which got into power following a speech in the Sydney Opera House by the now Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). In his policy speech there in February 1983 he said clearly and unequivocally: `My Government will not take any money out of the pensioners' cheques'. That promise is now in tatters. It is totally dishonoured. Within a few weeks of election, after promising that he would not take any money out of the pensioners' cheques, the Prime Minister moved immediately to introduce a means test on the over 70-year-olds. As I said at the time, why did he not pick on someone his own age? He reversed the decision taken by Prime Minister Whitlam. He moved to change the standard of living and the basis of living of the grandparents and great-grandparents of Australia, and people over 90 years of age found-- Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I understand that the honourable member has some discretion, but we are debating a particular Bill which certainly is not being referred to at all at this point by the honourable member. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair acknowledges the Minister but is prepared to hear the honourable member further. I invite him to retain relevance to the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am leading into the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill by pointing out what went before. We cannot debate this Bill in vacuo, without taking into account what this disgraceful Government has done to the senior citizens of this country. Let me make these points: Within weeks of the Government telling the pensioners of Australia that it would not take money out of their cheques, the Prime Minister presided over a decision which overnight effectively cut off the pensions of over 250,000 Australian pensioners. People as old as 93 years of age in nursing homes suddenly found that they had no income at all. This was followed by the superannuation tax slug, where the tax was raised from 5 per cent to 30 per cent. The Prime Minister said nothing about this, of course, in this policy speech. Then we had the promise that the pensioners' tax threshold would be raised, but it was not. Worst of all was the vicious Hawke assets test. In debating this measure tonight let us look at what that Hawke assets test has done to the pensioners of Australia. The plain fact is that it has terrorised pensioners and in some cases led to their suicide because they found that their assets came within the prescription of this socialist Government and their pensions had been chopped off. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Apart from the need for the honourable member to build up his own ego by using intemperate language he still fails to refer to the Bill before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair is not yet persuaded to the view that the remarks of the honourable member for Denison are not relevant to the Bill. The Bill is addressing measures to attend to the social security requirements of our populace, and the honourable member for Denison is alluding to circumstances that have gone before and which relate to the present situation. I will hear him further. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can understand the Government's discomfort, but let me go quickly down the track. Last year when the fourth or fifth amendment to the proposed Hawke assets test appeared I went out of my way to point out that it had some serious drafting errors. I pointed out both in this House and outside it that, for example, it had not excluded gold fillings in teeth, war medals or wedding rings. On every radio station on which I appeared during the election campaign last year I challenged the then Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, to refute what I had said. I can inform the House that what the Minister was told by his departmental advisers was this: `Technically Hodgman is correct. Gold fillings, war medals and wedding rings are not excluded, but ignore him, try to fob it off, pretend it will go away'. Let us look at what has happened as a result of the Hawke assets test. The pensions of 13,272 veterans, men and women who fought to defend Australia in time of war, have been slashed and in many cases taken away completely. Mr Howe —Rubbish! Mr HODGMAN —That is not rubbish, those are the figures given by Senator Gietzelt's own Department. Mr Hand —You are a liar. Why not tell the truth? Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member wanders in from the Soviet embassy and makes a few interjections. I tell him that the figure of 13,272 comes from Senator Gietzelt's Department. Mr Hand —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The accusation that I have been to the Soviet embassy is a lie. I have never been to the Soviet embassy or any other embassy in this country. He has lied to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is not taking a point of order, he is claiming a misrepresentation. There is another time and opportunity to explain that. Mr Hand —I take offence at the remark and ask that it be withdrawn because it is an untrue statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison by the remark does intend, I venture to say, to reflect on the honourable member for Melbourne. It could be regarded as a personal reflection and I invite him to withdraw. Mr HODGMAN —Out of respect to the Chair, of course, I withdraw. The plain fact is that the figure I quoted is the Hawke socialist Government's own figure-13,272 veterans and their dependants have had their pensions taken away or slashed as a result of the vicious Hawke assets test. This is the way in which those who fought to defend Australia's freedom are repaid by this Government. This is the Government which broke a 65-year old tradition when it failed to consult with the Returned Services League and veterans' organisations before moving to amend the legislation. I now turn to the repatriation aspect of this legislation. We have a situation where this Government has finished up with egg on its face. It has been exposed, having broken a 65-year-old tradition, having attempted to reverse the burden of proof, and having attacked the widows and dependent children of Australian servicemen and servicewomen- Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think the honourable member is talking about a different Bill, a Bill which may be discussed in the House in the next 10 days. That is not the Bill we are talking about at the moment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —In respect of the point of order, the Chair ruled earlier in the day to that effect, but this Bill embraces both social security and repatriation legislation amendments. I will hear the honourable member to the extent of relevance to the second reading speech of the Bill presently before the House. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I point out to the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) that the Bill we are debating is the Social Security and Repatriation (Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. I particularly draw his attention to Part V of the Bill which deals with seamen's war pensions and allowances and I draw his attention also to other parts of the Bill which deal specifically with service pensions. The next time the Minister comes into this House, he ought to read the Bill of which he is in charge. Mr Howe —Oh, come on! Mr HODGMAN —The Minister does not like it and he will like it even less as we come up to the next election. The Minister is part of a government which tore up a 65-year-old agreement to consult with the RSL before moving to amend veterans' entitlements, pensions and dependants' benefits. On 6 May the Minister sought retrospectivity to reverse the burden of proof, thereby disqualifying many who would have otherwise succeeded in their claims for pensions. The Minister made it impossible for a widow to claim in respect of the death of a husband 40 years after he had completed his service. Let me deal with that, so that I do not get too far away from the Bill and in any way take advantage of your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, which I recognise and appreciate. If an ex-serviceman who for one reason or another chose not to claim a pension, even though he suffered a disability, the amendment that was rammed through this Parliament by the Hawke socialist Government in the autumn session provided effectively that his widow could not claim if he died 40 years after he completed his service. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, from your war service, some people were serving in battle in 1945 when the war ended, at the age of 17 years or less. A person could die at 56 or 57 years of age, but if he had not put in a claim and had his disability accepted, his widow was told by this disgraceful Government: `You cannot claim. Forty years have passed and you cannot claim'. Many honourable members opposite and I know of hundreds of cases where veterans did not claim even the acceptance of their entitlement. They did not ask for their disability to be accepted and thereby have foregone the right to their pension. Their widows were told by the Hawke socialist Government: `Bad luck. Forty years have passed; you will not be entitled to claim'. This craven Government, under pressure, has been forced to backtrack and eat humble pie. The Minister was quite correct when he said that the Government soon will bring into this Parliament, with shame and dishonour over its face, a Bill which will correct the iniquitous decisions taken in May of this year; to reverse the burden of proof, to impose the 40-year rule and effectively to exclude anybody who had not claimed the pension for the totally and permanently incapacitated from ever getting it. The next move down that track will be the repeal of the vicious, disgraceful and dishonourable Hawke assets test. I predict that that assets test eventually will be repealed by this Government because it is unjust, discriminatory and already causing severe hardship. In the light of what I have just said, what would one say for the gall of this Government. The Minister said in his second reading speech that this omnibus legislation is 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. The figures are cited in the second reading speech. If one reads that speech, one would think that all it does is improve the lot of pensioners, veterans and their dependants. One is not told, because it is not in this Bill, that concomitant with this legislation, this shameless Government decided that veterans were no longer entitled to pharmaceutical benefits. The veterans of Australia have now been told that they will no longer get free pharmaceutical benefits. They may have an accepted disability and even may be paid a pension, but under this Government they will not be entitled to the free pharmaceutical benefits which were available previously under governments of both colours. This shameless Government has moved in respect of domiciliary care and treatment for veterans in their homes. That situation was well covered by my colleague the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) in a statement he made in Tasmania over the weekend. Thousands of Australian pensioners who have traditionally voted Labor all their lives will vote against the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Hawke socialist Government at the next election. Quite frankly, from what many of them have said to me in recent times, they cannot wait to get their hands on this Prime Minister, who has betrayed them and those who have supported him. In the remaining time available to me I want to turn back the clock to 21 May this year, a very bad night in the history of the Australian Parliament. That was the night on which the Hawke socialist Government brought into this chamber the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill, of which I spoke earlier. The Government allowed but 45 minutes for this House to debate a Bill which would affect the benefits, entitlements and rights of 650,000 Australian ex-service men and women. The Hansard reveals that the debate started at 11.01 p.m. and was terminated at 11.45 p.m. In fact, at 11.46 p.m. precisely my learned and honourable colleague the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) rose in his place and introduced a private member's Bill, the Parliament (Powers, Privileges, and Immunities) Bill 1985. Forty-five minutes was all that the Government was prepared to give us to debate amendments which would affect the entitlements and rights of 650,000 Australian men and women who had gone to fight for the defence of this country and for the freedoms which we all enjoy. In that pitifully short time, that bare 45 minutes, with the generosity of the Government I was permitted to speak for 10 minutes. The honourable member for Fairfax, the Hon. Evan Adermann, made one of the most moving and magnificent speeches ever recorded in this Parliament. He spoke from 11.23 p.m. until his time ran out at 11.35 p.m. Two Government speakers poured scorn on what we had said as to how this Government was destroying the principle established in section 47 of the Repatriation Act, which one of the all time greats of the Australian Labor Party had fought for almost 30 years to get into the statute books. The late Hon. Dr Herbert Vere Evatt had fought for 30 years to get that burden of proof provision in relation to ex-service entitlements of the statute books and the Hawke socialist Government in 1985 allowed the House of Representatives 45 minutes to argue for its preservation. That was the Bill which reversed the burden of proof, took away the rights of widows and their children and imposed the iniquitous 40-year rule. How can the Government come into this Parliament today and claim that it cares for pensioners? Members of the Government should not delude themselves; their names are mud in every RSL club around Australia. They should go to the pensioners' clubs and ask them. It is tragic that some honourable members on the Government side are genuine and sincere; the honourable member who preceded me was genuine and sincere in what she said. I can assure the House that, as night follows day, the Government will never be forgiven or forgotten for what it has done to the pensioners of Australia. They will move against the Government in such numbers at the next election that the Government will suffer not just defeat but the annihilation and decimation which it richly deserves for attacking the pioneers of this country and the men and women who fought to keep Australia free. Shame on the Government. Its day of judgment will not come soon enough for me and many thousands of other Australians. Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(6.20) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 5 (1985). The proposals I have just tabled relate to a proposed alteration to the Excise Tariff Act 1921. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 5 (1985) formally place before Parliament, as required by law, a tariff alteration introduced by Gazette Notice No. 1 (1985) under the Authority of section 160B of the Excise Act. The proposals increase the excise duty on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas from $36.94 to $50.36 per kilolitre, operating on and from 1 October 1985. This change was announced by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) on 27 September 1985. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hodgman) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(6.22) —in reply-It is a sad thing about the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who I think is not unintelligent, that whatever intelligence he possesses is wasted on almost every occasion he contributes to debate in this Parliament. I think the issues involved in social security and, indeed, in veterans' policy are not simple. They are complicated issues and very often governments have to make difficult decisions. It is extremely easy for someone like the honourable member for Denison, who has an education and is articulate, to come into the House and shamelessly say whatever comes into his head which he believes will earn him some short term political advantage while failing to address difficult issues. There is no doubt at all in my mind why he is there on the back bench and any leader with integrity would keep him there. I want to refer to the more substantial contributions to the debate, particularly to the remarks of the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt). In referring to the question of nursing homes, he failed to look at the overall approach that the Government is taking or at the overall policy issues that we face. There is no doubt that we need to move towards much more in the way of community based care and we need to put much more, relatively, in resources into community based care. No one on this side of the House has suggested that we do not need to continue to provide-certainly more selectively than in the past-additional nursing home accommodation. But there is tension there in that if we are going to develop programs such as the home and community care program, ultimately there will need to be some overall rational approach to the distribution of expenditure. I thought it was unfortunate that the honourable member did not face up to that question. The honourable member for Richmond suggested that the Government was not concerned about the issue of poverty traps, and it is true that in this particular Bill there is only one measure that goes to the question of poverty traps-the easing of the income test for the unemployed. It is also true that the Government has another Bill coming to the House which has some of the most substantial measures dealing with the question of poverty traps of anything that has been introduced into the Parliament, I would say, in the post-war period. There have been changes with respect to the general movement out of the free areas, particularly the abolition of the separate income tests in relation to the rent allowance, and also, for the first time since 1972, the allowable income for sole parent pensioners with dependants has been eased from $6 to $12 per child, which is a doubling of that figure. I believe that is a very significant measure. The honourable member for Richmond referred to the absorption of family allowances in relation to the movement of the Government towards educational, age related allowances. I think this point, made in isolation, is perhaps unfair when one recognises what the Government is doing within the context of its youth incomes policy, which is essentially doubling-or perhaps more than doubling by 1989-payments for secondary students who meet a means test. It is certainly true that educational allowances are means tested. However, is the honourable member honestly suggesting that we ought not to means test the secondary assistance allowance? I think it is unfortunate that again the comment is made without any attempt to address overall policy issues. The honourable member referred to the prospect of means testing family allowances. That may be the policy of some sections of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It is not the policy of the Government. He referred to the need to integrate properly taxation and the social security system, but made no suggestions as to how that might be done. I think we on this side of the House recognise that there is a need to integrate more closely taxation and social security. We have taken a number of steps in relation to our taxation package which assist in doing that. I think it is up to the Opposition to say what it is that it is proposing. Again I repeat that this is not an easy area. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) talked about how the Government's strategies had failed. He made a very strong attack on government policy, on what had been achieved or not achieved in relation to employment and youth employment, the fact that the prices and incomes accord was of little value, and so on. Of course, this Government is prepared to stand up to this point on its record. I simply want to refer to the problem that we inherited in relation to youth unemployment. When we went out of office in 1976, the number of people unemployed aged 15 to 19 was 100,000. By the time that we returned to office in 1983 that number had become 165,000. The number today is 108,000-considerably less than the figure that we inherited and a very dramatic reduction over two years. In percentage terms we have seen a reduction since we have been in office from 22.6 per cent of that age group to 20.3 per cent. Of course the Government recognises that there is a very long way to go in relation to youth unemployment. But I remember what my children said during the Fraser Government's period. They said: `Why is it that the Government is not concerned about unemployment and the young people who are unemployed?'. I think the honourable member for Flinders raised that question about what people's perceptions were. I think that they now believe that the Government is seeking to do something by way of addressing the problem of youth unemployment in a serious way. I could refer to the package of measures which have been introduced this year, which are a continuation of other policies which we have developed since we have been in government. Just this year we introduced, on the one hand, a package of arrangements including the youth training scheme whereby a very large number of young people-up to 70,000 when the scheme reaches its potential, I think in three years time-will be offered youth training jobs. On the other hand, we are lifting the level of the secondary student allowance to the level of the junior unemployment benefit. We will do that by 1989 so that the discrimination that existed in favour of the unemployment benefit will be entirely removed so that, hopefully, young people will be encouraged to go into education. At a time when we have a track record of having reduced youth unemployment by 70,000 since we have been in government, we have taken steps in this Budget that hopefully will further reduce unemployment, provide young people with better skills, and provide them with an income that will enable their families to support them in the school situation. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr HOWE —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was replying to some of the comments made by honourable members in the debate. I address myself now for a few moments to the comments made by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) who raised two issues. One issue concerned rural Australia. The honourable member spoke with some force about poverty in rural communities. There is a sense in which the measures in this Budget are neutral in regard to the poor in urban and rural areas. There is a tendency at the moment to dramatise the situation in rural areas rather more than is helpful. It is true that certain sections of rural industry are going through a difficult period. No doubt difficulties within those sections of rural industry have the effect of creating a situation in which people have low incomes and perhaps one of poverty. That would be true of the dried fruits, sugar and dairy industries. It is clear that the Government has indicated a preparedness to put together a package that would be of considerable benefit to the sugar industry, particularly in Queensland. In New South Wales there has been an acceptance of the Government's terms. There is no doubt that the Government is prepared to act in Queensland and that the measures the Government is proposing could do much to alleviate the difficult conditions that affect this industry. It is important to say that, while particular industries are in trouble, nevertheless, the whole farm sector does not share similar circumstances. While a number of sectors are experiencing difficulties, other sectors, such as sheep, cattle, coarse grains and much of the horticulture sector, are doing very much better. It is also a fact that with respect to farm debts the farm sector has very substantial levels of liquid assets. A significant number of farms in all agricultural industries have no debt. The debt capital ratio is 8 per cent to 9 per cent across rural industries. The increase in the past year of rural indebtedness has been no more than about 4 per cent, which is not large. Banks and financial institutions suggest that that increase is associated more with investment patterns than with hardship. Having said that, I acknowledge that it is important that the Department of Social Security provide a service irrespective of location. That certainly is what the Department has been seeking to do. Over the last 10 years there has been a massive decentralisatioin of the Department of Social Security. Where there were offices only in capital cities, there are now more than 250 offices all over the country. Nevertheless, I believe that as a Department we need to do more to look at the possibilities of improving accessibility in very remote areas. In that respect I take on board the point the honourable member for Farrer has made as one that I believe the Department should address. I am considering measures that can be taken to assist in the process of further decentralising the services of the Department. The other issue the honourable member raised was sex discrimination. I think he referred to the repatriation Bill. Of course, in the area of social security distinctions are made between men and women. The classic distinction is made in terms of the retiring age. I do not know that I or the Government would want to persist unnecessarily with such discrimination. However, the reality is that to move from the historic patterns which have been established would be extremely difficult for the Government without the real costs associated with such a measure. Obviously, to raise the retiring age for women would cause not only quite difficult political problems but also economic and social problems which would need to be faced. On the other hand, to reduce the retiring age for men would involve quite massive costs to the Budget. I am aware that the issue has been raised. I thank the honourable member for his contribution. However, the issue is not simply resolved by raising it. It is a very complex and difficult issue. As a number of honourable members, particularly on this side of the House, have recognised, the Bill contains a number of quite progressive measures such as the introduction of the carer's pension, the respite care arrangements and the multiple birth allowance. However, with respect to social security, the Budget primarily has sought to continue the assault which this Government has made on poverty through a number of measures that go to where poverty is most concentrated in Australia at present. As I said the other night in the House, over the last 10 years there has been a redistribution of poverty. What we have to be concerned about, particularly now, is poverty amongst the unemployed and children. It is scandalous that in a country as wealthy as Australia three-quarters of a million children of pensioner and dependent families are in quite serious poverty. In each Budget the Government has sought to address that problem by raising allowances. The additional allowance for the children of pensioners has gone up by $2 in this Budget, taking the total rise under Labor to 60 per cent, or a real increase of 11.6 per cent. The mother's and guardian's allowance has been increased by a further $2, which means that we have doubled the allowance over three Budgets, a real increase of 29.3 per cent. The family income supplement has gone up by $2 for the third Budget in a row, taking the allowance to $16. The Budget has also continued the process of dismantling the inbuilt biases against the unemployed constructed by successive Liberal governments. The $10 rent assistance has been extended to the unemployed for the first time. We talk about poverty in Australia at present. To live in private rental accommodation and to be on a pension or benefit is, in almost the vast majority of cases, to be condemned to poverty. The single unemployed will get an ad hoc rise of $3 in this Budget which will take us further towards achieving our objective of equating the single rate of unemployment benefit with the pension. That means that the gap between the single adult rate of unemployment benefit and the single pension rate will be cut to $6, half the gap we inherited in 1983. Nothing more reflected the callous disregard of poverty by Fraser-Howard governments than their refusal to pay unemployed adults the same rate of pension as other people on social security pensions. I have referred to our poverty trap measure. But there are a number of other measures in another Bill which will come before the House. In terms of the Government's success in combating poverty within Australia, there is no doubt that the broad thrust of economic policy is much more important in the final analysis than what we are able to do in the social security budget. This Government has been able to introduce measures this year which total something like $250m because we have been very successful in reducing unemployment. The savings in relation to the unemployment benefit this year are likely to run very close to the expenditure in relation to new social security programs. Of course, that is what responsible government is all about. It is why this Government is, I believe, perceived to be a successful government in terms of not only economic management but also social responsibility. It does no one from the other side of the House any credit to complain, bitch and argue that this group, that group and the other group, even if extremely wealthy, need to be protected and need to receive some subsidy, some payment or some form of social security. We all recognise that we live in a community with limited resources in which governments which are going to be responsible need to make quite hard decisions if they are going to be able to achieve a real improvement in the living standards of the very poor. I believe that in a modest way this Budget contributes to a process of alleviating and reducing the level of poverty in Australia. I believe that if we can continue as we have done in the last several years to pursue successful economic policies we can match that with innovative, responsible social policies which are targeted towards people in need and which over time will enable us to achieve a very much fairer society. