Wednesday, 13 November 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.01) —I move: That so much of standing order 48A, as amended by sessional order, be suspended as would prevent (a) Mr Speaker proposing the question That the House do now adjourn at 10.15 p.m.; (b) Mr Speaker interrupting the debate at 11 p.m., and (c) a Minister requiring that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m., on each Wednesday, for the remainder of this period of sitting. This will allow the Parliament to take up the time that we would normally have set aside on Wednesday evenings over the next three weeks. It merely gives the Parliament another four and a half hours sitting time. I know that members opposite are very excited about the opportunity to spend a bit more time in Parliament. Mr Cadman —Worst Leader of the House we have ever seen. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member will have to work a lot harder to get rid of me. I will be sitting here for a long time. This is the most preferable of all the options that are available when the Parliament is looking for additional time to sit to cover the business we have before us over the next three weeks. I tried to indicate to the Manager of Opposition Business, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), the amount of legislation that would be coming before us in this three-week period. It is the intention of the Government that that legislation should pass. This merely requires that the Parliament sit on each of the Wednesday nights that are available to us. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.03) —The Leader of the House (Mr Young) is long on his instincts for survival but not too long on his judgment. Be that as it may, I think the fact that we will now be required to sit on Wednesday nights is another one of the illustrations of the absolutely ridiculous character of this present four-day sitting pattern. I know there are others who agree with me on this subject. The Government of course does have a legislative crunch at the end of this session. We know that the Government is having inordinate difficulties in trying to draft its tax package. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has gone out with a fanciful description of his objectives in what he sees as his fifth attempt at tax change- Mr Young —I am not having as much trouble as your party room. Mr SINCLAIR —Do not rely too much on the media reports, my friend. I think some of the media reports of his caucus meetings might make even more interesting reading. The problems that there are in the Government interpreting its tax package into legislative form are known to us all. We need to understand that the purpose of this motion is really nothing to do with the reasons the Leader of the House has just advanced; it is just that the Government has not been able to get its act together. When the tax package was presented we were told that we were going to know all about the details of those tax changes before the end of this year. What has happened? We now know that most of those Bills detailing the tax changes will be introduced some time in 1986, perhaps in March, perhaps in April. They will be there some time before the end of this financial year. That, frankly, is no consolation to those who seek to take investment decisions and who necessarily are working in a very difficult market place. With the balance of payments figures yesterday declining and with interest rates soaring, there is an enormous problem for business in trying to determine where it will go. The reason for this motion is significantly that the Government has not been able to get its act together. It is trying to get up and away from this place as soon as possible. The reason for the motion is that the Government, instead of sitting for the fourth sitting week as we were told we would be required to do in order to get the legislation through, wants the Parliament to rise so that it can get away from this place. One can well understand that, having seen the average of its performance. One can understand why it does not want to be around for very long if it can help it. Mr Beazley —We have just noticed how tired you get. Mr SINCLAIR —I can understand the Minister getting so tired. He always looks tired. I am worried about his well-being. But I am even more worried about the well-being of the people of this country with the sorts of policies that this Government pursues. However, if there are to be changes, sitting on a Wednesday night makes far more sense than some of the other proposals that the Government has come forward with. In those circumstances the Opposition will not oppose this change. However, I put it to the Leader of the House that, with perhaps a little more expedition in consideration of the legislation that should be before us, we would be prepared to sit for an additional week so that the people of Australia can know finally what the Government will do with tax reform, if that is what the Government calls it, or, as we see it, tax regression. I do not believe that the people of Australia can go on much longer with the sorts of economic management that the present Treasurer (Mr Keating) has provided for us, certainly with the indecision, imprecision, rising interest rates and all the other ills that seem to be characteristic of the form and manner of this Government. The Opposition will not oppose this motion but I trust that, when the legislation on tax reform finally comes before us, we will have adequate opportunity to debate it, even though that will be well into next year. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.03) —in reply-I wish to answer a couple of points raised by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair). Firstly, I think we have sufficient time to pass the legislation in the three weeks. I do not think it requires the fourth week. As I suggested to him, if more legislation had been drafted, the fourth week may have been required. It is important that we notify all honourable members that we will not be sitting the fourth week because a number of them from both sides of the House have raised with me the matter of invitations to which they need to reply, particularly in response to schools. Mr Steele Hall —You are not sitting a fourth week because the dollar is falling. You don't want to know about the dollar. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Boothby may not be interested. He will probably be going door knocking in Boothby to try to help poor old John Olsen, who will certainly need some help. But a number of honourable members have raised with me the necessity to be able to reply to those invitations. It is for that reason, amongst others, that I have notified the Parliament that we will not sit the fourth week. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 12 November. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 5, after sub-clause 3(10), insert the following new sub-clause: ``(10A) Notwithstanding sub-section (10), a prescribed fee shall not exceed $100.''. No. 2-Pages 20 and 21, sub-clause 27(1), line 36 (page 20) to line 3 (page 21), leave out the sub-clause, insert the following new sub-clause: ``(1) Subject to this Act, where a court, on application made to it by a Licensing Authority for an order under paragraph (d), is satisfied that- (a) a person has, after the commencement of this section, on one or more occasions, contravened, attempted to contravene, or been involved in a contravention of, one or more relevant safety provisions; and (b) it is in the interests of public safety to do so, the court may- (c) except where the person has been admonished under this paragraph on 2 occasions in the period of 10 years ending on the day on which the application was made-admonish the person; or (d) make an order disqualifying the person, either permanently or for a specified period, from participating in long distance interstate transport business.''. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.08) —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The Government has already indicated that it is prepared to accept the two amendments moved in the Senate to the Interstate Road Transport Bill 1985. As a result of a number of concerns that have been expressed, we have accepted an amendment which would limit to $100 the maximum fee chargeable by the State in administering that legislation. We also accept that it would provide for a reasonable graduation of penalties in the operator licensing area and for a court to issue up to two admonishments or warnings in every 10 years as an alternative to removing an operator's licence for a specified period. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(10.09) —The Opposition will oppose the amendments. We will not divide on them; we will oppose them on the voices. We will do so consistent with, first of all, the attitude we adopted in the Senate to these amendments and, secondly, our whole approach to the Interstate Road Transport Bill. When we looked at the legislation, we did so in a positive and constructive way because in general terms the legislation is valuable. It provides a framework whereby the States can introduce some necessary reforms and forms of assistance for the interstate road transport industry. When we looked at the legislation we believed that it was going through in an unnecessary forced or quick way. First of all, for the legislation to be effective, each of the States is required to provide complementary legislation. None of the States appears to be in any hurry to introduce that legislation. Evidence that we have had since indicates that our view has been confirmed-that the earliest starting date for the legislation is 1 July next year and that there is a need to consult more with the industry because of the vagueness of much of the legislation, the reliance on regulations and the uncertainty that this has created in much of the industry. That in itself was one of the reasons for our amendment proposing that the legislation be withdrawn and re-presented in six months so that it could be drafted in a more complete and acceptable way and, by then, the report of the Inter-State Commission, which is investigating the comparative cost recovery of rail and road interstate freight costs, would also be available. This is a very important aspect of the interstate registration fee which is the subject of one of these two amendments. I am referring to the amendments in the sense that one of the two deals with the question of the $1,400 maximum fee. I note that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) made it known during the Senate debate on this legislation that that fee would remain until the end of next year-December 1986-that one of the amendments puts in legislative form the fact that it is that figure and, therefore, that legislation rather than regulation is required for its alteration. As that was a part of our in-principle complaint over the legislation, obviously it is an improvement; and that is acknowledged. The point still remains that, whether by regulation or legislation, a Senate majority will still pass whatever that fee will be. We looked at a number of amendments proposed in the Senate when it was obvious that the Australian Democrats would not accept our overall amendment which I believe was in the best interests of the industry, and we decided that it was pointless to propose one or two amendments. When we reached a total of 30 amendments to bring the legislation up to the standard that we considered necessary, we decided that that was not our role or within our ability as an Opposition and that really it was the responsibility of the Government. It is an indictment of the Government for its failure to properly draft its legislation. We opposed those amendments because we said: Why pick out those two when there were 30 that could be proposed? We opposed those amendments then and we oppose them now. In conclusion, just to confirm the point that I and others have made-why should we be in such a hurry when the States, who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of this legislation, are not more anxious to get on with the job of introducing legislation-I wish to refer to a question on notice in the Western Australian Legislative Council. I think my colleague the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey), who will speak in this debate, will also make reference to this. That question on notice was addressed to the Minister for Employment and Training representing the Minister for Transport in the Western Australian Parliament. The question basically was: When will the Western Australian complementary legislation be introduced? The