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Howe) read a third time. Debate resumed from 11 October, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PORTER(Barker)(8.13) —The Health Legislation Amendment Bill which is currently before the House contains proposals for changes in a wide range of fields, including substantive changes to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act; enabling provisions for the Health Insurance Commission to undertake planning and development of the identification card, the Australia Card; reforms to the medifraud provision of the Health Insurance Act; amendments to the Health Insurance Act providing for 3B certificates to be issued retrospectively; changes in the requirements relating to the information provided by a practitioner or his staff for the payment of Medicare benefits; and provisions for reciprocal arrangements for hospital and medical care with the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Greece, Yugoslavia, Eire and New Zealand. I turn, firstly, to Part II of the Bill. That Part provides for amendment of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said that the Bill is `intended to streamline greatly the day-to-day operations and to improve the commercial viability of the CSL Commission'. It is something of an understatement to say that the Bill's provisions would improve CSL's commercial viabililty. Under this proposal the powers of the Commission are to be extended to allow the Commission to form companies, to buy and sell shares in any company, and to enter into partnerships or arrangements for the sharing of profit. The only restriction on these powers of the Commission is a requirement to obtain ministerial approval if, through any of these activities, the Commission would obtain effective control of the operations of the body corporate or the partnership. The Minister in his second reading speech said: These changes will further prove the advantages to Australian citizens of having a public window into the pharmaceutical industry. Public window indeed! These proposals could well open the door for the Government to use CSL as a vehicle to gain control of individual pharmaceutical manufacturers by expansion and takeover. We are well aware of the Minister's ambition to socialise medicine in Australia and we are also aware that his attitude towards the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry is less than accommodating. The present proposals would be dynamite in the hands of a predatory Minister. The open-ended powers sought by the Minister in legislation were introduced only last Friday. They have been rushed in here for debate today, allowing the Opposition only the weekend to consider the Bill. This timeframe has certainly not assisted us. In the very limited two-paragraph explanation in the Minister's second reading speech he has not provided a convincing argument for the extension of CSL's powers. In fact, it is all starting to feel rather like 1974-75 revisited. I am reminded of the statement by the then Labor Minister for Health, Mr Everingham, who in 1974 said: It is Australian Labor Party policy to enter the field of prescription drug manufacture and, indeed, to widen the charter of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Is this the current Minister's intention? Is this a prelude to a repeat of the Fawnmac affair of 10 years ago? The purchase of Fawnmac was intended, as the Minister of the day said, to ensure the implementation of the Government's policy of promoting healthy competition with private enterprise. Honourable members will recall the Fawnmac farce, when the company was purchased by the Whitlam Government for the inflated price of $8.738m, later to be sold by the coalition in government for $4.85m. It is a joke to pretend that a government company such as is envisaged here will engage in healthy competion with private enterprise. It is not realistic to suggest that such an arrangement is in any way fair competition. CSL has advantages in the market which are not shared by other pharmaceutical manufacturers and it can use those advantages to undercut and undermine its competitors. It does not have the strict profit-making limitations which are necessary for ongoing viability in the private sector and it has loan-raising advantages through unlimited Commonwealth Government backing. Under the current legislation CSL can already expand its operation, as evidenced by its recent offer to purchase David Bull Laboratories Pty Ltd, although that offer was finally overbid. The Opposition will oppose clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill, which would further extend the powers of the CSL Commission to enable it to form companies, to buy or sell shares in any company, and to enter into partnerships or arrangements for the sharing of profit. CSL has complained about difficulties in the pricing of drugs, and that is a problem shared by other manufacturers, but it is a problem that must be resolved by the Government and its pricing policy. It will not be resolved by these proposals. Let me add in relation to clauses 6 and 8 of the amendments that, whilst we understand the need for more commercial expertise on the board of CSL, we will nevertheless be watching the operation of the conflict of interest provisions inrelation to pecuniary interests to ensure that they do not result in any unfair competitive advantages accruing to Commission members. I am disappointed at the way this legislation has been handled by the Minister. CSL does a great deal of very good work for the Government and provides valuable research capacity. If there are problems with CSLs effective use of existing facilities, I would have thought that this could have been a matter for detailed discussion and consideration of the methods of overcoming such problems. Instead, with no consultation with the Opposition, the Minister has adopted this bull-at-a-gate approach. He introduced the Bill on Friday. He did not explain it and he is trying to push it through on Tuesday. It is just not good enough. My concern about the Minister's handling of CSL goes further than this legislation which was introduced last Friday. Recently, after commending the work done by Dr Forbes, the previous Chairman of the CSL, the Minister then failed to re-appoint Dr Forbes, apparently because of his parliamentary and political affiliations. He appointed in his stead Mr Neil Batt, a former President of the Australian Labor Party and currently pre-selected ALP candidate for the Tasmanian State seat of Denison. This sort of clear political bias and `jobs for the boys' mentality, instead of making appointments on merit, brings no credit to the Government and does not assist the standing of CSL. Nor does it add to the credibility of the minister who is moving these amendments to the CSL Act. I turn to the proposed reforms of the medifraud provisions of the Health Insurance Act. The Minister has made much of the fact that the present provisions were introduced some three years ago by the previous Government. When he announced in March that the fraud and overservicing detection system was being transferred from the Health Department to the Health Insurance Commission, he blamed the system, saying that it was overly bureaucratic and inefficient. What he neglected to add then and fails to mention now is the fact that two years before, amid much fanfare and a promise to end medifraud, the Minister doubled the staff, doubled the funding from $4m to $8m and increased the training to beef up that very section which he subsequently described as overbureaucratic and inefficient. Once it became apparent that this massive increase in money, personnel and training was not achieving any substantial results, the Minister decided to blame the very detection system which he had expanded. Now he is blaming the legislation. Following the previous Government's action, I am not aware of any evidence which suggests that fraud is still a major problem. However, I am aware of detailed evidence, including the report of the Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament, which identifies overservicing as a major problem. Despite promises to this House that he would introduce legislation in this session to overcome that problem, the Minister has failed to address the issue of overservicing in this legislation. I repeat: The Bill provides for changes to the provisions in the Health Insurance Act which deal with fraud. However, the greater problem is the increasing evidence and cost of overservicing, which the present Bill does not address. This legislation does not go to the cause of today's problem, which is the Minister's Medicare scheme, because that scheme actually fosters abuse by providing incentives for overservicing. Until he acknowledges the role that Medicare in general and bulk billing in particular play in encouraging some doctors to overservice and consumers to over-utilise health services, measures such as those proposed in this Bill will have little, if any, effect on the growing cost of medical overservicing. The Minister must make changes to Medicare which will reduce the incentives and opportunities for overservicing. He must limit bulk billing to pensioners and health care card holders. The Minister has acknowledged that it is only a small number of doctors to whom the fraud provisions apply. I repeat that I cannot understand why he has made the fraud issue a priority over the major problem of overservicing; nor do I understand why it has taken him 12 months since consulting with the Australian Medical Association to come forward with these proposals. The Opposition will not oppose the provisions in the Bill dealing with fraud. However, we note that while these proposal will reduce the deterrent effect of the existing provisions, they will provide greater flexibility. It is proposed to replace the existing disqualification provisions with a new statutory summary offence for making a false or misleading statement that is capable of being used for making a claim for a Medicare benefit. The penalty is a fine not exceeding $2,000 and there is the statutory defence where a person did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that his statement was false or misleading or capable of being used in connection with a claim for benefit. The second type of new offence is a new indictable offence which is created for intentionally making a false or misleading statement in connection with a claim for benefit. The onus of providing intent rests with the prosecution and the penalty is a fine not exceeding $10,000 or five years imprisonment or both. A new Medicare participation review committee is also established and that committee will consider what, if any, action should be taken concerning a practitioner's right to participate in Medicare schemes if indeed he is found guilty of an offence under this Act. The committee's powers include the right to find that no action should be taken or to counsel a practitioner or reprimand him. It can also implement a partial disqualification of his rights to practise for up to five years or, indeed, it can disqualify a practitioner for five years. The committee's determinations are reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In this part of the Bill there are new provisions which extend the statutory privilege to counselling sessions conducted between counsellors who are officers of the Health Insurance Commission and practitioners. Statements made will be inadmissable as evidence against practitioners in prosecutions for relevant offences. While we remain stuck with Medicare and this Medicare counselling, this is a worthwhile amendment and the Opposition will not oppose that section or the others dealing with fraud. I turn now to the sections of the Bill which provide for changes in the issue of 3B certificates. As a result of the Medicare legislation passed by this Government, after 35 days in hospital the patient is ineligible for hospital benefit and he is ineligible for nursing home benefit unless he is certified as being in need of acute care. Until now such certification has had to be made prior to the end of the 35-day period. This amendment will allow the certificates to apply retrospectively. The provisions represent a backdown by the Government which is long overdue. This will take the pressure off doctors and private hospitals, but more importantly it will, to some extent, relieve the anxiety and hardship to which patients and their families have been subjected. The lack of restrospectivity has led to the unnecessarily harsh and arbitrary applications of the 35-day rule. Those who have suffered most have been the chronically ill, the elderly and acute psychiatric patients who have been tipped out of their hospital beds with no nursing home beds to go to or have been forced to pay the difference between the daily charges for a hospital bed and a nursing home type bed. The Bill also provides for the secretary of the Department to determine that particular in-patients in particular hospitals are in need of acute care. Despite assertions by the Minister in his second reading speech that this legislation had been discussed with the health funds, I am advised that that is not the case, especially in relation to this provision. The health funds have expressed concern about the use of this power by the Secretary. We will therefore be watching its application very closely. It is just another example of the Minister pushing ahead with proposals without undertaking the proper consultation. I come to clauses 57 to 66 of the legislation, which amend the Health Insurance Commission Act to empower the Health Insurance Commission to undertake the task of implementing the Australia Card. The legislation is retrospective to 1 May. It has been made retrospective in order to cover the Health Insurance Commission for the work that it has already done on the Australia Card. The existing powers of the Commission relate only to matters concerning health. It is therefore clear that the work which has been done to date has in fact been beyond the Commission's defined powers. This is yet another example of the maladministration and incompetence under this Minister for Health. Firstly, we are being asked to legalise work already undertaken by the Health Insurance Commission and, secondly, we are being asked to empower the Commission to implement the Government's proposals. I refer to the Minister's second reading speech when this legislation was introduced only last Friday. The Minister said: The Government intends that the national identification system become fully operational from July 1989. As a first step, it is planned that the issuing of Australia cards begin in March 1987. Thus, the Commission has a period of 18 months from now to undertake the necessary planning and development for the card issue. It is clear from the Minister's statement that the $3.5m in funding which goes with this proposal is for work which is required to be undertaken by the HIC for the issuing of the card which is to begin in March 1987. The Opposition is concerned to point out that before development work is carried out on the issuing of the card, the Government is obliged to provide the Australian public with convincing arguments, firstly, that the card will actually save more than it costs, secondly, that the integrity of the card will be such as to ensure that it will be effective in combating fraud and, thirdly, that there will be an adequate protection of privacy. In reviewing the information provided by the Government to support the identification card proposal, it is clear that the decision has not been fully thought through. Discussion has been taking place within Government ranks regarding the original proposal which was first raised during the National Taxation Summit. Mr Simmons —Rubbish! Mr PORTER —The honourable member must mean that he has not been part of that discussion. I feel sorry for him. The only access that the public has had to the debate has been by way of leaked information to the newspapers from an inter-departmental committee report and a report by the Department of Health. No detailed paper has been presented to the Parliament, to the Opposition or to the Australian public in support of the Government's proposal. The Minister for Health was reported in the Age of 28 September as saying: What I am saying is that the IDC report has been widely distributed so people can see the basis on which the Government has made its judgment. The Minister was referring to an IDC report on the identification card proposal. He stated two or three times during that interview reported in the Age that that report had been widely distributed. Frankly, I was surprised when I read those comments, because one of the matters which have been concerning me is the lack of information coming from the Government about its proposal. Naturally, when I read that the Minister was suggesting that the report had been widely distributed, my office rang the Minister's office to request a copy. Two weeks later after I had received no response-on Monday of this week-we asked again for a copy of the report but we were told that it was a confidential paper not available to the public. Clearly, the Minister has a rather unusual definition of what constitutes a wide distribution. The Opposition has had to rely therefore on the sparse and inadequate material which the Government has made available. After the initial discussions on introducing an identity card with a photograph and perhaps a hologram, we were told last month that the card would not have a photograph. The only information provided to us was a 3 1/2-page attachment to the September statement on the reform of the Australian taxation system, which had some vague indications of likely revenue gains and almost no details of the cost of implementing the card proposal. I turn now to the first point on which the Opposition seeks information from the Government, and that is whether in fact the cost of the provision of the card will be less than the savings which will supposedly accrue. Information on the likely costings of the ID card which was provided to the Opposition took up a full 5 1/2 lines in an attachment to the September tax statement. Mr Simmons —We wanted to make it simple for you blokes to understand. Mr PORTER —In fact, it has been made very difficult for us to understand. I have no doubt that the honourable member has no idea of the cost of implementing this proposal. There are no cash flow statements. We understand from the leaked documents that cash flows were originally provided. Why have they suddenly disappeared? Is it all too hard or does the Government not know? Is this yet another hare-brained scheme thought up on the run and now being implemented? Mr Downer —In an endeavour to cover up. Mr PORTER —Indeed, the Government could be covering up. We have no idea about cash flows. We have been given some details of the revenue implications. There is some detail, sparse though it is, in relation to the prospective tax revenue gains. No detail has been provided on how the figures have been arrived at, bald figures supposedly to convince the Australian public that the tax savings will in fact merit the introduction of the card. The other area in which savings are predicted is in social security fraud. I understand that the Department of Social Security has always had reservations about the implementation of an identification card scheme. I understand that the leaked IDC document suggests that the introduction of a card with a photograph-in other words, a much higher integrity card than that currently proposed by the Government-would effect savings of about $10m. The Government was not prepared to accept the IDC statement on that matter. So it said that it was not possible at that stage to estimate with any degree of precision the savings involved in relation to social security fraud. Yet the Minister said on radio tonight that there would be enormous savings in the social security area. That is in direct conflict with the statement made last month by his Treasurer (Mr Keating). Is it any wonder that the Opposition and, indeed, the Australian public are concerned about the details that this Government has not provided and the misstatements and falsehoods that it is peddling in relation to this issue? What is the cost to business of the implementation of an ID card? Have honourable members opposite thought about that? We certainly have not been given any figures. Is that not a cost that ought to be considered? The Government has not considered it, and we want it considered. The second issue we raise is: Will the card be sufficiently effective to combat fraud? The original IDC report stressed that a key to the integrity of the whole ID system was the provision of a photograph on the card. But now the photo has been dropped. Now, the system is basically dependent upon the co-operation of State registrars of births, deaths and marriages. But can the States be relied upon? As I understand it, the Queensland Government has already indicated that it will not co-operate. So on what will the Government base its ID card? Surely it is extremely important that we know the standard of proof of identity and the method of issue of the card; these have not been clarified by the Government, nor has the Government clarified for us or indeed given any indication of the means of providing ongoing protection against forgery or theft. Surely this is fundamental to the viability of the proposal. At the moment I guess the highest integrity ID card, if it can be considered a card, is a passport. Yet we are told that, even though there are elaborate procedures that individuals have to undertake to obtain a passport, one can be obtained illegally. The Government has not satisfied us on the issue of the adequacy of the privacy of individuals and, therefore, we will not support the provision of funds for the issue of the Australia card until the Government puts up a substantive case which satisfies us in these regards. I make the point clear that we share the Government's concern about the evasion of taxation and fraud in the social security area. We will look very positively at any proposal, including the ID card proposal, which will reduce evasion and fraud. Consistent with that approach, I also make it clear that the Opposition has not made an in principle decision to support or oppose the ID card. What we are saying is that we do not believe that it is appropriate for the Government to expend a large amount of money on the development of plans for the issue of the card before we have been given convincing evidence that the card will work and that there is adequate protection for the privacy of the individual. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(8.43) —The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), in his comments on the amendments to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act, did not deny that these amendment will streamline the structure and day to day running of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. They will increase their competitive ability, their autonomy and, indeed, their commercial viability. Indeed, it seems that the approach of the Liberals to public enterprise is that they hope that all of them will run down, none of them will succeed and eventually they will be able to plan another garage sale. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have an enviable record and it would be salutary for us just to look at that for a moment. They were established in 1916 and, in 1923, they played an important part in the large scale production of insulin. In 1943, the large scale production of penicillin was an important function of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Indeed, this country was the first to have penicillin available for the civilian population. In the 1950s, the Laboratories were a very important prime mover in massive immunisation programs in this country which were so very important to the health of all those living here. Now they are internationally recognised for their innovative work in molecular biology which foreshadows major advances in immunology in the next 10 years. Indeed, the health and the viability of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are very important to this country and something of which we should be proud; we should want this organisation to succeed. This legislation, the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, puts the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories on an equal footing with the multinational competitors and frees them from the bureaucratic constraints under which perhaps they suffered before. But the Opposition does not want them to succeed. It wants them to fail, to be sold off and fragmented. The stand-downs and all the problems associated with that would be a problem for those 1,000 people presently employed by the Laboratories. It is the old privatisation argument again. It is the sort of thing that when one is in opposition one talks about all the time but, when one is in government and has responsibility for the decisions, one does not carry out such things. Perhaps the most important part of this legislation is the number of significant changes to the penalty and disqualification provisions of the Health Insurance Act. This represents a clearing up of the Liberals' mess. The honourable member for Barker, who came in here weeping crocodile tears to say that we are not doing enough about overservicing, would do well to acknowledge that the previous legislation, enacted three years ago, reflected the approach of the previous Government. It was draconian; it was insensitive; it was rigid; and it was unduly harsh. For example, there was no distinction between Medicare offences which were intentional and those which were the result of a simple error or just mere carelessness. The Government became aware of the concern of the medical profession and extensive consultation was carried out between the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), the Department of Health and those various organisations which represent the profession. The aim was to provide a framework which would deal with future abuse and misuse. The previous legislation had done little to do this. Indeed, the only thing it had done was to antagonise the majority of practitioners. In fact it was used as a catalyst by those who wished to deceive the medical profession and discredit Medicare during the last years. I know from visiting the Health Insurance Commission in my State of Western Australia, and from discussions with professional associations in Western Australia and with the Australian Medical Association, that these concerns were real and justified. I make the point again that very few practitioners in this country would ever have had to deal with these concerns. While the majority of practitioners were concerned about the punitive aspects of the previous legislation, very few would ever have had to face the problems of dealing with that legislation. It was the legislation of Malcolm Fraser. The new legislation is much more flexible and reasonable. It deals with a number of items but specifically I suppose the concern of the medical profession was the lack of distinction between what we might term an honest mistake or a minor offence and those offences which included an element of intent to defraud. Indeed, two or more offences proven under the previous legislation led to automatic disqualification from the Medicare arrangements. This legislation provides for differentiation. It provides for summary offence provisions on false and misleading statements where the onus of proof lies on the practitioner. It provides for indictable offence provisions for knowingly making false and misleading statements where the onus of proof lies with the Crown. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that all of the charges are correct. I reiterate that in the past two or more offences proven led to automatic disqualification. Within this legislation there is also protection against double jeopardy. This prohibits the punishment under more than one provision of the Health Insurance Act for the same offence. The situation is further improved by the proposed establishment by this Government of independent Medicare participation review committees. These committees will consider what action should be taken after a successful prosecution has been made against a practitioner, and whether or not any action is necessary. Counselling or a reprimand may be quite sufficient. It is important for the medical profession to understand that these will be independent committees, the composition of which will include members of the medical profession, members of their professional association and an independent chairperson. Clearly, these independent committees should allay the fears of the profession with respect to the treatment of cases of medifraud. The profession was genuinely concerned about the confidentiality of its contact with medical counsellors. Unfortunately, there was a growing belief that discussions with counsellors could lead to prosecutions. This legislation provides for an extension of the statutory privilege for information obtained by medical counsellors during interviews with practitioners. Indeed, very often counselling represented for the medical profession the most useful way for doctors to understand their legal obligations. With a complicated schedule of benefits and procedures, honest mistakes presented the bulk of the work for counsellors; they were best identified and dealt with in the way. There needed to be a separation of investigation and counselling, and this legislation had done that. Other aspects of the legislation which will be welcomed are those transitional provisions which will allow the Medicare participation review committees to review those who are currently disqualified under the previous legislation. The extent of many of those disqualifications may be decreased. The legislation also calls for less prescriptive requirements to pay benefits. I am sure that many medical practitioners will agree with these changes. These changes will be welcomed by the medical profession. My discussions with the medical profession have indicated broad support for the Government's action. If these administrative arrangements are backed up with reason, I think the fears and suspicions of honourable members on both sides of the chamber will be allayed. In the past these fears and suspicions were the result of legislation which, I have already said, was enacted by the previous Government. I turn briefly to the national identification system which was mentioned by the honourable member for Barker at the end of his speech. Again, the rhetoric of our opponents, as was the case with the assets test, is that if we do not have a good argument why we should not do it, then it could be said that it will cost more than will accrue to the Government. Of course, that was proven to be wrong with the assets test and I have no doubt that Opposition's figures with regard to the national identification system will also be proven to be wrong. He also said, in a rather tortuous display of logic, that he did not want to plan and develop the concept until we had planned and developed it. I find that rather difficult to follow. The whole thrust of the national identification system is that we should clamp down on tax evasion and social security fraud. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) contains enabling legislation for the planning and development of that card. I ask myself and I am sure that honourable members on both sides of the House ask themselves: Who should be worried about the development of a national identification card? Surely it would be only those who have some mischievous intent, or those who are involved in dishonest behaviour and have something to hide. If we all contribute fairly, we should all receive our Fair entitlement. I have no doubt that various elements of tax evasion, social security abuse and the abuse of other allowances and benefits paid by the Government will be decreased by the introduction of this card. I have no doubt that it will assist us, for instance, in identifying illegal immigrants who perhaps are holding jobs that Australians could be holding. There is a need for safeguards with respect to privacy and civil rights but it is important that we look at the prospective gains over time. I ask our opponents how they can turn their backs on this significant revenue which will be accrued over time. I wonder why they oppose it. I wonder who they are wishing to protect. I commend this legislation to the House. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(8.53) —I think that the details of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) have been very adequately covered by the Opposition spokesman on health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). I wish to oppose strongly two aspects of the Bill and support the remainder of it. I want to say in quite clear and unequivocal terms that I am implacably opposed to the increase in the functions and powers of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and I reject the Government's Australia Card proposal. I want to make a number of comments about the CSL before outlining my objections to the proposals put forward in the legislation by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). My objections centre around clauses 10 and 11 which deal with the functions and powers of the Commission. First and foremost I want to make some constructive comments about the operations of CSL. As the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) mentioned, CSL commenced its operations around 1916, which is almost 70 years ago. It has been involved very constructively and for the benefit of Australians in the production of vaccines, antivenenes, the preparation of penicillins, insulins and so forth. It has done a lot of work in the research and development area for the betterment of this nation. Even about 60 years ago the CSL produced influenza virus vaccine. It has made BCG, bacillus calmette-guerin vaccine, which was produced to combat tuberculosis. It produced diptheria, whooping cough and tetanus vaccines in the form of triple antigens. It produced salk vaccine, tiger snake antivenene, taipan antivenene and funnel web antivenene. It has produced a wide range of veterinary products which have been of great value to our rural industries and it has been involved in the export of its products for many years. The Laboratories have trained and produced chemists and scientists of world renown. CSL is the largest pharmaceutical manufacturer in Australia, employing 1,000 people. In the financial year 1983-84, it had sales which amounted to almost $55m. It is not a small operation by any standards. In 1983-84, it had a pre-tax net profit of $3.2m. That is a poor return in terms of the capital outlay. I hasten to add that many of its functions are extremely important-functions which cannot be expected to operate commercially and I think that is widely accepted by people who know a little of the operations of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. In the national interest, its research and development of products cannot really be counted in commercial terms. Its Chief Executive Officer and Director for many years, Dr Neville McCarthy is, in my view, a very astute person. I emphasise that the CSL has an important role to play and has played an important role for almost 70 years. Let me return to clauses 10 and 11 of the Bill. I want to make particular reference to clause 10 in the Bill at this point. Clause 10 adds a new section 19 (1) (e) which states: where it would not prejudice or interfere with the performance of any of the functions referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), to use facilities and resources of the Commission to the commercial advantage of the Commission at any time when those facilities or resources are not being used to perform any of the functions referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). The emphasis here, of course, is on the words `commercial advantage of the Commission at any time when those facilities and resources are not being used to perform any of the functions . . .'; that is, the originally intended functions of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. If that capacity is not being used, CSL can use those unused facilities to do other work-in other words, enter into the commercial area. This means that the Commission can use its idle capacity to expand its operations. I suggest to the Government that, once that idle capacity is used, the way is open for the Commission to provide more equipment, to have more idle capacity and so expand its empire by using that additional idle capacity. The Minister makes that quite clear on page 2 of his second reading speech. What he is really saying is that CSL will then be in open competition with private enterprise. Why is that necessary? Most drug manufacturers in Australia have either closed down their manufacturing operations and they are really warehousing, or they have surplus manufacturing capacity. One could argue, I think quite successfully, that excess plant capacity really is a case of overinvestment by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories-either that or a very poor management. I recognise-I think this point has to be made-that CSL, as the large scale producer of vaccines in this country, needs some excess capacity to meet emergency situations. There has to be some capacity there. Why is it necessary, with the advantage that CSL will have over its competitors, to have that capacity used? CSL has borrowing advantages over its competitors. It is government backed and, therefore, it has complete security in the market-place. It has no dividends to pay and no shareholders to worry it. It has some protection with the biological products it produces because there are certain restrictions on the importation of biological products into Australia. In other words, it will be in a very privileged position as a manufacturer in this country if it is allowed to expand its operations, as is proposed in this legislation. I have had discussions with several pharmaceutical manufacturers, all of whom are opposed very strongly to the extended powers and functions of CSL. They are opposed not because they are frightened of their competitors, as indeed the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in this country is very highly competitive, but because of the unfair advantages that CSL will have, as I outlined earlier. They live in a highly competitive world and competition as such does not worry them. The Executive Director of CSL, Dr Neville McCarthy, has been angling, plotting and lobbying for more than a decade to expand CSL's empire. The Minister for Health is smiling. He knows as well as I do that Dr McCarthy has been angling for this move for at least a decade. I give him 10 out of 10 for consistency and 10 out of 10 for persistency. He has been dogged and relentless in his bid to expand CSL's charter. I recall visiting CSL twice, and I have spoken to Dr McCarthy on many occasions. He has a socialist Minister, a socialist Commission Chairman in Neil Batt, who is a former Federal President of the Labor Party of Australia and a former Premier of Tasmania- Dr Blewett —No, he didn't make it. Mr HODGES —I am sorry, he did not make it. He is a former Deputy Premier of Tasmania. Dr McCarthy also has a socialist Government. In other words, the people who matter, that is the people with power, are all his way and he is not letting any grass grow under his feet. He is proceeding at a great rate of knots. I will quote some passages from the 1983-84 annual report of the Chairman. Although these words are over the signature of Neil Batt they are really the words of Dr Neville McCarthy. I know him only too well. Under the heading `Regulations' on page 4 the report states: After years of active negotiation with Governments the Commission was pleased to have Regulations gazetted, which at last gave full effect to the scope of the product range encompassed by the Act. Whilst we do not have access to the full range of diversified markets enjoyed by other members of the industry in which we compete, we at last have an appropriate base from which to continue to advance and to consolidate the operations of the Commission. We do not foresee an abandonment of our traditional biological product base, but rather the opportunity to adapt more readily to technological and market forces. The pertinent words are: `We. . . have an appropriate base from which to continue to advance. . .'. Under the heading `Acquisition Opportunity', which incidentally refers to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories attempt to purchase David Bull Laboratories, the report states: The Commission's interest in such a purchase stemmed from its belief that the acquisition of an established and reputable organization such as David Bull Laboratories represented a logical and timely business strategy. In the event, our offer was not accepted, but the Commission continues to maintain interest in opportunities for expansion as they arise. However, the process of making an offer for David Bull Laboratories did identify again the difficulty of a Statutory Authority, albeit a commercial/trading Authority, atempting to operate to the standard of responsibility placed on it by Parliament through its enabling legislation. Until such time as the public sector processes can attune to actions appropriate to the commercial/industrial environment we continue to be severely handicapped. Quite clearly these again are the words of Dr McCarthy. They clearly illustrate a desire on his part to expand the activities of Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I now wish to turn to my opposition to the expansion in terms of what might be claimed by the Government as being the Opposition's desire to privatise Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I say that that is not the case. I personally would not view the opposition to the expansion of the CSL's operations as being in the area of privatisation, and I hope it would not be construed to be such by the Government. I am sure the Minister for Health would never adopt that attitude. I say to him that the Commission and the Laboratories are doing a creditable job, so let us leave it alone. Why does the Government want to expand its operations? Having operated for 70 years, I believe CSL ought to be allowed to continue as it is. I now turn to one or two matters relative to the pharmaceutical industry as a whole-and I say `as a whole' because I want to cover both the retail and manufacturing sections. Because of government interference-I emphasise that-both arms of the industry are experiencing deep and serious financial hardship. When governments control an industry there is a better than even chance that the industry will suffer. Pharmaceutical companies have been screwed down with drug prices by successive governments. Governments are always looking for areas in which to save expenditure so that they can spend the revenue elsewhere, and what better way to do this than to pressure drug companies into lower prices when the Government is in a dictatorial position, with the monopoly pharmaceutical benefits scheme that we have operating in this country. More than 90 per cent of prescription drugs are supplied under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, and this clearly illustrates the monopoly position of government. It has been claimed in the last decade or two that officers of the Department of Health have been responsible for screwing prices down and putting pressure on pharmacists in the retail area and indeed on pharmaceutical manufacturers. I particularly mention one pharmacist in the Department, Arthur Shields, who in my view seems to have attracted more than his fair share of blame. That is not to say that he has not been a tough customer to deal with and perhaps very unreasonable in his approach, but he has been backed up by successive Ministers of both the present Government's political persuasion and my own Party's political persuasion. The fact remains that Ministers, and therefore the government of the day, are responsible for the parlous state of the industry in both the retail and manufacturing areas. I know of no other industry in which government has such a profound effect on operations and profitability. The Government has set the ground rules and constantly, over the years, has changed them. Usage of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and, of course, its consequent effect on the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, has grown for two reasons. One is the population increase, and the other is the abuse of the system. With their monopoly position governments have changed the ground rules always to cut back or to curb expenditure growth. I refer again to the 1983-84 report of the Chairman of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission which, as I have said, is over the signature of Neil Batt, dated 15 October 1984. To point out the difficulty of the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry I quote from page 10, which states: The effect of these fluctuations in volume is also being felt in the increased difficulty in maintaining profit as the cost-volume relationship is changed and as the Australian pricing system for pharmaceuticals remains so unresponsive to cost increases. The important point, as pointed out in this report, is that the Australian pricing system for pharmaceuticals remains so unresponsive to cost increases. That same report, over the signature of Mr Batt, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission, states: . . . there is increasing need for price increases and productivity improvements if profit levels are to be sustained. That is quite clearly the position of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and it is clearly the position throughout the pharmaceuticals manufacturing industry in this country. It is not being compensated adequately and there is not a sufficient level of return as a result of the actions of this Government and previous governments. Therefore, the industry has suffered severely and many manufacturers, or drug companies which were manufacturers, are no more than warehousing operations. Finally, I refer to the Australia Card system. Mr Simmons —Hear, hear! Mr HODGES —Some members of the Government may say `hear, hear', but there is a long way to go with the establishment of this card. I say that when the Minister for Health, who has been handed this rather difficult task, first talked about the establishment costs, they were of the order of $49m and about $38m annually to run thereafter. That was in June of this year, when I understand from reports that he took that matter to Cabinet. To get the establishment costs we pick a figure and multiply it by three, or whatever one pleases, and that may be the correct figure. According to the Minister's plan, we know that it will take four years to establish. Honourable members should not ask me how the gains to revenue have been determined. It is referred to in the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I am staggered and intrigued at the establishment figures and the supposed taxation savings. I understand that no figures have been put forward to this Parliament on the savings from social security fraud. I believe that the Government ought to drop this proposal. I believe it is an infringement of civil liberties. I am not a great civil libertarian, but I believe that it is time the Government put this to bed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(9.13) —Presently before the House are amendments to the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973. Clauses 57 to 63 provide for the Health Insurance Commission to undertake the initial planning and development of the Australia Card identification system. A sunset clause is included to cover those provisions in the event that substantive legislation for the Australia Card is not enacted by 31 December 1986. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said in his second reading speech that the Government intends that the national identification system will become fully operational from July 1989. As a first step it is planned that the issue of the Australia Card will begin in March 1987; thus the Health Insurance Commission will have about 18 months to undertake the necessary planning and development for the Card issue. I have a particular interest in entering the debate tonight and concentrating my remarks on clauses 57 to 66 of the Bill before the House. I raised the matter of the introduction of a national identification system in the Parliamentary Labor Party in April this year as a means of combating fraudulent practices within Commonwealth Government administration. I will mention the background for my action. I was a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Expenditure which undertook hearings and investigations into the control of illegal immigration in Australia. Because of a number of comments that have been made from time to time by individual constituents and fellow members of parliament from both sides of the House about the whole question of illegal immigration and the way in which these people could be detected within society I felt it was appropriate to raise the issue of some form of investigation into a national identification system. My motion was adopted in May of this year by the Parliamentary Labor Party. It called for a feasibility study into the use of identity cards as a positive means of combating fraudulent practices within Commonwealth Government administration. That particular task was undertaken by the Parliamentary Labor Party's legal and administrative committee. Anyone who has been involved in the debate on identification cards would be aware that since the idea was floated, not only by myself but by other members of the community, such as Eric Risstrom of the Australian Taxpayers Association, there has been a great and discernible level of public support for the concept of a national identification card. It would be fair to say that at the National Taxation Summit in July the proposal was accepted generally by all sectors with a great deal of enthusiasm. The Opposition has decided that it would not be represented at the tax summit, and I suppose that is the reason it gives tonight for its opposition to the Australia Card. Interestingly, support for the proposal appears to be quite overwhelming, as illustrated by a survey published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 July, shortly after the tax summit. Approximately 1,000 people were surveyed; 74 per cent said they favoured the introduction of identity cards, while only 23 per cent were opposed. What is even more significant about that figure is that support ranged across all party lines, with very strong support from both Labor Party and coalition voters. It was therefore somewhat of a surprise to me to learn that today the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), put out a Press release indicating that the coalition intended to vote against the Australia Card funding. In his remarks tonight the honourable member for Barker indicated that the Opposition is not sure at this stage whether or not it will support the Australia Card, but it will vote against its funding. It seems to me that is a great deal of political opportunism which runs against public opinion and is somewhat hypocritical in view of the honourable member's comments earlier tonight. What makes the present Opposition stance extremely interesting and rather suspicious is its reversal of opinion. When the concept was first floated back in April or May of this year, certain prominent members of both the Liberal and National parties came out very strongly in support of the concept. Why would they not come out in support of a proposal for a national indentification system? Why not support a system that would cut down on tax fraud and social security fraud in Australia? I recall that a few months ago a person in Sydney was found to be registered under 37 different identities and over a period of some 30 months had collected, courtesy of the social security system, almost a quarter of a million dollars. Why would the Opposition not support a concept that will do something about prohibited non-citizens in Australia? In many cases, no doubt, they are working for below award wages and keeping Australians and permanent residents from a job. There are indications that something like 10,000 to 60,000 prohibited non-citizens are in Australia. I think that the vast majority of Australians would find it offensive that their taxes are being used to support people illegally in Australia. I for one am not supportive of any system that condones that sort of action. In the Sydney Sun of 29 April, the present Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), was quoted in an article by Paul Clarke under the heading, `On the Cards! Libs Support Call for Tax Fraud ID' as having said that he was certainly in favour of the idea. There was certainly no ambivalence in his words; they were strong words of support. Perhaps it is the case, now that the honourable member for Bennelong finds himself in a position of leadership within the Liberal Party, that things he said in his former role of Deputy Leader of the Party are no longer the case. In a newspaper in Orange, in my electorate, the Central Western Daily of 7 June, the Deputy leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), was quoted in an article headed `Dual Benefits From ID Card System' as saying that the proposal offered dual benefits to Australians. The honourable member was quoted as saying: The use of the cards provided an effective means of identification and would streamline the collection of tax revenue, imposing a greater accountability on the minority of taxpayers who sought to evade their responsibilities. The honourable member was also quoted as saying: The second major benefit would be to cut down on fraud and government outlays, especially social security outlays. He was quoted in the article as saying that he would be making representations to the Government supporting the proposal. Perhaps the Minister for Health might care to mention later whether the honourable member for Gwydir and other members of the National Party and members of the Liberal Party cared to put in writing some of their public comments. Or is this a case of having two bob each way-saying something publicly for the consumption of their own newspapers and coming into this House and uttering something quite different? A further example is that of the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp), representing an electorate which adjoins mine. He was reported in the Cowra Guardian of 27 May as also calling for the introduction of these cards. He was quoted as saying: While I can see some merit in the argument that they infringe on civil liberties, I feel that most taxpayers regard being forced to pay more tax to support Social Security frauds and unscrupulous tax evaders as an even bigger invasion of their rights. The Government estimates that about $600m could be saved in tax revenue in the third year of the system's operation. This would occur by the curtailment of tax deductions at the pay as you earn stage and the curtailment of evasion of tax on dividends and interest income. Control over contractors and sub-contractors in the building industry would be easier to implement and controls over evasion through foreign exchange transactions would also be an important issue. In that context, I understand that for the 1984-85 financial year, 250,000 unclaimed group certificates are lying in the office of the Commissioner of Taxation. I put it to honourable members: Why are there 250,000 unclaimed group certificates lying in the office of the Commissioner of Taxation? Whilst certainly some of them would be there because they involve relatively small amounts, I could also suggest that a large number would be there simply because many people are working under assumed names. That is certainly so, and it is one of the reasons why, with the introduction of a national identification system, the Government would be able to clamp down on this obvious abuse in our system. I must admit some personal disappointment at the Government's decision not to proceed with the use of a photograph on the card. I believe that the Australian community strongly supported the use of a photograph on the card, as I do. If a back bencher or a member of the Government had come into the House 10 years ago and suggested that a national identification card be introduced into Australia, the idea would not have hit the deck. Ten years later attitudes have changed. We have seen recent examples of obvious and blatant abuse of the taxation system. We have seen blatant abuse of the social security system. We have seen blatant abuse by prohibited non-citizens. Attitudes have certainly changed. I would not be surprised if, within 10 years time, there were national identification cards in Australia bearing a photograph. I must admit that since the Government's decision to proceed down the line of an identification system without a photograph, concern has been expressed to my office about that. I put to those who have expressed concern the same argument that I have just put to the House; that is, that it is an evolutionary process but we have at least made a start. As I have said, whilst I have some personal disappointment about the decision, I accept it because of the way in which it has been reached. But I also believe that in time we shall see an identification system that incorporates a photograph. I have mentioned before the benefits of the proposed system, which are obvious. The system could aid identification for tax, social security, employment and other purposes. It could make it easier to track down tax evaders and to reduce health and welfare fraud. It could help to detect prohibited non-citizens and open up employment opportunities to legal residents of Australia, which would lead to substantial reductions in the payment of unemployment and other benefits. Indeed, whilst the Government has suggested that the decision to go ahead with the card without a photograph means that the collection of revenue once the system is fully operational, which would have been about $500m to $600m, will be down by about $200m or $300m, I believe that that is still a substantial reason for the Government to go ahead with that decision. The proponents of the national identification card system readily appreciate the fears of those who oppose the introduction of such a system-although, I might add, not necessarily for the reasons put forward in the rather unusual Press release of the honourable member for Barker. The Minister for Health stated at the tax summit that if the card were introduced, the Government would ensure, through legislation, that the card did not become an internal passport. In some representations to my office-and, I understand, to other honourable members-since the proposal was first floated and when the Government decided to move ahead with the proposal for the Australia Card, many people expressed concern about this issue of a card becoming part of an internal passport system. There was never any intention that it would be compulsory to carry the card. Australia is not like South Africa or some other totalitarian regimes of either the Left or Right. People who have come into my electorate office to see me have often come to Australia from other countries, particularly from eastern European countries, and they have a very genuine concern and fear about those sorts of cards. But I put it to them that in Australia we have a system that is quite different from those of their countries of origin. We are one of the few Western democracies that can have a change of government without an accompanying revolution; so many of the fears expressed about the use of identity cards are without foundation. Under the proposals, the authorities requiring production of the card would need to be specified by legislation. As I have said, it must be appreciated that, contrary to some of the fallacies being concocted by opponents of the system, the Government is not proposing, nor would it consider proposing, a system under which carriage or presentation of the card as a general identity card would be required. We are also not proposing at any stage to permit a flow of information from Government records to such private sector organisations as credit bureaus or finance companies. But these are some of the spurious and quite outrageous allegations that are being pushed around the community by some people just to try to dissuade the Government from going ahead with the concept. The benefits to be derived from the introduction of a national identification system far outweigh the cost of its establishment and operation. Probably the most observant and realistic appraisal of the proposal was made in a commentary in the Melbourne Age of 21 June by columnist Tim Colebatch. I should like to read his comments because they lay to rest some of the outrageous suggestions that have been made in opposition to the Australia Card. He wrote: Identity cards were not the road to a police state. Most Western democracies apart from Britain and its former colonies have had them for years: to protect welfare systems from fraud, to protect tax systems from evasion or to allow police to check your identity in a crisis. . . . The real essentials of a police state are not identity cards. They are the feared anonymous network of secret police and informers, together with the absence of any means of fighting back: a free political opposition, fair and open elections, a free press and an independent judiciary. But rhetoric of this sort is based on emotion, not logic. None of these critics, to my knowledge, has seriously examined how ID cards work in any other Western countries, and whether the long experience of them justifies such hysteria . . . Their argument is never against ID cards as such, but against what they claim these might lead to. It is an example of guilt by association that anyone versed in intellectual argument should treat with great suspicion. It is the kind of scaremongering that I suspect Mr Justice Kirby would be the first to condemn if it came from someone else on a different issue. None of the opponents, to my knowledge, has told us just what is the liberty that identity cards would threaten. If it is so important as to disallow us taking a useful measure to stop people dodging taxes and ripping off welfare at our expense, surely they should define it. Most important is the concluding comment: We can't expect a perfect system, just as we can't expect a perfect police force; that does not mean we would be better off without it. One civil liberty worth valuing is the right to pay our own taxes and no one else's. ID cards would help us win that. The issuing and use of identity cards raises the questions of achieving a balance between efficiency and the privacy of the individual. However, I contend that many honourable members, as well as the vast majority of Australians, would support the concept of an identification card. The opinion polls show it. I suggest that many honourable members on both sides of the Parliament have had numerous representations to their offices in support of the ID card. Mr Nehl —Against the ID cards; against! Mr SIMMONS —If the honourable member talks to some of the people in King's Hall after this debate-members of the general public-I am sure he will find that those people certainly will not agree with his views. I believe that there is overwhelming support within the general community for the card because people feel rightly offended by the fact that there is tax evasion, social security fraud and prohibited non-citizens of Australia greatly abusing our system. It is too simplistic to say that if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear. I put it to honourable members that many people would have come to electorate offices and made exactly the same comment to many honourable members. As I said, that argument is too simplistic. I commend the Government on its decision, after a very long study by our Party, to go ahead with the introduction of the Australia Card. Mr McGauran —What about photographs? Mr SIMMONS —If the honourable member had been in the chamber earlier, he would have heard my comments about photographs. As I said, I believe that it is an evolutionary process and that within 10 years we will have photographs on identity cards. There will be community pressure for it. People within the community will not condone abuse. Any party, such as the Liberal Party or the National Party, that opposes such legislation will stand condemned by the electors of Australia for its hypocrisy and blatant misrepresentation. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(9.33) —I was most interested to hear the comments of my colleague the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons). Like him, I have on occasions had some sympathy for the proposal to establish an identity card system in Australia. In fact, I still have some residual sympathy for the proposal. My concern tonight arises because of the approach of the current Hawke Labor Government to this proposal. It might be of interest to honourable members if I canvassed some of the reasons put forward by proponents of the Australia Card as to why we should have an identity card system. The argument which is relied upon heavily by the Government is that the card will ensure that all Australians pay their fair share of tax. The Government also argues that it will achieve some considerable improvement in the integrity of the social security system and will have some impact on the number of illegal immigrants in Australia at present. Each of these concerns is valid and each is the rightful concern of government. Government should be concerned to ensure that we all pay our correct amount of tax and that no member of the community draws more from the social security system than he or she is entitled to draw and that no one whose presence is not justified in Australia remains in this country any longer than he or she is entitled to remain. However, there are other ways of achieving these objectives than by introducing an identification card system as proposed by the Government, and I suspect that they could be achieved at less cost. I feel that it is incumbent upon the Government to address the issues involved in the introduction of this identity card system and justify the massive expenditure of funds it proposes. Let me return to the tax question. In this country at present we have what is known as a cash or black economy. However, we do not have what is also referred to as a national tax file number. We still have what is a rather antiquated system, in this day of second, third and fourth generation computers of State by State tax file numbers. If the Australian Commissioner of Taxation, at the behest of this Government, saw fit to spend a little time, effort and a limited amount of money in developing a national computer network to establish a national tax file number we could have a system which required taxpayers Australia-wide to reconcile their earnings with their tax file no matter in which State they earned the funds. We come to the social security system. There is concern and an immense amount of anecdotal evidence about the fraud and overpayment that exists in the social security system. I have seen some considerable evidence of the manipulation of the system. What we have is a proposal on the part of the Government to regulate all citizens of Australia rather than it just being concerned with the integrity of the social security system. If we are concerned that the social security system is haemorrhaging, that is, that certain people are milking the system and taking more from it than they are entitled to and, therefore, increasing the burden on those members of the community who are funding that system, is not the most logical and appropriate approach, and, perhaps dare I say it, the cheapest approach to ensure that the social security system itself has a high degree of integrity? Why do not we address our concerns and the concerns of the people who are currently working on the ID card proposal to ensure that there is a system which satisfactorily identifies the identity of social security beneficiaries? Why, if we are concerned about the people who are ripping off the social security system-a limited number of people in this country-must all Australians submit themselves to carrying an identification card? The other argument that is used by proponents of this scheme to justify it is that of illegal immigration. In the days of computers, the Australian Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in conjunction with the Australian Customs Service, manages to keep records of the people who enter and leave this country. I would not have thought that it was all that difficult to ascertain who had come into this country and when they had left. Then we would know who was an illegal immigrant. Honourable members opposite may say: `This system does not track them down. You do not know where they are'. But if these people do not have identity cards, one does not know where they are anyway. So I am quite confused about what the Government thinks this card will do. I am also concerned that the Government has spent precious little time discussing the civil liberty aspects of the card. There has been absolutely no realistic discussion of the cost-effectiveness of the whole proposal. Quite frankly, the Government's identity card proposal is half-baked. The Government is confused. To put it kindly, its position in regard to the card is quite fluid. At the National Taxation Summit-I am sure that all honourable members will remember that ill-starred, ill-fated and ill-conceived tax summit which was conducted in this very chamber some months ago-a statement was made and a booklet produced by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). It was a glossy, hard-cover booklet in green and gold. I am told that the Minister, in tabling the booklet at the Tax Summit, congratulated the members of the Australian Public Service who had worked so hard, so long and so speedily to produce it. What that probably means is that a massive amount of overtime was involved in getting the thing ready in time for the Tax Summit in the first place because it was thought of at short notice. I guess the Government's best defence for the embarrassing situation in which it finds itself with respect to the Australia Card is the streaker's defence: It seemed like a good idea at the time. We are now prepared to turn ourselves and the entire Australian community inside out, notwithstanding the Australian Public Service, to make sure that in some way the system comes into existence and does something. Let me consider in detail some of the proposals which were contained in the booklet entitled `The Australian Card' which went to participants in the Tax Summit. Perhaps one of the most important areas of concern is the suggestion that the Australian Card system could be run by the Health Insurance Commission and that its costs in 1985 dollars would be $38m for establishment and $49m for operation. That is presumably the costing basis on which the Government decided that it would go ahead with it. I would like to take one moment to consider the way in which this Government decided that it would go on with it. This is a circular letter sent out by the Minister for Health to participants in the tax summit. He referred to the proposal for the Australian Card and he said: I hope that the discussion at the Tax Summit will form a valuable basis for further deliberation on the issue by the Caucus legal and administrative committee and then by Cabinet and then by full Caucus. Where is the reference by the Minister to full discussion by the Australian public? Where are we going to see some genuine debate in the public about whether the cost of this proposed card system will actually be justified by the benefits that will supposedly accrue from it? When the Treasurer (Mr Keating) the other day introduced his package of new taxes designed to impinge heavily on the business sector there was some reference to the cost of implementing this card system. I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that at the Tax Summit we were talking about the system costing $38m for establishment and $49m for operating. Somehow between the Tax Summit and the Treasurer's statement of the new taxes the cost of implementing this card system changed dramatically. The establishment cost has risen to $157m in the first year, with $86m per annum for seven years until 1992-93, stabilising-I love that word-at $100m per annum thereafter. It is also interesting to see how the sands have shifted in terms of the benefits to accrue from this Australia Card system. In the booklet that was tabled at the Tax Summit the Government said that it would be saving some $800m a year-that was the final figure-in tax avoidance. That proposal was predicated on the inclusion of a photograph on the Australia Card. When the Treasurer made his statement in conjunction with the new tax package, he suggested that there would not be a photograph and he also revised the tax savings that would flow from the introduction of this card. The gain to revenue from the introduction of this card is no longer $800m. It is not $700m. It is not even $600m. It is now $540m because the photograph has disappeared from it. I do not believe that this Government, when it set out initially to introduce this Australia Card, knew what it was doing or where it was going. We have tonight before the House a Bill which, I am told, is seeking some $3 1/2m to continue study into the Australia Card system. Quite frankly, I would have thought that that sort of study and investigation and the planning to introduce a card, which I remind the House is going to cost $127m to establish and something like $100m a year to run, should have been done long before a decision was taken by the Government to implement this sort of proposal. Many people in this community are extremely concerned about what this card will be used for. Again I would like to refer to this booklet which was tabled at the tax summit and which talked about the Australia Card and its uses. In the covering statement tabled by the Minister he said: Significant savings in government expenditure which may result in moving towards one card, one number system for Commonwealth Government agencies. Later on in the Tax Summit booklet we have assurances that Commonwealth Government departments and agencies will not use the card or number system to set up a big brother network on Australian individuals. We are given a guarantee that that will not happen. We see here on one page: The register would not include information from other government sources such as medical and taxation data. Quite frankly, I find that a little difficult to reconcile with the Minister's statement that it will be a one card, one number system. What is the point in having a one card, one number system if it is not used to access data on individuals? It concerns me greatly that this card is going to be used to stop tax evasion. It is also going to be used to stop social security fraud. We are also given a guarantee that there will be no interlocking and no release of Australian Taxation Office file data on individuals in Australia. Quite frankly, this Government does not know exactly what it is going to do with this proposal. What we have is the streaker's defence-it seemed like a good idea at the time. Someone suggested it. Someone perhaps saw a public opinion poll which said that the majority of Australians, because of their concern at perceived rip-offs in the social security system and in the tax system and their concern that illegal immigrants were perhaps getting advantages that should not accrue to them, thought that it would be a good idea if somehow we could have an identification system to eliminate those three concerns. If I could be assured that this proposal by the Government would address and remedy those problems-every member of this House would share my concern that we cannot afford to have either the tax system or the social security system bled by unscrupulous people in this country-I am sure that support for the ID card system would be justified. If I could be assured that this ID card system would in fact address and remedy the problems we have, I would support it. I cannot support the proposal that the Government has before us tonight on the basis that it does not know what it is doing or where it is going. This card system seemed like a good idea at the time. Someone quickly rustled up this booklet and tabled it at the tax summit and everything has been changing ever since. Dare I say that, if the first card is not going to be introduced for some 18 months, we will probably have about the fifteenth edition of this booklet by the time it finally comes out-at I do not know what cost. I do not think the Minister himself, if he is here tonight seeking $3 1/2m to fund the Health Insurance Commission's investigations into this, can actually give us an assurance that he knows how the system will work, how it will be used by government departments, and what the exact impact will be on the tax system and the social security system. My colleague the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) earlier tonight made reference to an interdepartmental committee which studied the possible benefits of this Australia Card system for social security. The assessment of that IDC, I believe, was that there would be a saving of some $10m in social security overpayments and fraud. We should remember that the cost of the system in the first year is $127m, with $100m a year to run it. I do not think that seems like a very good deal, particularly when there are other ways of doing it. The tax position of this card is also quite confused. We initially had an estimate of some $800m. It has come down now to $540m. It will probably be revised three, four or five times. It is interesting to note that the Treasurer has not tabled any calculations undertaken by his Department or the Government in general as to how he comes up with this supposed tax saving of some $540m, nor has he explained how the carrying of an identification card will prevent people avoiding their rightful tax obligations. There are identification card systems in other countries around the world. There is a celebrated social security card number system in America which is used for financial transactions, tax obligations and social security payments. Many members of this House are aware that in America the mafia got hold of the social security number system and started to produce social security cards. The Americans have found that the system is not foolproof; it does not prevent milking and bleeding of the system. In other countries where there is an ID system it has not eliminated fraud, manipulation or abuse. The Government has not shown members of this House, particularly the Opposition, how its proposal will be better and more watertight than the proposals that exist overseas. Since it is the Government's proposal to implement a scheme which represents a radical change to the very nature of Australian society-that is, for the first time every Australian will have a card and a number which will be required for financial transactions-it is incumbent upon the Government to explain exactly how that card system will work, what the obligations of every Australian under that card system will be, and how it will be used by the Government and individual government departments, instrumentalities and agencies. It is not good enough for the Minister, on the one hand, to say that we will have a one card, one number system for the entire Government and then, several pages further on in the booklet, to talk about interlocking government files and government information systems, and then give an assurance that there will be no invasion of personal privacy or civil liberties. It is an incumbent responsibility for the Government to dot the i's and cross the t's before it continues with this project. The Opposition would have considerably more sympathy for the Government's position had it come into this Parliament some weeks ago and said: `We want to conduct a thorough investigation into the proposal for the ID card system. We want to know how it can be made to operate. We want to know what it will cost. We want to know the implications for the Australian community, particularly the business community. To do that, we want to give the Health Insurance Commission a legislative basis for conducting that sort of study and we want to fund that study. Therefore we are seeking parliamentary approval for $3.5m. We will conduct the study and prepare a plan that will let every Australian know what we propose to do with the Australia Card system-what it will cost and what the benefits will be'. Had the Government done that the Opposition would have been in a much better position to say: `Okay, we have your proposal. You are going to conduct a study, then the study can come back into the Parliament, be circulated around the community in general and there can be genuine widespread public debate on the question of identity cards, what the benefits and the costs will be to the Australian community'. But this Government did not do that. Instead, a couple of back bench members of the Government said that an identity card system would be great because it would look after social security and tax frauds and would perhaps also catch a few illegal immigrants. The next thing we saw was a booklet at the Tax Summit. Then the Treasurer made a statement to the House about new taxes and part of that statement was the ID card proposal with figures that were different from the original figures proposed at the tax summit. The next thing we know we have a Bill before the House, an omnibus Bill, making a whole stack of changes to legislation, and one of those changes is to give the Health Insurance Commission power to do a study and plan the implementation of the card system. That will cost $3.5m and the people of Australia are expected to take that on trust. Quite frankly, the people of Australia recognise that this Government cannot be trusted. If I may digress for one moment, the people of Australia were told by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that there would be no new capital gains taxes. He said that we would not have any. Lo and behold, we have a capital gains tax. We are in exactly the same position with the ID card only perhaps it is a lot more significant because what we are really doing is addressing the style of the Australian community and affecting every individual in Australia. Quite frankly, I do not have enough trust in this Government to say to it: `Here, have your amendment, have your $3.5m and go away and do what you will with the Australia Card system'. We do not know what you will do and we do not know the implications of its proposals. This Government has an obligation to state in black and white exactly what the Australia Card is for, what it is about, what it will achieve for Australian people, how much it will cost and what burdens it will relieve from the Australian taxpayer. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(9.53) —In introducing the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) outlined measures aimed firstly at streamlining the day to day operations of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and secondly at improving their commercial viability. It is apparent that there is the underlying objective of further developing and expanding the pharmaceutical production in this nation. I believe that the Australian public will welcome any move to make our nation less dependent on overseas countries for our pharmaceutical needs. We all appreciate that pharmaceutical costs continue to escalate and ultimately it is the public that pays, whether it be by the taxpayer or the patient. For a long time in Australia there has been recognition that greater safety standards should be set and adhered to. This certainly applies to the pharmaceutical industry and also in some cases to other aspects of industry, and I refer briefly to the chemical industry. The Minister mentioned that these changes would prove the advantages to the Australian citizen of having what is called a public window on the pharmaceutical industry. I note that clause 10-I will not refer specifically to it because we are not in committee-will allow the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to move into non-pharmaceutical areas, particularly the manufacture of chemicals. In a briefing note that I was able to obtain on the proposals in clause 10 it said that CSL, if they wanted to, had the right to move into the manufacture, development, import, export, sale and purchase of biological control agents for agricultural purposes. Therefore they have the right to move into the chemical field. Following a report by a House of Representatives committee which in 1982 inquired into the import, export and general use of chemicals in this country, it was announced that a chemical hazards assessment unit would be set up by the Department of Health to check on toxic substances used in Australia. I would contend that CSL, with their expanded role, would be able to carry out that purpose. Honourable members will be aware that a toxicology unit was set up within the Health Department and a chemical notification and assessment Bill is being drafted by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen). I welcome these initiatives because they will ultimately mean that not only will there continue to be a detailed and sophisticated evaluation of data by toxicologists, but also a register of chemicals assessed will be established. However, it is apparent that the task before the Government to counter the threat and reduce and control the use of hazardous chemicals in this country has only just begun. This is where I see a special role for CSL. It has been estimated to date that throughout the world some four million or so chemicals have been concocted. The chemical industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry which is so vital to the world that it can significantly influence and even control national economies. It is not surprising, therefore, that the 3,000 primary chemicals on which the hundreds of thousands of formulations are based are sewn up by a handful of international chemical company giants. We depend in the main for data from those giants. While the assessments are carried out by the so-called independents, I see much value in having the instrument in this nation to carry out those tests. It is also not surprising, given the economic and political clout of the chemical industry, that the World Health Organisation has had extreme difficulty in having much influence on the use of many of these hazardous chemicals and some pharmaceuticals. The international program of chemical safety seems to be limited, if not hog tied, in its efforts to combat chemical dangers. I make this point because if one looks at the dumping of dangerous chemical products and pharmaceuticals in the Third World and developing countries one sees that my statement is correct. I am pleased that this Bill will allow the CSL to act and work for foreign countries. That will be of enormous advantage should there be any doubts about the standards of the chemicals or pharmaceuticals which may be taken into those countries. On the other hand, the World Health Organisation's sub-program on pesticide residues has made major advances and Australia has played a positive role in this program to the point that our nation is a world leader on residue limits on pesticides. Yet despite this international performance and excellent reputation and despite moves in recent years to improve the evaluation of the data supplied by chemical companies, serious gaps exist in the controls that prevail in Australia. Again, I see the advantages of CSL being involved. As it costs about $2m to test fully just one chemical, it is quite understandable why a small country like Australia is not in the financial position to set up a toxicology laboratory of the extent and size of those that exist in the United States, Canada and Germany. Thus, we must rely on those countries for clearing chemicals. One recent estimate was that there were some 30,000 chemicals being used in Australia which have never been assessed. Moreover, because of the lack of Commonwealth power in this area, industrial chemicals can be and are being sold in Australia without any previous clearance having been obtained or required. Despite the excellent work of the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Poisons Scheduling Committee-the NHMRC is closely involved in pharmaceuticals and there are pharmacists on the PSC-and irrespective of the involvement and representation on these committees from the States, pesticides and agricultural chemicals have been and can be used and sold regardless of recommendations against such practices. The NHMRC has advisory and recommendatory functions, but it has no legislative power. It appears that it has little or no control over industrial chemicals and is hamstrung to move against a State department of primary industry if that department approves the use of a certain chemical. Maybe that will stop if the CSL play their part. Again, there exists inadequate powers or controls at the Federal level over the entry of chemicals into this country. Once in Australia they can be sold anywhere unless specifically prohibited by a State. As honourable members would appreciate, chemicals can be sold because of the free trade provisions of section 92 of the Constitution. It is the State legislatures which have the power to set what are known as threshold limit values, which limit worker exposure to chemicals to acceptable levels. Given the massive costs of chemical assessment, one must question whether any State has the capacity adequately to identify the hazardous nature of a chemical and thus set acceptable limits of exposure. Quite clearly, there is a need for a national approach to this issue and I believe that the legislation put forward by the Minister for Health can help bring about that national approach. It is just as obvious that with 30,000 chemicals which have not been assessed being used already it would take, I suppose, 50 years and a multi-billion dollar exercise if Australia were to embark upon a retrospective program of evaluation and assessment of the chemicals being used. So it is quite pleasing that the Hawke Labor Government is taking a prospective approach to ensure that CSL has a right to play a role in the non-pharmaceutical industries. By setting up the toxicology unit and with the new legislation on the environment, we are also ensuring that at least all new chemicals coming in to this country will be fully evaluated. Studies will also be undertaken of existing chemicals where problems are suspected. Again, I believe that the expertise available within CSL will help. What is the use of this preventative program if the decisions cannot be enforced? The present situation of nine sets of laws for the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories is not in the interest of the nation. There is therefore a need for the States to reconsider the situation and work towards uniform, nation-wide rules and laws which meet Australia's total safety requirements. It is obvious from what is known nationally and internationally that we cannot rely on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which has adopted minimal standards, especially in the area of chemicals. We cannot rely on the United Nations Organisation and the World Health Organisation's program of chemical safety. We certainly cannot rely on the personal opinion of a State health or department of primary industry officer who may be under some political pressure because of the influence of certain interest groups over the State government in question. Australia needs a uniform screening and evaluation procedure and it needs its own national standards. I appreciate that this issue can be an emotive one and, understandably, industries, particularly those in the rural sector, become suspicious and concerned when one talks of chemical control. The issue, however, is one of evaluation and assessment and only if hazards exist does it become a matter of controlled use. I readily commend the Minister for Health for what he has proposed in the legislation we are debating tonight. I also commend the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment for the steps that are being taken in the other areas that I mentioned previously. As I make these comments I am also conscious of the importance of not encroaching unnecessarily upon the constitutional realms of the States. However, I put to the House that hazardous chemicals are an international and national issue, not some parochial State matter, because their use can affect others within a country or overseas if associtated, for instance, with food production. Assessment and evaluation are matters for the national government, firstly, because of sheer costs, secondly, because the products in the main are imported and, thirdly, because the toxicology expertise is available in the Federal sphere. Australia should not be allowed to be used as a proving ground for hazardous chemicals in particular by some international manufacturer simply because of the inadequacies of Federal government powers and controls. Moreover, the Australian work place should also not be used as a testing ground to establish by some hit or miss method limits of acceptable levels of worker exposure to chemicals. Those tests should not be carried out by States which really do not have the expertise to conduct them. There is a need for a national co-operative approach to this important subject. It is my hope that, given the changes proposed here tonight in this legislation, particularly the amendments to section 19 of that Act, given the growing realisation of the dangers involved and given the desire of all governments, irrespective of their political colour and regardless of whether they be Federal, State or territorial to govern in the interests of the people of this country, a joint ministerial effort will be made to formulate an acceptable, enforceable Australian standard of chemical use. Finally, I say that, given the reputation of and respect for our nation as a world leader in the field of residue limits on pesticides, it is hoped that Australia can play an increasingly effective and positive role in bringing pressure to bear on other OECD countries and the World Health Organisation to advance the case for better world chemical use, controls and standards. I believe that the provision in the legislation that allows CSL to work for foreign nations could work towards that end. If that can and does happen, in doing so not only will Australia improve its own protection but also, just as importantly, it will assist in protecting the developing countries of the world which at this moment are at the mercy of the international chemical companies that, I believe, readily and openly dump hazardous chemicals that are banned in other countries. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(10.06) —I must admit that I was rather intrigued by the contribution to the debate on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). I think that he drew a very long bow in his speech on the Bill before the House. His suggestion that the expansion of the activities of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission would somehow have some major effect upon the testing of chemicals is fanciful in the extreme. I commend to the honourable member the work done on hazardous chemicals by a committee of this House in the previous Parliament. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation had a very close look at hazardous chemicals. It came up with what I, as Chairman of the Committee, thought were really basic recommendations which dealt with some of the problems that the honourable member has brought to the attention of the House. To get back more closely to the legislation before the House, I wish to deal fairly briefly with some of the issues which have been brought up in this omnibus Bill. The first thing I say about it to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is that it was a bit of an insult to this Parliament and to the members of this Parliament that a Bill of this nature encompassing a number of different aspects, each of which is of great significance, should have been introduced to the House on Friday and debated the following Tuesday. It really does him or his Government little credit. I pause because I have just been given an admonition from the Leader of the House (Mr Young). He asked me whether I wanted to finish my speech tonight. I guess that will be up to those who control the numbers in this place. As I understood it, some arrangements were made which have just been broken by the previous speaker on the Government side. Getting back to the legislation at hand, it is quite wrong for legislation of this importance to be brought in on a Friday and debated the following Tuesday. Members of the Government may have had an opportunity to study it before it was introduced into the Parliament, but it gives members of the Opposition very little chance to discuss the various aspects and the ramifications of the changes that are proposed. There are some significant changes. I will deal firstly with those relating to CSL. As my colleague the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) said in his contribution, there is no argument that CSL over its almost 70 years of history has played a most significant role in public health in Australia. But we have to be very clear in our minds as to the ultimate role we see for CSL. I do not think that that has been spelt out in this legislation, because what we have again is a mixture, with a public supported company now being encouraged to move into commercial activities in a very big way. It cannot be one thing or the other. If an organisation is to be a commercial organisation it should function as such. If it is to be a community funded organisation, there must be some limitations on its ability to function in the commercial world, because if there are no limitations that organisation would have a decided advantage over those organisations which have to live within the unfunded aspects of commercial operations. I must say that I am a trifle suspicious of the propositions that have been put forward by the Government. I recognise, for instance, that, in relation to the utilisation of unused capacity, we have some fermentation vats in the CSL; we also have there some other machinery which is not used for the full year. There is at least a proper argument that efficient utilisation of those facilities should be encouraged. This would allow the CSL to enter into commercial arrangements with outside or other organisations, which would return extra revenue to the Commonwealth and certainly cut down the overall expenditure of the CSL. But that is all right as far as it goes. It does not deal with the proposition that, under the changed arrangements, the CSL could, for argument's sake, introduce additional capacity which would then become unused and which would enable that organisation to move very widely away from the two very narrow propositions which I am sure have been put to the Minister in the advocacy of this suggested change in the arrangements relating to the CSL. Under those circumstances and because of the very hasty nature of the introduction of this Bill, I must say that I am suspicious of the motives behind the proposition and as such I do not think we have been given adequate opportunities either to investigate or to debate them; therefore, I cannot support them. I make the point again that I have no criticism of the capacity of the CSL. I have very great admiration for the people associated with that organisation. But I suggest that the changes give the CSL an unwarranted commercial advantage which they could utilise in a way which certainly was not envisaged for the CSL originally or in any of the amendments in recent years. The second thing I wish to speak about is medical fraud. I am absolutely fascinated by the Minister's speech, having sat in his position for a number of years and having heard him lambast me and the government of the day about medical fraud. In his second reading speech he said: . . . Let me first reiterate the Government's firm view that it is only a minority of practitioners who abuse the Medicare system and bring dishonour to their profession. I never thought I would hear the honourable member say anything of that nature, having listened to him time after time berate the medical profession when he was in opposition. It seems that the responsibilities of government brought some education to his previously uneducated view on this matter. Here and now he is at last agreeing with statements that I made when I was Minister for Health, saying precisely that only a small minority of practitioners abuse the system. I am also intrigued by the changes that are proposed. If the Minister is fair dinkum and serious about combating medical fraud, I really do not think the changes he has proposed will do the trick and cut down on those features of medifraud which still need attention. It is all very well to change the legislation. But, when dealing with medifraud, what one has to do in the final analysis is to prove fraud. In the final instances proving fraud relies upon investigation by the Australian Federal Police. It has generally been suggested that medifraud is presently costing the Australian taxpayer a great many dollars. But I am informed that only 20 Australian Federal Police officers are currently engaged nationally on medifraud investigations. Mr Hodgman —How many? Mr MacKELLAR —There are 20 to deal with the situation throughout Australia. Of course, this number is patently inadequate to handle what is believed to be several hundred cases of possible fraud per annum. What I am suggesting is that there needs to be a closer relationship and co-operation between various departments. Without that, with one department acting independently when for the adequate prosecution of these fraud cases the co-operation of other departments is required, obviously the whole system falls to the ground. It does not matter a jot- Debate interrupted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Dr Blewett-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr MacKELLAR —What I am suggesting here is that, given the circumstances of medifraud which unfortunately operate in this country, changing the legislation as is proposed in this Bill will really not deal with the problem adequately. On the information available to me, 150 to 200 police officers are required to handle medifraud investigations properly. At present we have 20. We are fiddling with the problem if we believe that these changes which the Government has brought forward will really deal with the problem of medifraud. I repeat that there needs to be a more co-operative effort between various departments within the Government and the various Ministers administering those departments if we are really to deal with this problem. I am also informed that the computer capacity of the AFP is very limited for this investigative work. It is a very specialised area. We cannot just pluck out any untrained police officer to do the work; we have to train people to do this specialised work. We need trained people to operate the computer facilities and to fulfil those support staff requirements which are needed to process the investigations adequately. I believe that there are inefficient administrations in place in respect of medifraud. Initial investigation of possible fraud is conducted by the Department of Health. Investigations are referred to the AFP when a prima facie case has been established. Under those circumstances the AFP has to start its investigations from scratch. This causes an immense duplication of effort and increased difficulty for the Australian Federal Police, who find that doctors who are being investigated have already been alterted to the problem and have the opportunity to bring very sophisticated defences to bear in the investigations that are being carried out. I suggest to the Minister that a possible solution would be the establishment of a joint investigative task force, comprising both Department of Health and AFP officers, to investigate possible fraud cases jointly from the time of their initial identification. We all want to eliminate medifraud. It is a drain on the system. It is an unfair approach to Australian taxpayers' dollars and we all want to eliminate that. But the proposals brought forward by the Minister in this legislation do very little to deal with the actuality of the cases confronting the Department. They do not demonstrate a real understanding of the problems that still have to be addressed. The third matter I wish to deal with is that of the identification card, the Australia Card. We all agree with the proposition that tax fraud has to be eliminated, that social security fraud has to be eliminated and that the problems in the area of immigration and ethnic affairs have to be dealt with. There is no dispute about that. No member of this Parliament would dispute that these problems have to be addressed. No member of this Parliament would dispute that very great amounts of money are involved. What we have to deal with is this very unthought-through proposition that the Australia Card will solve those problems. We have all been acquainted with the problems. How do we fix them? We have an identification card; that will fix them. It is a seemingly simple proposition. That is why, at first blush, it has attracted a degree of community support. But when we investigate it further and in depth we really have to ask ourselves whether what is sought to be achieved will be achieved by the introduction of an Australia card or an identity card. I do not believe that it has been argued successfully at any stage that tax fraud will be overcome by the introduction of an identity card. In a black economy, people come forward and say: `I will do a certain job for you for a certain amount of cash and, if you pay by cheque, it will cost you more'. I do not see how anybody can possibly argue that the production of an identity card will alter that situation one iota. I also have some difficulties in believing that the card will deter those people who are interested in defrauding the social security system. There are a number of famous cities in this world where one can buy any form of identity card one wishes. An absolutely magnicient identity card or any sort of document can be produced within 20 minutes. Perhaps the Government wants to introduce a new industry in Australia. We have heard recently of the industry growing in Parklea Prison where drivers' licences and other forms of documentation were being produced. I am yet to be convinced that the card proposed by the Government is not capable of fairly easy duplication. I notice that no photograph or fingerprints will be attached to the card. I seek more information in relation to the proposition that the card cannot be easily duplicated because I believe that it will be and it will not realise the benefits which its proponents have put forward so glibly at the present time. We have heard again the statement that the innocent have nothing to fear from the introduction of the card; so why is everybody upset about it? That is an absolutely correct statement. The innocent do not have anything to fear from the introduction of the card. Mr Nehl-Except the loss of freedom. Mr MacKELLAR —We could say: `except the loss of freedom', but the innocent are not the people the card is being introduced to deal with. The card is being introduced to deal with people who are willing, able and encouraged to defraud the taxation system and the social security system. We are not dealing with innocent people; we are dealing with people who have been induced to defraud the system in one way or another. It is not the innocent who we are worrried about; it is the people who will defraud the system. I have seen no evidence whatsoever produced by the Government to this stage which would suggest that these people will be deterred in any sense by the introduction of this card. Its economic aspects are open to very great question indeed. Before we have an acceptance of this legislation, I believe that the Government owes it not only to the Opposition but also to the people of Australia to argue more fully the benefits of the introduction of a card which really goes very much against the grain of many people who have a belief in civil liberties. Some people will dismiss that lightly and out of hand. I do not dismiss it lightly. I believe that the issue of civil liberty is a very important one-one that has not been properly addressed by the Government at this stage. A piece of legislation is being introduced into the Parliament to allow the development of this card to go ahead when the benefits of it have not been clearly demonstrated, when its costs are unclear and when we cannot be certain that we are not losing some of the freedom which a lot of people hold very dear to gain some nebulous reward. All in all, the legislation before the House at present is important. It is totally unfair to members of this Parliament to have it introduced on a Friday and debated today. It really does the Government and the Minister for Health no credit to approach this legislation in such a pell-mell fashion. Many questions still need to be asked and answered. I encourage the Government to go about answering some of those questions immediately. Debate (on motion by Dr Klugman) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.26) —During Question Time the Treasurer (Mr Keating) chose to mount an impassioned case against tax avoidance. I was surprised that, within his reference list, he did not refer to an article published on page 5 of the Age of 24 September 1985. The first paragraph of that article states: A leading WA surgeon under Tax Office scrutiny discussed with a Perth businessman the futility of making `further inducements' to department officials and urged him to seek support from a powerful public figure in Canberra to avoid what he called a public scandal. I have obtained a copy of the letter mentioned in that article and I would like to read from it. It is headed `Michael C. Tiller', and it refers to certain qualifications and an address in Fremantle. The letter has been marked `private and confidential' and it is dated 18 June 1979. It is addressed to Mr M. V. Quartermaine and it states: Dear Murray, Thank you for your confidential note, I enclose the signed agreements as requested. I met David Altree and Ron Woss at my surgery where I was told that the tax department will continue their investigations of the trading ventures and other related matters. It appears that further inducements to certain officers in the department will only prejudice our position despite their co-operation in the past. The accountants and John Gillet have promised to pull all possible strings as soon as Moll has been removed as chairman. I am anxious to avoid any public scandal and your political connections in Canberra may prove very helpful. Can you arrange another meeting with Lionel Murphy as promised as you may be able to obtain his support or his advice. We require solid backing to favourably influence the outcome of our present problems. Although the said Lionel Murphy is obviously the powerful public figure mentioned in the Press article, let me stress that this letter alone cannot be considered as evidence of personal wrong-doing. Mr Young —Is that the completion of the letter? Mr TUCKEY —No, it is not. I will make the letter available to the Special Minister of State. Mr Young —Well, why don't you read it all? Mr TUCKEY —I do not need to read any more because I have made the point that I want to make. I have already referred to the powerful public figure mentioned in the Press article and I stress that this letter alone cannot be considered as evidence of personal wrong-doing. As the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) has discovered, the participants in this Christo Moll scheme were in the habit of name dropping and the good doctor may have been misled. Nevertheless, the newspaper article continues: Federal police have questioned orthopaedic specialist Mr Michael Tiller about the letter sent to them by the National Crime Authority in which he wrote to former travel agent Murray Quartermaine. This indicates to me that there is little doubt that the letter is authentic and that the National Crime Authority treats it seriously. I am advised that Senator Walsh has had a copy of this letter for some time. When one considers his inordinate interest in the Moll case one can only wonder why he has not demanded a public inquiry regarding its disclosures. Clearly, it is not difficult to establish whether Mr Quartermaine had meetings with Lionel Murphy. We have only to ask him. I believe that Mr Quartermaine should be able to indicate the substance of any such conversation that he may have had. Most importantly in these circumstances, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) must advise the House of the results of the Australian Federal Police inquiry that has been mentioned. It is amazing how silent the Minister has been when we consider how concerned the Treasurer was this morning to go and catch himself some tax avoiders. Mr Young —You don't come in here giving the results of police investigations. Mr TUCKEY —Maybe in this case the circumstances are different. But the Minister has the bit in his teeth, the Treasurer was carrying on this morning, and the Minister must cease to show hypocrisy on this issue. We have this important statement made in the newspapers. Why did the Minister not arrange a dorothy dixer on it? If such close associates of the Labor Party were involved during the heyday of tax schemes it is time the Treasurer discontinued his humbug, such as that which he produced today, practised what he preaches, and took action about them. Mr Young —What is the date of the letter? Mr TUCKEY —Would the Minister like me to table the full letter? Mr Young —What is the date of the letter? Mr TUCKEY —The letter was written on 18 June 1979. I have read that into the Hansard. It refers to the Moll scheme and it mentions that Lionel Murphy was being used as an adviser and assistant. I do not know whether that is true. The Minister would have a better idea. Mr Young —Is the letter authentic? Mr TUCKEY —I say to you that I believe the letter is authentic. Mr Young —But you don't know? Mr TUCKEY —Of course I do not know. It is up to the Minister to tell us. I am telling him that a Press article, yet to be rejected, has stated that this letter was handed down from the National Crime Authority to the Australian Federal Police. Is the Minister telling me that he does not know anything about that? I bet he does. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.31) —I want to talk tonight about the Australian Bicentennial celebrations and in particular about the proposed bicentennial park for the Parramatta River area, part of which is within the electorate of Lowe. This project has attracted funding of $8m from the Commonwealth and the State and will be a very important addition to the parks in the Sydney metropolitan area. I have visited the site. It is a glorious site with a natural stand of mangroves which the $8m will convert to a major tourist centre in that part of Sydney. I am raising the issue tonight because for some time I have been making representations about eight properties which adjoin the proposed park, cottages which are not connected to the Sydney sewerage system. These places, in the old established suburb of Homebush, are in an area known as the Lorraine Street low level area. They are not connected to the sewerage system and it would be very expensive to connect them. One of the people living in the cottages has come to me and explained that in the summer a quite strong offensive odour comes from a pump-out sewerage system and that, on estimates made some years ago, it will cost approximately $30,000 each to connect these properties to the general Sydney sewerage system. With the planned expenditure of $8m nearby, restoring the natural habitat of the mangrove swamps, it would not be too much to ask to have this problem included in the program and fixed up. I have written to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), as the Minister responsible for the Bicentennial, and I have written also to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), who also showed great interest in the project and referred it on. I have raised it also in the local area. However it is moving slowly, and with the onset of the warmer weather I think it is time the matter was cranked up. I am raising it in the House in the hope that, with the new interest in the Bicentennial on the part of the Parliament, something might happen for these people in this part of Homebush in my electorate. This is a joint State-Federal issue, of course, because the State Government is responsible for connecting the sewerage system and will be responsible for building the booster station for the small number of houses. Practically all of Sydney is sewered and this is one area that has been forgotten. It would be an excellent adjunct to a large bicentennial project if this part of Sydney could be connected to the general sewer. In raising the matter tonight I am not in any way criticising the bicentennial park proposed for Homebush Bay. It will be something that will go down in history, just as Centennial Park in Sydney was dedicated at the time of the Centenary. This is the Bicentenary, and now we have a natural park which is being converted by the work of some of the Australian Labor Party aldermen on the Concord Council, particularly Alderman Blom and others, who have done great work in launching that project. I will not delay the House any further, but I commend to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment that they have another look at this important problem. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.35) —Madam Deputy Speaker, around 74 per cent of Australians, according to a survey in the Bulletin of 14 August 1984 believe that a child needs a home with both parents present in order to grow up happily. Surveys in other Western countries report similar findings. The Sydney Morning Herald reported on 21 August 1984 that 75 per cent of young married couples believed that marriage was forever. Ninety-three per cent of men and 89 per cent of women surveyed agreed that love, warmth and happiness was a good definition of marriage. Most agreed that divorce was too easy. On 7 August 1985, on the Today program, Sue Kellaway interviewed a prominent psychologist by the name of Dr Bob Montgomery about a survey on what constitutes a successful marriage. In the course of the interview Dr Montgomery said that it was very clear `that people need to be encouraged to put concrete attention into making a marriage good'. He concluded: Most marriages, if they're going to fail, fail out of benign neglect, not out of malicious intent. Marriages very frequently fail because couples sit there and do not do much at all. No one has ever got the message across that if they want their relationship to last well in the long run they really have to put in some spade work, setting aside time to find good things to do together. The point I want to make is that only a very small proportion-in fact, a minute amount-of the $1.6 billion that is spent on welfare payments as a result of marriage break down is spent on preventative measures or attempts to retrieve marriage. As well, 85 per cent of the total legal aid budget is used for family law cases. Mr Slipper —The Family Court is a disaster. Mr WEBSTER —It is indeed. A great deal more needs to be done by the Government in the area of marriage education, which at present is estimated to receive a mere $100,000 pittance in the 1985-86 Budget for the whole nation. Dr Harry Edwards —How much did you say? Mr WEBSTER —Only $100,000. If the Government substantially increases this marriage education allocation it will find that many stable doors will be able to be closed with many horses still inside, rather than persisting with the often futile exercise of trying to close the doors after the horses have bolted. I never cease to be amazed at the Government's seeming lack of attention to this valuable alternative to the other option of paying out millions of dollars after the often unnecessary event of marriage breakdown. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.39) —In August the Federal Government announced a grant of $104,000 to the Illawarra Human Resources Training Centre in Balgownie in my electorate. The funding is for a special project to provide residential accommodation for 14 disabled adults in nine 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom units in the general community. The project is actually an extension of the comprehensive living skills program which disabled people at the Centre already attend. Centre staff will provide ongoing support to maintain residents and to help them make greater use of existing community facilities. These grants and others were recently approved by the Federal Department of Community Services and were announced in the wake of the Handicapped Programs Review commissioned by the Hawke Labor Government in 1983. According to the findings of the report of the Handicapped Programs Review, people with disabilities have made it clear that they want to be treated as people first, as people whose abilities matter more than their disabilities. They do not want to be seen as sick or different and they do not want all decisions to be made for them by other people. The review found that important goals included things such as a place to live, paid employment, being competent and self-reliant, participating in community activities, feeling secure and having choices in life. In the light of these findings, a close look at the activities of the Illawarra Human Resources Training Centre reveals how a new approach in the provision of services for the disabled can reap great benefits, both for the individuals concerned and the wider community. At the Illawarra Human Resources Training Centre daily training is provided for 50 intellectually disabled adults. Just over half the necessary funding is provided by the Federal Government and the remainder is met by community donations. Referrals to the Centre come from Bega to Stanwell Park, as well as from Wilton and the Southern Tablelands. In essence, the Centre provides skills and activity training for the intellectually disabled in order to allow each individual to lead as independent a life as possible. The independent living program is the focus of the Centre's activities. Trainees are taught survival skills, such as cooking, budgeting, hygiene and health. The Centre tries to instil a sense of responsibility in the trainees and tries to make them aware of the consequences of their actions. The Centre's vocational training teaches them how to use and maintain tools and equipment, as well as gardening and lawn mowing. Twice a week the trainees visit the homes of disadvantaged people in the community to mow their lawns and perform simple repairs, such as changing tap washers. The Centre helps to develop recreational skills, particularly basketball and indoor cricket, with a view to establishing regular competitions against other sporting organisations in the local community. Last October a work experience centre was established in Collins Street, Corrimal, which is also in my electorate. In this centre donations of furniture, clothing, bicycles and other items are restored and refurbished to be resold. The trainees learn how to carry out all the repairs, as well as how to effectively run the business, talk with customers and deal with money. Since its inception the work experience centre has grossed $18,000 and is able to employ two of the trainees on an allowance from the profits. The opportunities this offers for self-reliance and integration into the normal community are tremendous. The training centre also assists trainees to attend normal specialist courses at the technical and further education college, such as welding, silk screening and fashion and design. However, a necessary prerequisite for attendance at the TAFE college is that the trainees must be able to travel independently to and from their classes. Consequently, the recent provision of independent resident accommodation for the intellectually disabled is one more step on the road to self-sufficiency for all trainees. All in all, the work of the Illawarra Human Resources Training Centre cannot be praised too highly for its innovative and fruitful approach to serving the needs of the intellectually disabled. Federal Government funding for the Illawarra Human Resources Training Centre, especially the latest resident accommodation project, is clear evidence of the commitment of the Hawke Labor Government to ensure not only that the needs of the disabled are being addressed but also that the benefits gained are of lasting effect. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(10.43) —I rise tonight to draw to the attention of the House the fact that Australia's farmers are continually being burdened by anti-dumping levies being placed on di-ammonium phosphate fertilisers. Anti-dumping levies will cost Australia's farmers in the next fiscal year an additional $26.5m. That $26.5m will make Australia's farmers less competitive; it will come out of the pockets of Australia's recession hit farmers. Anti-dumping levies have been applied in the past to a number of commodities that are imported to protect our local industries. There are some legitimate justifications for the implementation of anti-dumping levies from time to time. As we all know, some countries try to dump on to the world market products that are sold below the cost of production. It is reasonable to expect that while this is going on, particularly in the short term, the local industry should be protected from this unfair competition. Since 1970 anti-dumping levies have been imposed on DAP fertilisers. It is fair to say that originally some genuine dumping was taking place. Of course, there was genuine concern, particularly for the protection of jobs in our local manufacturing industries. There is no clear evidence to substantiate the claim that dumping of DAP fertilisers is now taking place around the world. When dumping is generally taking place, one country in particular seems to be undercutting by a considerable number of dollars other countries which are exporting a similar product. Today, we can buy DAP fertilisers from a number of countries at a similar price. I think that is sufficient evidence that dumping is not taking place any longer. The Industries Assistance Commission is unable to substantiate the claim that dumping of DAP fertilisers is taking place. I will briefly refer to the IAC report of January 1984. Referring to anti-dumping levies on DAP fertilisers, it says: The immediate benefits of the existing anti-dumping measures have mainly flowed to local producers of nitrogenous fertilisers-domestic production of which is, apart from the anti-dumping measures, in receipt of little government assistance. These benefits have arisen because the anti-dumping action has reduced import competition. . . . . However, the Commission considers that the dumping of such products has not caused, is not causing, and is not threatening material injury to an Australin industry. Consequently, the Commission has found no grounds for the continued imposition of anti-dumping measures on the nitrogenous fertilisers under reference. Unfortunately, despite the IAC report anti-dumping levies will continue to be implemented. Concern for jobs, which I mentioned earlier, in 1970 when anti-dumping levies were first implemented was quite genuine. However, experience proves that anti-dumping levies applied to DAP fertilisers do not protect jobs in our local industry. In 1970 there were 5,683 jobs in the local fertiliser industry. In June 1984 there were only 3,000 jobs. That is partly due to the fact that the two principal producers on the east coast of Australia, AFL Holdings Ltd and Pivot Fertilisers, have closed down their DAP production plants and are importing their full demand for DAP fertilisers. It seems ludicrous that both these companies argue for the implementation of anti-dumping levies to protect, in some cases, our local industry yet, at the same time, they import their full demand for DAP fertilisers. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. The end result of anti-dumping levies being imposed on DAP fertilisers is that Australian farmers are coughing up $26.5m. They cannot afford to cough up that much money. There is no clear evidence that dumping is taking place. There is clear evidence that anti-dumping levies do not protect jobs in the local industry. It is time that this Government took an original look at anti-dumping levies on DAP fertilisers and scrapped them. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(10.48) —I wish to advert in the limited time available to comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) about the Liberal Party's factionalism. Whilst those opposite could be excused some circumspection when that allegation comes from the Prime Minister, it is much more difficult for them to sit on the Opposition benches like a pack of smiling Khmer Rouge skulls-as Ian Warden would have them-when the informant or the person articulating that point of view is none other then Stephen Litchfield, the recently retired New South Wales State Director of the Liberal Party. I refer honourable members to an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald. I am usually lothe to plagiarise, but this is such good stuff. Steve baby has indicated amongst other things: You can't expect people to know where you're going, if you don't exactly know yourself-and that's precisely a problem facing the Liberal Party at the moment. There is a state of public uncertainty about the Party's basic philosophy, policies and internal management which, if not settled quickly, will make Nick Greiner's and John Howard's task of winning the next State and Federal elections that much harder. In my view, there ought to a slight amendment, but most people know what I am referring to. Mr Litchfield describes the range of philosophical terms within the Liberal Party in the following terminology: . . . extreme right, to conservative, to liberal and consequently, the party has an identity crisis. There is much said and there is much public comment about factions in the Labor Party, but I have never heard anyone argue that members of the Left, if it is desired to call it the Left, the Centre and the Right are anything other than Labor Party people. They conduct their political debate within the broad philosophical parameters of a Labor party. But unlike that, the Liberal Party has an extreme right, a conservative and a liberal faction. I suspect that honourable members opposite will have very great difficulties when they take themselves to the electorate next time as there is a component of the Liberal Party that acts consistently with the principles of liberalism as laid down by Sir Robert Menzies and others, but how will they articulate policies that are conservative and how, more particularly, will they articulate policies that are clearly right wing? Mr Litchfield went on to say: Factions are a part of the political life of every party and although the Liberals have always argued they don't have any divisions, perhaps the time has come to admit what the party members themselves- and they are all sitting here- and the public have known for years-there are factions in the Liberal Party. Honourable members opposite have never had the guts to stand up and say that, but Mr Litchfield has addressed that issue in this article. He goes on to say: It is just as illogical to argue that policies aimed at bringing about confrontation with the unions and wholesale privatisation of the government sector will win the middle ground away from Labor. Such policies make the conservatives happier and- an important point- attract more money to party coffers- shame on you all- but they do little to win the vital votes necessary for government. That is not the view of the honourable member for Maribyrnong and it is not the Labor Party's view. This is Mr Stephen Litchfield, the outgoing director of the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party. He goes on to say: Conservatives see the role of government as essentially the protection and enhancement of the existing order of society and thus their own sectional interests. There is no dispute there. He says: It would be an act of suicide for the Liberals to believe that people who feel reasonably comfortable with . . . Mr Hawke, Mr Keating . . . will turn to a Liberal Party which talks in non-specific terms about privatisation, and reform of key areas such as taxation, unions, wage fixing, social welfare, health and education without first knowing the details of such reforms. If I have time I shall go further into this article, but for the moment I finish by saying this: This is a former director of the Liberal Party. The Liberals are flushed out on all these issues. Their rhetoric is something which, without being flushed out by their own Party members, they might have got away with; but there is no chance that they will do so now. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.53) —I am forced to my feet in response to the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Griffiths) initially. He wants to indicate that there are those on this side of the House who are not prepared to concede that there are factions on this side of the House. Frankly, I am proud to be one of 66 factions on this side of the House-and long may that individuality permeate this side of the chamber, and the government side of the chamber when we occupy it. That happens to be the state of affairs on this side of the House. However, my principal purpose in rising tonight is to state that, quite by coincidence, two letters arrived on my desk today, and both focus on dilemmas that the reform of the taxation system is posing for people in my electorate. Both of them focus on dilemmas that occur because the Government has chosen to see what will obviously happen when it reforms taxation and has been blind to the implied threats. The first of these letters came from the almond growers in my electorate. It has been said that if one feeds people peanuts one will get monkeys. I want to reassure the House that the almond growers intend to ensure that Australians are fed almonds rather than peanuts. The almond growers represent-if you will pardon the pun, Madam Deputy Speaker-a growing industry in Australia. Mr N. A. Brown —The kernel of your electorate. Mr ANDREW —Yes, the kernel of my electorate. The almond growers, in fact, are a part of what once was a peasant industry and is now an expanding industry because only 40 per cent of the almonds consumed in this nation are grown in Australia. Sixty per cent are imported. Last week the almond growers came to Parliament House and met with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). They were given a very sympathetic hearing. But the real concern of the almond growers, arising out of the taxation statement is the incredible audacity of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) who chooses, if you please, to tax the almonds by 10 per cent. I cannot believe that an almond, which is a fundamental food, would be taxed. Mr Shipton —He is nuts. Mr ANDREW —As the honourable member for Higgins observes, one might well ask: Is the Treasurer nuts? I quote from the almond growers' letter. The Managing Director of the Almond Co-operative Ltd, Mr Cavallaro, said: Our understanding from the `Reform of the Australian Taxation System' was that there would be a 10 per cent tax on salted, spiced, smoked or roasted Almonds- and the industry accepted that- however, we have been advised by the Sales Tax Department that unless Almonds are used for cooking specifically they will be taxed 10 per cent even though they are a natural product. The question that might quite reasonably be asked of the Treasurer is this: What is the difference between natural almonds, almonds that have not been processed in any way other than to be husked so that they can be consumed, and any other natural fruit product such as dried fruit, sultanas, apricots and peaches, which do not and should not attract any form of sales tax? I would like the Treasurer to address his mind to that question. The other letter which arrived, and which also warrants some attention by the Treasurer, was from the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation. The wine grape growers and the wine processors in Australia are also to be disadvantaged by this reform of the Australian taxation system, because the attack on restaurateurs will inevitably be an attack on the wine grape growers. The problem that the wine grape growers have is not that they are being forced to wear the burden of this so-called reform but also-the Government has been alerted to this before-they face a major problem with imports. I quote from a letter by Peter Young, who said: Total imports of wine for the twelve months ended June 1985 rose by 36.0 per cent to 13,119,086 litres. Clearances- of wines on to the market place- in the same period rose by 30.2 per cent . . . Clearly, imported wines are providing a glut in the Australian wine industry. All these growers seek is not protection against imported wines but an opportunity to compete fairly with those which are effectively dumped on the Australian market. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(10.58) —It gives me great pleasure indeed to return to the topic with which I was dealing earlier. I could fill out a grievance debate with Mr Litchfield's article in the Sydney Morning Herald and I will certainly be making very great use of it in the future. Mr Litchfield went on to say: . . . many conservatives in the party, who still seem to believe a Liberal government should just walk in and sell off to the public or to big business most of the present functions of government, without any consideration of the consequences for existing employees or the services provided by the particular government enterprise. Of course, those people are sitting on the Opposition benches. The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) is a classic case, as one who articulated this precise philosophy until the electoral imperatives forced him to rat on his leader and back down at a thousand miles an hour. Mr Litchfield-not member for Mari- byrnong, not a member of the Government, but Mr Litchfield, the outgoing New South Wales State Director of the Liberal Party-went on to say: In short, the party at this stage doesn't appear to know where it's going . . . hear, hear- . . . and so neither does the public. The Liberal Party at the moment, just like Labor, lacks a vision of itself . . . He had to throw in something, and I can cop that. Mr Downer —`Just like Labor'. Mr GRIFFITHS —I would dispute that, nevertheless I can cop his throwing in one minor criticism with this learned tome-almost a thesis-on the problems of the Liberal Party. The article continued: In short, the party at this stage doesn't appear to know where it's going on the issue, and so neither does the public. . . . . . . In this regard, the Liberal Party has been negative in its approach to campaigning for far too long. Hear, hear! We see it every day in this House. Mr Litchfield went on to say: It is now paying the penalty of believing it can continue to win government by attacking the ALP without the need for well-defined and articulated policies, and to hold government not on the basis of public performance-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrrupted. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Young to move: That standing order 48A, as amended by sessional order, relating to the adjournment of the House, and standing order 103 (11 o'clock rule) be suspended for this sitting. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, and for related purposes. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Evidence Act 1905. Mr Howe to present a Bill for an Act relating to social security. Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the payment of pensions and other benefits to, and to provide medical and other treatment for, veterans and certain other persons, and for other purposes. Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act to make certain transitional provisions and consequential amendments related to the enactment of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1985. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 486) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 27 March 1985: (1) What has happened to the original Australian Broadcasting Commission electronic video equipment purchased some years ago. (2) What was its original cost and what was the cost of the new equipment purchased recently by the ABC. Mr Duffy —Based on advice provided by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The majority of electronic news gathering (ENG) equipment (and particularly the video items) purchased some years ago is still in service. Some of the units are nearing the end of their economic lives. The ban on `new technology' equipment prior to the end of 1983, which included ENG equipment, did not prevent use of the equipment for other than ENG purposes. (2) From 1974 to late 1983 the ABC purchased and introduced into service ENG equipment to the value of approximately $3.77 million. Between October 1983 to present, the ABC has spent approximately $2.46 million on ENG equipment. (Question No. 533)) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 28 March 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the Minister for Education's instruction to her department that for 1985 only government Members and Senators were to be advised of special programs and funding for Government funded projects. (2) Were similar instructions issued to the Minister's Department for 1985 and prior to the elections of 1984. (3) Was the list of people to be advised extended to endorsed Australian Labor Party candidates for the election of December 1984. (4) Will the Minister ensure that Members and Senators are the first to be advised of future funding and programs which affect projects in the Member's Electoral Division or the Senator's State or Territory. Mr Willis —The answer to the honourable member's question is a follows: (1) to (4) I refer the honourable member to the answer to Question Nos. 732-744 and 746-759 provided by the Prime Minister (Hansard of 10 September 1985, page 465). (Question No. 651)) Mr N. A. Brown asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 17 April 1985: (1) What is the current stage of the Government's consideration of the proposed Australian Bill of Rights. (2) What negotiations and consultations has the Government undertaken to further the consideration of the proposal for a Bill of Rights. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I have prepared a draft Bill to give effect in Australia to the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which Australia ratified in 1980. I am anxious to introduce a Bill for this purpose early in the present Budget Sittings. (2) I provided copies of my draft Bill for comment to the State and Northern Territory Attorneys-General in the Ministerial Meetings on Human Rights. I have provided a copy to the Honourable Member, among others. I have, of course, consulted my party colleagues on the draft Bill. (Question No. 913) Mr Cadman asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) With respect to the garaging of Commonwealth vehicles at officers' places of residence, is any officer permitted to use the allotted vehicle on other than work days, that is, at times when the officer is not on duty. (2) In the case of a vehicle garaged in the ACT, may the officer use the vehicle for recreation purposes outside the Territory. (3) Has the Minister's Department or any statutory authority reporting to the Minister issued guidelines for the use of these vehicles; if so, what are the terms of the guidelines. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. Officers are only permitted to garage Commonwealth vehicles at their places of residence when the vehicle is to be used for conducting official business. This includes those occasions when an officer is on `call out' duty. Officers who are not undertaking such duty are not permitted to use an official vehicle on other than work days. (2) No. (3) My department and Statutory Authorities under my control follow practices and procedures based on guidelines laid down by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services in the handbook `Rules for the Use of Official Motor Transport and Procedures of the Central Transport Authority'. The rules contained in this booklet are used as a reference for the issuing of supplementary Departmental Administrative Circulars. These circulars cover specific topics relating to the use of official vehicles within the Department and include such titles as: New Procedures for Booking Early Morning Transport to the Airport Commonwealth Motor Vehicles-Accidents Car Washing-Departmental Special Duty Vehicles Departmental Instructions on the Use of Official Transport (Chauffeur Driven Vehicles) Additional circulars issued by my Department and Statutory Authorities under my control, include the following: Departmental Instructions on the Use of Official Transport-Parking Parking Infringements-Drivers of Vehicles hired from Private Rental Firms Departmental Instructions on the Use of Official Transport Observance of Traffic Rules Carriage of non-duty and non-Commonwealth personnel in Commonwealth Transport ACT Electricity Authority-Vehicle Fleet: Administration and Operation National Capital Development Commission: The Responsibility of Officers to observe all Traffic and Parking Laws: Procedures to follow in Relation to Accidents or Mechanical Defects In addition to the above, my Department is also responsible for the administration of the Island Territories. The following details cover the special arrangements that apply in these Territories. CHRISTMAS ISLAND AND COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS ADMINISTRATIONS Most vehicles of both Administrations are garaged at employees, places of residence. The officers who garage these vehicles are on `call out' and are permitted to use these vehicles out of hours. Each Administrator is responsible for the use of official vehicles in his Territory. NORFOLK ISLAND ADMINISTRATION The Administrator of Norfolk Island and his wife are provided with a Commonwealth vehicle for both official and personal use. A vehicle is also provided for the use of the Official Secretary. There is no public transport system on Norfolk Island which means it would be impossible to live on the Island without the use of official vehicles at all times. The vehicles are garaged at the residences of the Administrator and the Official Secretary. Guidelines have not been issued specifically relating to the use of Commonwealth vehicles on Norfolk Island. (Question No. 948) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) What does it cost Australia to belong to the International Marine Satellite (INMARSAT). (2) What advantages does Australia gain from the membership. (3) What rescues have been achieved in Australia's international and national area of responsibility with the aid of an INMARSAT. (4) Is it a fact that these satellites are only of value for commercial shipping and not for small craft search and rescue. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) and the Department of Transport, is as follows: (1) The main costs associated with Australia's membership of INMARSAT are borne by the Australian Signatory to the INMARSAT Operating Agreement, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) (OTC) and arise principally from the need to attend meetings of the organisation's management body and general administrative overhead. (In 1984/85 these costs typically amounted to approximately $95,000). In addition to these costs, the INMARSAT Agreements require Signatories to contribute capital to the organisation broadly in proportion to their utilisation of the system. In accordance with this provision, OTC has a shareholding in INMARSAT of 1.08% which represents a total investment of approximately $685,000. INMARSAT pays a minimum 14% rate of return on this investment. (2) INMARSAT's purpose is to provide satellites for maritime communications of all kinds including distress and safety communications and public correspondence services. The Organisation operates on accepted commercial principles and to this end seeks to ensure that the charges levied for the use of its services meet all operating costs, including the 14% return on Signatories' investment. The INMARSAT system presently provides communications services to over 3,300 ships worldwide, including 15 from Australia. The services provided by INMARSAT are of very high quality and reliability and the use of the system by Australia has grown at a steady rate. Along with all other major maritime nations, Australia, through OTC, is represented on the INMARSAT Council which meets three time a year to provide executive management for the Organisation. Membership of the Council enables OTC to ensure that INMARSAT gives due consideration to Australia's interests arising from our dependence on sea trade and our commensurate high volume of maritime telecommunications traffic. The INMARSAT system has greatly improved communications facilities at Australia's Antarctic Bases at Casey, Davis and Mawson through the installation of ship terminals at those Bases. In addition, communications facilities have been provided in remote regions of Australia to a number of oil and mineral exploration companies through the use of land-based ship terminals accessing the INMARSAT system. This latter application of the INMARSAT system was initiated by OTC in the INMARSAT Council. (3) The Department of Transport's Federal Sea Safety and Surveillance Centre is not aware of any incidents where rescues in the Australian Search and Rescue Area of Responsibility have been achieved with the aid of INMARSAT system. (4) The satellite communications system provided by INMARSAT is primarily for public correspondence between ships at sea and their owners, agents or other authorities ashore. The system also has a distress and safety communications capability. INMARSAT's present standard ship terminals have an antenna diameter of around 1.0 metre and cost in the vicinity of $A40,000. For these reasons INMARSAT terminals are usually installed on larger vessels; however, there has been a successful installation on an Australian vessel as small as 142 gross tons. INMARSAT is presently in the process of developing smaller, less costly terminals including one small enough and low enough in cost to enable satellite communications to be utilitised by very small vessels. Such a terminal would not be used for commercial purposes but would be able to receive safety-related broadcasts, offer two-way distress alerting communications and provide communications for co-ordination of rescue operations. INMARSAT is working closely with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in the development of the Future Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (FGMDSS) which is scheduled to be introduced in 1990. (Question No. 1017) Mr Nehl asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 May 1985: Has he taken steps to abolish the applicability of sales tax on marine radios and other safety equipment to assist them being installed as standard equipment on all sea-going small boats and non-commercial vessels using Australian waters; if so, what action has he taken; if not, will he consider taking this action. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Certain types of safety equipment that are carried on non-commercial vessels qualify for exemption under provisions not specifically related to ships and their equipment. Among the classes of goods that qualify for exemption are life jackets, fire extinguishers and first aid kits. Safety equipment that is taxable when purchased for use on pleasure craft includes communication equipment and pyrotechnics. In addressing requests for further sales tax exemptions for marine safety equipment, consideration needs to be given to the determination of what might be deemed `safety equipment' the implications for sales tax treatment of similar equipment in uses other than boating, and the revenue involved. In addition, where people choose activities where it is in their own interests to purchase goods to be used for their own protection there is room for the view that they should be prepared to bear the tax on those goods. In the field of boating the tax payable on safety equipment would, generally speaking, be a relatively small proportion of the total capital and running costs incurred. Moreover, where personal safety is involved, simple prudence and self-interest would presumably be the major determinant of whether a person would purchase safety equipment. Where these qualities are lacking, it is questionable whether the lowering of the price of a piece of equipment by the tax involved (assuming that occurred) would be adequate to overcome indifference or negligence. This Government does not see sufficient merit in the case to grant a general exemption for marine safety equipment. (Question No. 1020) Mr Nehl asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 May 1985: (1) What benefits, by type and number of recipients, did the Minister's Department pay up until 7 March 1985 (a) throughout Australia and (b) in the Electoral Division of Cowper. (2) How many recipients of each type of benefit, lost their benefit as a result of the assets test coming into operation (a) throughout Australia and (b) in the Electoral Division of Cowper and how many of the recipients were married. (3) How many of the married recipients of benefits referred to in part 2, prior to the assets test coming into effect, either jointly or singly, were entitled to receive the lost benefits and how many lost their benefits. (4) How many recipients, by each type of benefit, have lost a part of their benefit as a result of the assets test coming into operation (a) throughout Australia and (b) in the Electoral Division of Cowper and how many of the recipients were married. (5) How many recipients, by each class of benefit, who have lost (a) all and (b) part of their benefit, have lost (i) all and (ii) part of their additional fringe benefits as a result of the assets test coming into operation (A) throughout Australia and (B) in the Electoral Division of Cowper. (6) How many recipients, by each class of benefit, who have been affected by the application of the assets test have lodged appeals against the land valuations used in the assets test (a) throughout Australia and (b) in the Electoral Division of Cowper and how many of the appeals have been (i) dealt with and (ii) rejected. (7) How many of the appeals are being dealt with presently, and how many appeals are at each stage of the appeals process (a) throughout Australia and (b) in the Division . (8) How many appeals against the cancellation of a benefit based on his Department objecting to the land valuations used in applying the assets test have been lodged with (a) the Social Security Tribunal and (b) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (i) throughout Australia and (ii) in the Electoral Division of Cowper and how many of these appeals have been upheld or rejected by each Tribunal. (9) What are his Department's criteria in determining the value of land for the purposes of the assets test where no physical inspection of the land is made and what officers make the determinations. (10) What qualifications are required by these officers so that they may make determinations of the value of land for the purposes of the assets test without physical inspection of the land. (11) How many (a) former and (b) current benefit recipients, by each class of benefit, affected by the assets test have lodged hardship applications (i) throughout Australia and (ii) in the Electoral Division of Cowper and how many applications have been (A) dealt with and (B) rejected. (12) How many applications are being dealt with and how many are at each stage of the applications process (a) throughout Australia and (b) in the Division. (13) How many appeals based on the rejection of hardship applications have been lodged with (a) the Social Security Tribunal and (b) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (i) throughout Australia and (ii) in the division and how many appeals have been (A) held up and (B) rejected by each Tribunal. (14) How many of his departmental officers, by division and level, are employed exclusively to administer the assets test and what is the annual cost of salaries and allowances paid to these officers. (15) How many (a) married and (b) single recipients, by type of benefit, at 7 March 1985, had assets valued by the assets test at (i) $100,000 or more, (ii) between $70,000 and $100,000 and (iii) less than $70,000. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (8) and (11) to (13) Relevant statistics for geographical areas smaller than States and Territories are available only by Social Security regions and by postcode districts. Tables showing the number of pensioners whose pension has been reduced and by Postcode districts, have been prepared but are too voluminous for incorporation in Hansard. Statistics for particular postcode districts or Social Security regions can be inspected at the House of Representatives Table Office. (9) and (10) Persons who appear likely to be affected by the assets test are asked to provide details of an asset such as land and to estimate its net market value. These details are referred to professional valuers employed by the Australian Taxation Office for an assessment of the value of the asset. The assessment is made taking into account the information supplied by the pensioner together with other details available in the Australian Taxation Office such as recent sales of land in the area. If the pensioner is dissatisfied with the assessment determined, a review may be sought in which case a professional on-site valuation will be made with the permission of the pensioner. There is no charge to the pensioner for the valuation. (14) Current provisions are for an average of 300 staff to administer the Assets Test during 1985-86. An estimate of the annual cost of salaries and allowances to be paid to these officers, together with their likely classification levels, is provided below. (It is no longer relevant to speak of divisions of the Public Service as the divisional structure was abolished by Public Service Reform legislation which came into operation on 1 July 1984). Classification Number of officers Salaries & Allowances cost $ Clerical Administrative Class 11... 3 125 739 Clerical Administrative Class 9... 5 179 495 Clerical Administrative Class 8... 8 265 824 Clerical Administrative Class 6... 12 336 168 Clerical Administrative Class 5... 196 5 008 780 Clerical Administrative Class 4... 66 1 513 380 Computer Systems Officer Class 3... 1 35 899 Computer Systems Officer Class 2... 4 122 220 Computer Systems Officer Class 1... 1 26 342 Clerical Assistant Class 4... 4 70 824 TOTAL... 300 7 684 671 (15) The following two tables show, by pension type and assets as assessed, those pensioners at 7 March 1985 whose pension was cancelled (Table 1) and not cancelled (Table 2) in the assets test conversion for pay-day 21 March 1985. The figures in Table 2 are estimates based on assets data at 5 April 1985. TABLE 1: PENSIONS CANCELLED Pension type Married (a) Assets over $100,000 Assets Unknown (b) Single Assets over $100,000 Assets Unknown (b) Age (c)... 4,943 9,167 4,340 8,756 Invalid (c)... 353 311 100 89 SEA (c) (d)... 0 0 2 1 RA (c) (e)... 0 2 1 1 Widow Class A... . . . . 112 159 Widow Class B/C... . . . . 195 200 Supporting Parent... . . . . 47 65 (a) Value of assets relates to combined assets of the pensioner and his/her spouse. (b) In these cases, the pensioners ticked the `self cancellation' box on the front of the Statement of Assets form without completing it. Therefore no details of their assets are available. (c) Including Wife Pensioners and Spouse Carer Pensioners. (d) SEA=sheltered employment allowance. (e) RA=rehabilitation allowance. TABLE 2: PENSIONS NOT CANCELLED (ESTIMATED) Pension type Married (a) Assets under $70,000 (b) Assets $70,000 - $100,000 Assets over $100,000 Age (c)... 560,000 29,000 27,000 Invalid (c)... 175,000 4,600 2,900 SEA (c) (d)... 1,100 neg neg RA (c) (e)... 1,500 neg neg Pension type Single Assets under $70,000 (b) Assets $70,000 - $100,000 Assets over $100,000 Age (c)... 719,000 17,000 8,200 Invalid (c)... 147,000 500 200 SEA (c) (d)... 8,800 neg neg RA (c) (e)... 2,600 - neg Widow Class A... 78,000 500 200 Widow Class B/C... 81,000 700 200 Supporting Parent... 159,000 200 100 (a) Value of assets relates to combined assets of the pensioner and his/her spouse. (b) Includes pensioners who have not been required to complete a Statement of Assets form. (c) Including Wife Pensioners and Spouse Carer Pensioners. (d) SEA=sheltered employment allowance. (e) RA=rehabilitation allowance. (Question No. 1040)) Mrs Sullivan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 May 1985: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 1883 (Hansard, 11 October 1984, page 2260), was the permission of the Queen sought and granted in 1959 for the use of the Royal Arms, the Crown of St Edward, on the cover of the Australian passport; if so, why did he state that there is no evidence of such permisison. (2) Has his Department recently sought expert advice on the protocol of removal of the Royal Arms from the passport despite its use having received Royal approval; if so, when was such advice sought, from whom and what advice has been given. (3) Has a decision been made to reinstate the Royal Arms on the cover of the Australian passport; if so, when will these passports be available; if not, why not. (4) Does the Australian Government Publishing Service Style Manual specify that the Royal Arms should not appear subsidiary to any other devices, and that the Commonwealth Arms may be placed in a position other than at the head of printed matter; if so, why did he state that the condition for use of the Commonwealth Arms is that it must be placed above any other heraldic symbol including the Royal Arms. (5) Who advised the Minister representing him in the Senate (Senate Hansard, 11 October 1984, page 1653) that there was no record that Royal approval had ever been obtained for the use of the Royal Crown of St Edward on Australian passports, and that the Passports Committee had noted that the superimposition of the Royal Arms above the Commonwealth Arms did not observe the usages and requirement of protocol and the rules of heraldry. (6) Do the minutes of the Passports Committee contain any record of the committee having discussed this subject; if so, when and what conclusions did it reach. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Permission for the use of the Crown on passports was in fact sought and granted in 1959. In my answer to question No. 1883, I said that proof could not be found that formal permission was originally given for the use of the Crown on the Australian passport. That formal permission has since been found, by my Department, in examination of old files of the Department of Immigration. That information was conveyed to an enquirer under the Freedom of Information Act: it appears that the honourable member has already had access to that material. (2) No. There is no reason why the format of the Australian passport should not be changed if the proper authority considers it appropriate to do so. Authority for such a change lies with the Minister for Foreign Affairs in accordance with sub-section 7(2) of the Passports Act 1938. (3) I have been satisfied that the removal of the Crown was desirable to correct the anomaly created by the appearance of both the Crown and the Coat of Arms of the Commowealth on the cover of the Australian passport, on the basis of expert advice provided to my Department in 1981. (4) The Australian Government Publishing Service Style Manual states: ``The (Royal) Arms should appear only at the head of the page or other printing, should not be used in an undignified way and should not appear subsidiary to other devices in the same work''. The Manual also states: ``The normal practice is to place the Commonwealth Arms at the head of any printed matter with no wording above it. It may be placed in other positions provided that the juxtaposition of the Arms with other printed matter does not detract from its dignity''. Advice provided to my Department in 1981 in respect of usage of the Commonwealth Arms was that: (a) it was an anomaly for the Commonwealth Arms to be surmounted today by any other words and symbols; and (b) the Commonwealth Arms should take precedence and the position of superiority in any representation, so that there could be no implication that the Arms were in any way of inferior status. (5) I did, on the basis of advice from my Department. (6) The minutes of the Passports Committee do not reflect its consideration of the point, but I am advised that the proposal that the Crown be removed from the cover of Australian passports was in fact endorsed by the Committee. (Question No. 1124 and Question No. 1125) Mr Wright asked the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 15 May 1985: (1) With respect to the labelling of pesticides and other hazardous products, in particular household chemicals, will he promote the concept of uniform laws on labelling at the next meeting with his State counterparts. (2) Will he give consideration to having labels on such products used in the home, carry (a) strongly worded warnings, (b) simple warning symbols (c) adequate first-aid advice and (d) additional usage information, especially as that information relates to first-aid advice for country people who are unable to ``seek medical assistance if swallowed''. Dr Blewett —As Minister for Health I provide the following answer to the honourable member's questions: The honourable member has asked identical questions of both the Attorney-General and me, as indicated by the above question numbers. With the concurrence of the Attorney-General, I provide the following answer to the honourable member's questions: (1) The National Health and Medical Research Council through its Poison Schedule Committee publishes recommendations for uniform labelling of pesticides and other hazardous chemicals. The States and Territories who are represented on this Committee, may then take up these recommendations into their respective legislations. This mechanism has resulted in considerable uniformity in labelling practices throughout Australia. The Poison Schedule Committee provides the means for achieving wider uniformity and I see no immediate need to raise the matter in a Ministerial forum as suggested by the honourable member. (2) The Uniform Poisons Standard included in its schedules all chemicals that are sufficiently hazardous to warrant specialised labelling and packaging. Scheduled chemicals are already required to carry strongly worded warnings, and adequate first-aid advice. Advice to ``seek medical assistance if swallowed'' is usually given when the necessary antidotal measures require resources only available at medical facilities. Simple first-aid measures eg ``induce vomiting'', are always given where they are appropriate. Importantly, country and city people can seek medical advice by telephone at all times from the Poisons Information Centres network located in all States and Territories. The Sub-Committee does keep and will continue to keep the matter of labelling under review so that its schedules reflect current wisdom. (Question No. 1155) Mr Price asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 16 May 1985: (1) Do formal procedures exist for the handling of Ministerial representations in the Minister's Department and statutory authorities for which the Minister is responsible; if so, (a) what are the titles of the instructions and when were they issued and (b) are target times provided (i) formally or (ii) informally; if so, what are they. (2) Is the performance with which representations are dealt with monitored; if so, what was the percentage of representations that met their targets in 1985, to 16 May. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Formal procedures for the handling of Ministerial representations are contained in a departmental handbook, ``Ministerial and Parliamentary Procedures Handbook'', which is circulated throughout the portfolio (The Department of Education, the Commonwealth Schools Commission (CSC), the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC) and the ACT Schools Authority (ACTSA) ). The handbook was introduced several years ago. In addition the ACTSA issued in August 1982 ``Correspondence Procedures: A Guide to the Handling and Preparation of Correspondence'', (b) (i) All replies to representations are required to be submitted to the Minister's Office within 28 days of receipt in the portfolio, with priority to be given to correspondence received from Commonwealth Parliamentarians. Replies considered urgent by the Minister's Office are required to be submitted to the Office within 14 days of receipt in the portfolio, or earlier if otherwise specified. (2) The processing of Ministerial representations is monitored and a weekly list of overdue replies is produced and circulated within the portfolio. It is not possible however to provide the percentage of representations that met their targets in 1985 to 16 May because of the limited range of statistics kept. (Question No. 1161) Mr Price asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 16 May 1985: (1) Do formal procedures exist for the handling of Ministerial representations in the Minister's Department and statutory authorities for which the Minister is responsible; if so, (a) what are the titles of the instructions and when were they issued and (b) are target times provided (i) formally or (ii) informally; if so, what are they. (2) Is the performance with which representations are dealt with monitored; if so, what was the percentage of representations that met their targets in 1985, to 16 May. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. ``Liaison with the Minister's Office'' issued 24 December 1984. (b) Yes-formally. A 28 day turnaround target by 30 October 1985 has been set. (2) Performance is being monitored but no details of the percentage of representations meeting the target are available. (Question No. 1222) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) What action has he taken to ensure that work resumes at Mudginberri Buffalo Works, Northern Territory, following its closure as a result of the meat inspectors refusing to cross a 4-man picket line mounted by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. (2) It is a fact that the picket line was mounted in response to the meat inspectors wishing to work in accordance with the judgement of 2 May 1985, by the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In an endeavour to assist the resolution of the dispute between the Meat and Allied Trades Federation (MATFA) and the National Farmers Federation (NFF) on the one hand and the AMIEU on the other I met seperately with representatives of AMIEU and NFF. At the former meeting a representative of the Meat Inspectors Association (MIA) whose members are employees of my Department was also present. In addition to those meetings my Department also had meetings with NFF and MIA, and was involved in two Conciliation and Arbitration Commission hearings on this matter. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and I also endeavoured to bring all the parties together for discussions but this was unsuccessful as the employers declined to attend. It must be realised that these endeavours have been made in an atmosphere of deteriorating relationships between the parties to the dispute and while the employers were taking action through the Federal Court, under section 45 of the Trade Practices Act against the AMIEU and MIA. In addition the employers also took action in the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act against myself and certain of my Departmental officers seeking a review of a decision by my Departmental officers not to appoint persons not members of the MIA to perform export inspection duties at Mudginberri. That action was not successful. The Government's efforts have however, resulted in the AMIEU lodging an application with the Commission on 27 August, 1985. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has stated that before the Commission considers this matter the picket line will need to be lifted. (2) No. Meat Inspectors are not a party to the judgement you have mentioned. The picket line was set up by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union which is a party to that award. (Question No. 1249) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsie employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed, (b) for what purpose, (c) what working plan was given to them, (d) what was the cost of their services, (e) when did their services commence and finish, and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a)-(f) see table below. MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY-CONSULTANTS EMPLOYED SINCE MARCH 1983 (a) Who has been employed (b) For what purpose (c) What working plan was given to them (d) What was the cost of their services (e) When did their services commence and finish (f) Was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount $ Coopers and Lybrand Chartered Accountants, Sydney To complete the analysis and preliminary design phases in the systems development life cycle of and intergrated audit facility for the Department A working plan was developed and agreed to prior to the commencement of the task. Plan covered -duration of task -aims -method of reporting -specific reporting times -working arrangements -deliverables 22,600 7.5.84-15.6.84 No Arthur Anderson and Co, Sydney To review the Department's Data Base enviroment and establish an Audit package to enable the Department to conduct future reviews A working plan was developed and agreed to prior to the commencement of the task. Plan covered -duration of task -aims -method of reporting -specific reporting times -working arrangements -deliverables 32,200 5.5.85-14.6.85 No Arthur Anderson and Co, Sydney To review the Department's Mainframe (Armdahl) software environment and establish a package to enable the Department to conduct future reviews A working plan was developed and agreed to prior to the commencement of the task. Plan covered -duration of task -aims -method of reporting -specific reporting times -working arrangements -deliverables 29,000 4.6.85-7.8.85 No Chris Richards Canberra CAE Consultation/Negotiation skills course for Facilities Planning Staff The consultant was provided with a brief on the establishment and role of the Facilities Planning Section 2,240 15.11.84-16.11.84 Yes: $90 Des Thwaites &Assoc P/L Prepare and present workshop in Project Management for Facilities Planning Staff The consultant was provided with a brief on the establishment and role of the Facilities Planning Section 3,500.00 26.11.84-28.11.84 Yes-$91 PA Consulting Services To conduct 2 residential Management Improvement Workshops Briefing at Senior Management &Branch Head level 11,093.67 13-17.2.84 26-30.3.84 No Slade Consulting Group P/L To develop and manage a Senior Management Training Program Extensive written &oral briefing 13,719.00 29.10.84-22.2.85 (part-time totalling 20 days) No Computer Power P/L To develop a project management package Extensive oral briefing 6,500.00 Various days Dec. 83-Apr. 84 No Computer People Pty Ltd Assist in the development of new on-line systems In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles &selection criteria were also provided if applicable 21,477.04 62,896.50 22,765.38 104,760.34 21,609.64 17.3.83-22.9.83 28.3.83-24.3.84 5.4.83-29.9.83 5.4.83-20.8.84 7.4.83-26.8.83 No No No No No Computer People P/L Assist in the development of new on-line systems In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles &selection criteria were also provided if applicable 89,482.46 10,735.64 66,765.56 67,409.00 50,494.00 50,098.49 63,390.21 77,868.54 26,000.00 67,820.00 28,080.00 7.4.83-22.8.84 18.4.83-29.7.83 16.5.83-17.7.84 23.5.83-17.7.84 30.5.83-25.5.84 30.5.83-17.7.84 6.6.83-1.6.84 8.7.83-30.8.84 8.8.83-15.2.84 5.9.83-31.8.84 5.9.83-6.3.84 No No No No No No No No No No No Computer People P/L Assist in the development of new on-line systems In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles &selection criteria were also provided if applicable 69,176.42 17,680.00 65,636.38 66,811.72 35,868.50 80,258.00 65,554.00 60,688.81 77,456.50 70,842.00 Est 64,404.00 13.9.83-7.9.84 3.10.83-30.12.83 10.10.83-5.10.84 3.1.84-1.12.84 23.1.84-20.7.84 9.1.84-4.1.85 16.3.84-15.3.85 6.2.84-10.2.85 25.5.84-28.6.85 15.6.84-29.3.85 9.7.84 No No No No No No No No Yes-$332.95 No Computer People P/L Assist in the development of new on-line systems In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles &selection criteria were also provided if applicable Est 79,464.00 Est 67,424.00 Est 86,434.00 Est 72,379.40 Est 37,686.25 Est 54,300.00 Est 35,000.00 Est 67,184.00 Est 69,160.00 18.7.84 18.7.84 21.8.84 23.8.84 8.9.84-8.3.85 22.10.84 2.1.85 11.2.85 9.3.85 No Assist in the design and development of the data base In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles selection criteria were also provided if applicable 122,124.00 87,709.62 Est 78,847.00 85,203.00 7.3.84-4.6.85 14.11.83-18.11.84 19.11.84 28.3.84-26.3.85 No No No Computer People P/L Assist in the design and development of the data base In all cases the agency was provided with the descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles &selection criteria were also provided if applicable Est 73,684.00 18.7.84 Assist in the design and implementation of Wang communications software In all cases the agency was provided with the descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles &selection criteria were also provided if applicable 24,680.0 89,283.00 60,704.31 74,169.00 77,539.78 24,383.64 57,584.60 57,548.05 83,339.00 Est 89,669.00 13.1.84 12.4.84 28.2.84 8.4.85 2.2.84 30.1.85 20.3.84 1.4.85 26.4.84 24.4.85 26.4.84 30.7.84 16.7.84 24.2.85 14.6.84 12.6.85 18.6.84 14.6.85 6.8.84 No No No No No No No No No Computer People P/L Assist in the design and implementation of Wang communications software In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles &selection criteria were also provided if applicable Est 84,988.00 Est 83,200.00 Est 67,156.00 Est 79,040.00 78,936.75 77,936.80 71,301.25 102,602,80 Est 69,160.00 Est 67,184.00 Est 79,040.00 Est 79,040.00 4.9.84 1.11.84 16.3.85 25.2.85 24.10.83 31.10.84 5.9.83 21.9.84 9.9.83 30.8.84 12.9.83 12.10.84 27.3.85 6.4.85 9.4.85 25.4.85 No No No No Computer People P/L Assist in the development of new mainframe software In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles &selection criteria were also provided if applicable 47,918.00 69,721.00 53,191.00 66,865.00 67,118.00 83,627.60 Est 69,160.00 3.1.84 2.7.84 26.1.84 24.1.85 8.3.84 5.4.85 4.6.84 31.5.85 12.6.84 10.6.85 9.7.84 5.7.85 1.6.85 No No No No No No Assist in the identification and development of security programs In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles &selection criteria were also provided if applicable 1,290.50 67,816.00 81,163.31 72,011.70 56,820.80 38,637.00 Est 66,880.00 Est 26,400.00 14.3.83 13.4.83 22.8.83 8.4.85 22.8.83 26.8.84 19.9.83 28.9.84 19.12.83 21.12.84 27.8.84 24.2.85 25.2.85 9.4.85 No No No No No No Computer Sciences of Australia Assist in the design and development of the data base In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles &selection criteria were also provided if applicable 68,280.96 16.9.83 3.10.84 No Assist in the development of new mainframe software 91,951.00 Est 55,945.00 26.3.84 10.1.85 11.1.85 No Disc International Pty Ltd Assist in the development of new on-line systems In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles &selection criteria were also provided if applicable 53,040.99 82,764.87 28,348.16 73,271.50 80,401.56 24,332.63 4,626.60 31.10.83 5.9.84 3.1.84 31.12.84 30.4.84 19.10.84 21.4.83 18.4.84 22.8.83 17.8.84 22.8.83 4.11.83 31.8.84 21.9.84 No No No No No No No Disc International P/L Assist in the design and development of the data base In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles and selection criteria were also provided if applicable 61,364.50 1.7.83-13.7.84 No Assist in the identification and development of security programs 35,438.64 27,592.73 Est 49,210.00 26.3.84-14.10.84 15.10.84-12.4.85 13.4.85 No No EDP Contractors Pty Ltd Assist in the development of new on-line systems In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles and selection criteria were also provided if applicable 62,137.00 64,034.04 78,323.79 64,277.00 15,945.27 28,662.24 Est 59,536.88 2.5.83-4.6.84 25.7.83-26.8.84 25.7.83-17.8.84 5.6.84-3.6.85 20.8.84-9.10.84 27.8.84-5.4.85 6.4.85 No No No No No No Idaps People Pty Ltd Assist in the development of new on-line systems In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles and selection criteria were also provided if applicable 39,827.40 55,723.65 59,400.00 66,989.20 63,643.90 15,600.00 90,377.00 63,433.42 63,398.41 45,413.59 69,365.61 37,969.05 31,164.80 59,923.00 33,418.85 18.4.83-23.12.83 18.4.83-13.4.84 26.5.83-24.1.84 5.9.83-31.8.84 12.9.83-7.9.84 20.10.83-30.1.84 1.12.83-28.11.84 3.1.84-28.10.84 9.1.84-5.1.85 9.1.84-21.8.84 23.1.84-18.1.85 25.1.84-3.8.84 31.1.84-2.8.84 31.1.84-28.1.85 31.1.84 3.8.84 No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Idaps People Pty Ltd Assist in the development of new on-line systems In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles and selection criteria were also provided if applicable 36,074.43 69,451.50 78,673.00 Est 83,332.00 Est 89,520.00 Est 84,783.00 48,906.72 34,623.71 28,633.11 36,984.00 44,448.92 38,216.00 Est 61,330.00 Est 51,840.00 Est 34,600.00 1.2.84-28.8.84 3.2.84-31.1.85 5.3.84-4.3.85 22.5.84 3.8.84 3.8.84 20.8.84-16.2.85 20.8.84-16.2.85 29.8.84-13.1.85 17.9.84-14.3.85 17.9.84-5.4.85 15.10.84-26.4.85 29.10.84 29.11.84 6.1.85 No No No No No No No No No Idaps People Pty Ltd Assist in the identification and development of security programs Assist in the design and development of the data base In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles and selection criteria were also provided if applicable Est 35,984.00 Est 40,684.00 Est 29,064.00 Est 24,000.00 Est 68,369.60 Est 31,190.40 Est 68,369.60 Est 19,721.80 Est 85,363.20 76,316.31 53,707.85 Est 60,128.00 14.1.85 19.1.85 1.2.85 4.2.85 17.2.85 17.2.85 3.3.85 15.3.85 7.4.85 1.9.83-7.9.84 12.9.83-30.11.84 1.12.84 No No Idaps People Pty Ltd Assist in the design and implementation of Wang communications software In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles and selection criteria were also provided if applicable 72,297.30 61,155.53 65,982.29 31,900.00 97,455.00 11,949.38 Est 98,856.00 Est 68,370.00 Est 61,850.00 15.8.83 26.8.84 22.8.83 17.8.84 19.9.83 16.10.84 14.11.83 11.5.84 1.2.84 29.1.85 15.6.84 9.8.84 30.1.85 15.3.85 1.4.85 No No No No No No Assist in the development of new mainframe software 70,375.53 26,872.50 38,334.00 Est 68,369.60 26.9.83 12.10.84 1.8.83 27.1.84 12.10.84 11.4.85 8.4.85 No No No Inuka Pty Ltd Assist in the development of new on-line systems In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles and selection criteria were also provided if applicable 1,100.00 1.7.84 31.7.84 No Kami Pty Ltd Assist in the design and implementation of Wang communication software In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles and selection criteria were also provided if applicable Est211,298.00 143,820.00 21.5.84 18.6.84 Koranya Data Base Intelligence Assist in the development of new on-line systems In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles and selection criteria were also provided if applicable 76,736.18 12.12.83 22.2.85 No Assist in the design and development of the data base 89,986.39 72,870.89 58,262.16 Est 86,242.00 86,412.00 26.9.83 19.10.84 12.12.83 16.12.84 22.6.84 5.1.85 17.12.84 6.1.85 No No No Kurrawang Computer Programming Assist in the development of new on-line systems In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles and selection criteria were also provided if applicable 74,640.00 57,436.94 Est 63,780.00 Est 58,212.96 Est 26,980.00 6.2.84 16.2.85 5.3.84 31.1.85 27.8.84 1.2.85 17.2.85 No No Assist in the development of new mainframe software 49,780.00 57,819.86 55,365.60 30,600.00 87,417.84 26.4.83 23.4.84 16.5.83 21.5.84 23.6.83 14.6.84 1.8.83 24.2.84 12.10.83 23.1.85 No No No No No LOGICA Pty Limited Assist in the development of new on-line systems In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles and selection criteria were also provided if applicable 36,715.86 26,385.12 5.3.84 28.9.84 1.10.84 29.3.85 No No Assist in the design and development of the data base 79,062.23 10,218.94 Est 69,221.20 11.7.83 30.9.84 31.10.84 23.3.84 1.10.84 Parity People Pty Ltd Assist in the development of new on-line systems In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles and selection criteria were also provided if applicable 64,466.24 70,785.00 Est 71,068.00 Est 50,340.00 Est 34,585.00 19.12.83 18.12.84 5.1.84 2.1.85 30.7.84 19.12.84 3.1.85 No No Assist in the design and developoment of the data base 87,592.80 89,000.29 64,284.40 87,121.00 Est 77,792.00 Est 77,792.04 73,902.40 2.5.83 27.4.84 19.9.83 16.12.84 23.1.84 19.1.85 1.6.84 30.5.85 20.1.85 17.12.85 31.5.85 No No No No Assist in the design and implementation of Wang communications software 62,794.04 20.3.84 18.3.85 No Parity People Pty Ltd Assist in the development of new mainframe software 37,096.00 Est 65,702.00 Est 73,902.40 19.11.84 17.5.85 3.5.85 18.5.85 No Systems Control Programming Assist in the design and implementation of Wang communications software In all cases the agency was provided with task descriptions and completion date required. Position profiles &selection criteria were also provided if applicable 63,578.88 16.1.84 27.7.84 No Assist in the development of new mainframe software 42,800.00 140,045.45 Est 101,758.00 Est 144,248.00 15.12.83 28.6.84 14.5.84 12.5.85 13.7.84 13.5.85 No No SPL Australia Pty Ltd Assist in the development of new mainframe software 57,638.00 4.10.83 21.4.84 No. Assist in the design and development of the data base 71,278.00 30.4.84 26.4.85 No Koranya Review Mission 1 Consultants were provided with detailed task descriptions and plans Est 23,720.00 13.5.85 W. D. Scott Report to the Minister for Social Security on implementation of the STRATPLAN project Consultants were provided with detailed task descriptions and plans 45,583.79 Feb 84 No Jack Cohen &Ass. Review the use of Contract Analysts/Programmers and Consultants Consultants were provided with detailed task descriptions and plans 17,956.20 12.11.84 15.1.85 Yes $206.20 SRI Co-ordinate all Technical Developments (STRATPLAN) Consultants were provided with detailed task descriptions and plans 281,615.63 30.1.84 No Esticom Mapps Software Diagnosis Consultants were provided with detailed task descriptions and plans 1,000.00 July 84 No Astech Network Design Consultants were provided with detailed task descriptions and plans 33,721.25 12.2.85 No Peter Reid, Bato Reid Investment Bank Financial adviser for Direct Credit Project A detailed plan was provided outlining specific questions requiring answers 9,599.48 13 days 12.12.83-9.4.85 No Keith Windschuttle University of NSW Research &develop proposal on the Department's services to clients in remote areas Briefing plan was discussed and arranged verbally 1,000 23.4.85-3.5.85 No Inview P/L Conduct research groups with current clients on age pensions in regard to Direct Credit System A brief was provided containing-background information-objectives-timing-scope 35,000 13.9.84-19.10.84 No Inview P/L Conduct research groups with current clients on unemployment or sickness benefits in regard to Direct Credit System A brief was provided containing-background information-objectives-timing-scope 29,000 18.2.85-22.3.85 No Lenehan, Lynton Bloom P/L Conduct a Survey involving pretesting of assets test forms and information Oral and written briefs were provideed 12,200 Dec 83-Jan 84 No Lenehan, Lynton Bloom P/L Pre-testing of asset test forms Oral and written briefs were provided 10,750 Aug 84-Sept 84 Yes, $2,750 Reark Research P/L Conduct a Telephone survey re Assets Test Oral request for telephone survey to gauge awareness of assets test among persons of age pension age 2,850 Aug 83-1week No Davis Sless (Flinders University) Critically analyse Assets Test form Oral brief was provided 600 7.8.84-15.8.84 No Prof R. D. Eagleson (Sydney University) Critically analyse Direct Deposit invitation form 344 22.11.84-23.11.84 No (Question No. 1303) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department or any statutory authority for which the Minister is responsible have in place a program under which organisations may apply for funding; if so, what are they. (2) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an information paper entitled `Issues in 1984-85 Grant in Aid (GIA) Assessment' distributed by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in particular the suggestion that large and established ethnic community organisations who in the past have received support from the Grant In Aid Program of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs are now expected to apply for funding from main stream sources. (3) What special provision has been made to ensure that in consideration of applications, appropriate and sensitive consideration is given to the special needs of migrant organisations and their so-called established ethnic organisations are placed in a position to compete equitably for any funds made available under programs through the Minister's Department or related agencies. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department has in place the following programs under which organisations may apply for funding:- Medical Research Endowment Fund (administered on my behalf by the National Health and Medical Research Council). National Community Health Program. Family Planning Program. Health Services Research and Development Grants Program. The ACT Health Authority provides direct financial assistance for certain organisations providing health care services that are closely related to the Authority's own services. (2) Yes. (3) The Government is committed to ensuring all Australians have access to health services as evidenced by the extensive use of multilingual information in relation to Medicare. All applications for grants, including those from ethnic organisations, are considered on their merits in relation to the objectives and criteria of the above programs. My Department has a Migrant Health Unit in recognition of the needs in this area and is liaising with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to ensure the needs of the migrant community are taken into account in programs administered by my Department. (Question No. 1423) Mr Rocher asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: Are members of the Australian Builders Labourers Federated Union of Workers (BLF) employed on work for the new Parliament House being paid the 2.6% increase granted to other unionists from the first full pay period after 6 April 1985; if so, (a) what criteria were applied to override Mr Justice Alley's decision to preclude BLF members from receiving the increase, (b) from what date has the increase effectively been paid and (c) what is the estimated extra cost to the project, arising out of payment of the increase to members of the BLF. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Members of the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation (BLF) have been paid the 2.6% National Wage Case increase from the first full pay period after 6 April 1985. The increase was paid pursuant to a variation of the Builders Labourers (ACT) Award 1982 by Commissioner J. Lear of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The variation was made following an undertaking by the ACT Branch of the BLF to abide by the National Wage Case principles laid down by the Commission. At that time the National Secretariat of the BLF would not give Mr Justice Alley such an undertaking. The cost of the award increase to the new Parliament House project was approximately $136,000 for the period 9 April 1985 to 13 August 1985. (Question No. 1428) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: Have there been any objections from any anti-nuclear organisations to the proposed construction of a cyclotron to produce radioactive isotopes at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, N.S.W. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am not aware of any objections from anti-nuclear organisations to the proposed establishment of a medical cyclotron facility at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, N.S.W. (Question No. 1429) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) How many pharmaceutical benefit prescriptions were dispensed for (a) the general public, (b) holders of Pensioner Health Benefit Cards and (c) holders of other concessional benefits (excluding Veterans' Affairs benefits) in (i) 1970-71, (ii) 1974-75, (iii) 1978-79, (iv) 1982-83 and (v) 1984-85. (2) What was the estimated number of people involved in each category in each of those years. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) General Public (Million) P.H.B. Cardholders (Million) *Conces- sional Benefici- aries (Million) 1970-71... 49.0 22.5 . . 1974-75... 67.4 30.3 . . 1978-79... 53.6 39.4 . . 1982-83... 50.1 52.5 2.9 t1984-85... 50.7 60.1 10.0 (2) General Public (Million) P.H.B. Cardholders (Million) *Conces- sional Benefici- aries (Million) 1970-71... 11.5 1.3 . . 1974-75... 12.2 1.5 . . 1978-79... 12.6 1.7 . . 1982-83... 11.4 2.2 1.8 1984-85... 11.4 2.3 1.9 * Concessional pharmaceutical benefits arrangements were introduced in January 1983. Previously this group which include the unemployed and low income earners were included under `General Public'. (Question No. 1439) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other Government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Graduate Recruitment Campaigns (conducted annually); and Secretarial/Keyboard Recruitment Campaign (1984). (2) No. (3) (a) (i) Quantum Ideas Bureau Pty Ltd (ii) OmniGraphic Pty Ltd (iii) Hobson Press (Australia) Pty Ltd (iv) Gordon and Gotch Ltd (b) (i) $7,045.85 (ii) $14,219.00 (iii) $4,658.13 (iv) $35,356.16 (4) (a) (i) 1983 Graduate Recruitment Campaign-$17,929.38 (ii) 1984 Graduate Recruitment Campaign-$19,053.00 (iii) 1985 Graduate Recruitment Campaign-$24,164.85 (iv) 1986 Graduate Recruitment Campaign-$1,903.13 (as at 10.9.85) (v) Secretarial/Keyboard Recruitment Campaign-$288.00 Note: The above costs include $2,059.22 incurred directly by the Department in addition to the amounts paid to the advertising agencies referred to in Part 3 (b) of this Question. (b) There were no agency fees involved in any of the recruitment campaigns. (Question No. 1495) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: 1. What brands of computer or ADP hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. 2. For each major system (a) what is its principal function, (b) when was it installed, (c) what was the hardware cost, (d) what is its anticipated life and (e) what action is being taken in relation to its replacement. 3. Is any major system shared with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Hurford —The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Separate responses have been prepared for: (i) The Department of Finance; (ii) The Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office; and (iii) The Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. (i) Department of Finance (A) The Central Processing System comprises- Amdahl central processor Amdahl disk sub-system National Advanced Systems disk sub-system IBM impact and laser printers IBM tape drives and tape controllers Amdahl communications processor IBM communications processor IBM terminal equipment Raytheon terminal equipment Facit terminals Tektronix plotter Bell and Howell microfiche processor DEC Visual Display Unit Bruning microfiche collator and duplicator Aris II microfiche processor (B) The Network System comprises- DEC processors and peripheral equipment Kenelec hard-copy terminals Transdata data entry sets DEC data entry sets Facit data entry sets (C) The Word Processing System comprises- Wang processors and peripheral equipment Wang word processing terminals (D) The Personal Computing Sub System comprises- IBM micro-computers Compaq micro-computers Hewlett-Packard plotters NEC printers Telecom computerphones (E) The Network Re-development System comprises- Nixdorf processors and peripheral equipment Systems Technology protocol converters 2(a) (A) Central Processing System The provision of facilities to support the Department's main functions which are: analysis and evaluation of government expenditure and human resource budgeting proposals and the integration of financial and staffing management control and monitoring facilities; preparation of forward estimates of expenditure and of the Budget and associated appropriation legislation; administration of the public account and provision of ADP accounting services to Government departments; conduct of government superannuation schemes; and administration of certain government expenditure programs. These facilities are provided by the following departmentally-developed computer systems: Finance Ledger System PAY system General Payments System Cheque Reconciliation System Staffing Monitor System Estimates System. (B) Network System The collection, editing and transmission of payroll and ledger related data to the Central Processing System, cheque writing and reporting. (C) Wang Word Processing System Word Processing. (D) Personal Computing Stand-alone decision support systems using such facilities as spreadsheets and graphics. (E) Network Redevelopment system The redevelopment of the Network System. (b) (A) The Department first acquired a central processing facility in 1974. Since then, the system has been upgraded as the Department's processing requirements have changed. The current Amdahl processor was installed in June 1985, the Amdahl disk sub-system in February 1985, the National Advanced Systems disk sub-system in 1979, the IBM tape drives in 1974 and 1979, the IBM impact printers in 1974 (2) and 1979 (1), the IBM Laser printer in 1984, and the Amdahl communications processor in 1985. The Bell and Howell microfiche equipment was installed in 1981 and the Aris II microfiche equipment was installed in 1984. The installation of terminal equipment commenced in 1974 with the acquisition of program development terminals and has intensified over the last two years as computing facilities have been extended to user (non-ADP) areas of the Department. (B) The installation of the Network System commenced in 1974 with a programme to install data collection and enquiry control processors in each Regional Office. (C) The Department's first Wang System was installed in April 1981. That system is currently being used as a back-up system to the present system which was installed in February 1985. (D) The installation of micro-computers commenced in 1983 and is continuing. (E) The equipment for the re-development of the Network System was installed in 1984. (c) A. CENTRAL PROCESSING SYSTEM...$7,535,397 Amdahl central processor...2,995,955 Amdahl disk sub-system...217,000 National Advanced Systems disk sub-system...1,063,355 IBM printers...669,182 IBM tapes...307,000 Amdahl communications processor...155,000 IBM communications-processor (on lease) Terminals and printers...1,658,017 Tektronix plotter...6,348 Microfiche equipment...463,540 B. NETWORK...$1,971,265 DEC processors and peripherals...1,184,000 Kenelec Teletype terminals...472,613 Transdata data entry sets...240,000 DEC data entry sets...24,000 Facit data entry sets...50,652 C. WANG WORD PROCESSING...$1,235,000 D. PERSONAL COMPUTING...$407,551 IBM micro-computers...239,715 Compaq micro-computers...23,164 Hewlett-Packard plotters...23,504 NEC printers...63,518 Telecom computerphones...57,650 E. NETWORK RE-DEVELOPMENT...$660,078 Nixdorf processors and peripherals...613,512 System Technology protocol converters...46,566 (This equipment has passed `preliminary acceptance tests' only.) (d) In general terms, ADP equipment has an anticipated life of 5 to 10 years. It is sometimes necessary to dispose of equipment which, although economically viable, no longer has the capacity to perform the functions required of it. This equipment is either redeployed to other government agencies or disposed of in the second-hand commercial market in accordance with government procedures. (A) An analysis of the current and projected work loads on the central processor indicate that an upgrade may be required within the next 18 months and that another upgrade may be required in 1988-89. The tape sub system, although substantially refurbished, is now over 10 years old and is becoming unreliable and expensive to maintain. The IBM impact printers of similar age have also neared the end of their economic life. (B) The Network System has reached the end of its economic life. (C) The Wang Word processing system has an anticipated life of at least 6 years. (D) The Department's micro-computers have an anticipated life of 5 years. Technological advances in the micro-computer area are being monitored and may result in the replacement of existing micro-computer facilities in less than 5 years. (E) The Nixdorf equipment currently used for the redevelopment of the Network system and additional Nixdorf equipment to be purchased over the next two years to replace the existing DEC based system is estimated to have a life of from 5 to 8 years. (e) The Department conducts an ongoing computer capacity planning programme to ensure that the computer capacity available to it is and will remain sufficient to process the work expected of it. This and other espects of its computer facilities management apply to all of the major computing systems and form the background to the following specific actions. (A) A review of Departmental requirements and a survey of equipment now available on the commercial market are under way with a view to eventual supplementation and/or replacement of the magnetic tape and impact printer equipment. Replacement or modification of some older disk equipment is being considered as part of expansion proposals for the disk sub-system. (B) A contract was recently awarded to Nixdorf for the supply of computer systems to replace the existing DEC-based network and system development is under way. The DEC equipment will be phased out from the beginning of 1986 and should be completely replaced by the end of 1987. (C) Nil (D) Nil (E) Nil 3. The facilities of the Central Processing system are utilised by the following external users: (i) The Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office (AGRBO) * production processing of systems for Superannuation and DFRB contributions and payments applications * program development (ii) The Treasury * economic analysis and planning (iii) Office of the Insurance Commissioner * statistical analysis of insurance company returns (iv) The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet * economic modelling and related system development (v) The Economic Planning Advisory Council (EPAC) * macro-economic planning of the Australian economy (vi) Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) * analysis of economic developments in Australia and abroad and undertaking studies of specific Australian industries (vii) Australian Bureau of Statistics * economic analysis. (viii) Australian Government Retirement Benefits Office (AGBRO) 1. (A) DEC minicomputers and peripheral equipment (B) Wang word processing system (C) Wordplex word processing system (D) Nixdorf processors and peripheral equipment (E) Raytheon terminal equipment (F) IBM micro-computer (G) Apple micro-computers 2. (a) (A) The DEC minicomputers are used for the collection and editing of Superannuation data for transmission to the Department of Finance central processor as well as a Registry File Location System. (B) The Wang equipment is used for word processing. (C) The Wordplex equipment is used for word processing. (D) The Nixdorf equipment is used for the redevelopment of those systems currently run on the DEC minicomputers. (E) The Raytheon terminal equipment (attached to the Department of Finance central processor is used for program development and job submission and control. (F) and (G) The IBM and Apple micro-computers are used for ADP system documentation and project scheduling. (b) (A) The DEC equipment was installed in 1974 and additional peripheral equipment added from that time until 1984. (B) The Wang equipment was installed in 1980 and 1981. (C) The Wordplex equipment was installed in 1980 and 1981. (C) The Wordplex equipment was installed in 1985. (E) The Raytheon terminal equipment was installed in 1984. (F) and (G) The IBM and Apple micro-computers were installed in 1984. (c) (A) $177,600 (B) $81,026 (C) $117,237 (D) $171,660 (E) $75,000 (F) and (G) $22,120 (d) (A) The DEC minicomputers will reach the end of their economic life in 1985. (B) The Wang word processing system will reach the end of its life in 1985. (C) The Wordplex word processing system has an anticipated life of at least 5 years. (D) The Nixdorf processors have an anticipated life of from 5 to 8 years. (E) The Raytheon terminal equipment has an anticipated life of 5 years. (F) and (G) The Apple and IBM micro-computers have an anticipated life of 5 years. (e) (A) Nixdorf equipment has recently been acquired to replace the function of the DEC Minicomputers. Systems re-development is currently under way. (B) The Wordplex word processing system has been acquired to replace the Wang word processing system and the Wang equipment is gradually being phased out. (C) Nil (D) Nil (E) Nil (F) and (G) Nil 3. No. (iii) Superannuation Fund Investment Trust 1. (A) The HP3000 System comprises-Hewlett-Packard processor and peripheral equipment (B) The Personal Computing System comprises-IBM micro-computers; Hewlett-Packard portable micro computer; Hewlett-Packard printers; Toshiba printers; IBM graphics printer; Hewlett-Packard plotter 2. (a) (A) The HP3000 System-The provision of accounting and fixed interest investment data. (B) The Personal Computing system-Word processing and spreadsheet and database applications. (b) (A) The major installation date of HP3000 was November 1982. There have been upgrades and additions since then. (B) The installation of micro-computers commenced in 1983 and is continuing. (c) (A) $182,587 (B) $279,568 (d) (A) The Hewlett-Packard equipment is anticipated to be in use for at least another 2 to 3 years. (B) The anticipated life of micro-computers is around 4 to 5 years. (e) (A) Following recent government decisions on the Trust's structure and operations, action has been initiated to develop a new strategic plan for the provision of the Trust's information systems requirements. This will encompass a review of hardware requirements. (B) While it is expected that the current machines will not be replaced for a number of years, there is a policy of upgrading the capabilities of the machines as technology improves. This generally entails trading-in existing components for new ones. 3. No.