answer to this question was given only since 24 October; in other words, in the last couple of weeks. The answer was: Details and timing of possible future State legislation have yet to be determined. That really indicates the sense of urgency that people in Western Australia have regarding this legislation. One other matter of concern in the reply refers to the operators licensing provisions in the legislation. The Minister stated: This matter has yet to be fully discussed in a Commonwealth-State forum. I think that is further evidence of the fact that part of the legislation was really flying too much ahead of getting the consultation that we believe is necessary so that in turn the properly drafted detail would be able to be included in the legislation. The Opposition opposes the two amendments for the reasons given. We believe still that the legislation should be totally withdrawn for six months and redrafted. There should be further consultation with the industry and the States and when the legislation is introduced it should be more specific. That will still be adequate for the proposed starting time of 1 July next year. By then we will have some indication of how genuine the States are about this legislation. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.15) —These amendments do practically nothing to assist the trucking industry. The Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) stated in his second reading speech: The fast-track package endorsed by ATAC involved the following initiatives- He then listed a number of initiatives. As has just been stated by the shadow Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd), on 24 October 1985 the Hon. N. F. Moore asked the Minister for Employment and Training representing the Minister for Transport question on notice No. 297 in the Western Australian Parliament. He asked: (1) I refer the Minister to the `Interstate Road Transport Bill, 1985' currently before the Senate and ask whether or not it is necessary for the State Parliament to pass complementary legislation for this Federal Bill to be implemented? (2) If it is necessary, when is it expected that this legislation will be introduced? The Minister in Western Australia made it very clear that on a number of matters agreement has not been reached and, in fact, has not even been discussed. He stated: The second part of the Federal legislative package is intended to be proclaimed later. It provides for the licensing of interstate transport operators. For the intent of this to be effective, corresponding State legislation would be needed. This matter has yet to be fully discussed in a Commonwealth/State forum. The aim is to enable those who operate in a manner which compromises public safety, as determined by the Courts, to be disqualified. Details and timing of possible future State legislation have yet to be determined. Yet we have the Minister for Transport keeping the heat on this subject and agreeing to something that has been put up by the Australian Democrats as a token example. Under the new agreement the Democrats have with the Government everything the Government puts to them now is to be agreed to by the Democrats. They have sold out on tax and they have sold out the small business truck operator. This is tokenism. Let us look at the amendment which takes people's livelihoods away from them. I am talking now of the amendment to sub-clause 27 (1), line 36 on page 20 to line 3 on page 21. What a big deal! It states: Subject to this Act, where a court, on application made to it by a Licensing Authority for an order under paragraph (d) is satisfied that- (a) a person has, after the commencement of this section, on one or more occasions, contravened, attempted to contravene, or been involved in a contravention of, one or more relevant safety provisions; and (b) it is in the interests of public safety to do so, the court may- I emphasise the word `may'; it is not `the court shall'. It continues: (c) except where the person has been admonished under this paragraph on 2 occasions in the period of 10 years ending on the day on which the application was made-admonish the person; or (d) make an order disqualifying the person, either permanently or for a specified period, from participating in long distance interstate transport business. What has changed? The court now has the right to say: `I admonish you'. Previously the court had the right to do nothing. The Government has only imposed another sanction on truck drivers. This legislation is supposed to help them. It puts another burden on them. The Democrats were too dumb to see that. The gentleman who operates in another place is too overweight to get behind a truck wheel let alone know what trucking is all about. The reality of the situation is that previously a judge in his own right may have come to a decision to take away this operator's licence, which we all oppose, but on the other hand he might also have imposed a penalty which was a disqualification for some period. Now a series of admonishments can be set in train which would then require a judge to impose a penalty. That is supposed to be some improvement; it is the reverse. It will make things more difficult. I turn to a question which is relevant to the amendments. It is one which the Minister might like to answer. Agreement has been reached on certain matters with the Australian Transport Advisory Council, including the introduction of graduated licences for truck drivers, which will require that drivers operating large interstate vehicles will have had appropriate experience. The other day I talked with 40 truck drivers at Naracoorte. Something that Western Australians do not clearly understand is that one who takes a 20-mile journey around Mt Gambier or Naracoorte can become an interstate truck driver, because that is the distance one has to travel to cross a State border, and that is a heavily populated area. I am told that the number of truck owners as a percentage of the population is probably higher in Mt Gambier than in any other part of Australia. So how does a farmer in that area get a licence when the Bill requires that a licence to operate large interstate vehicles will not be granted to a person without appropriate experience? What does the son of a farmer have to do? He would have to join the Transport Workers Union of Australia and go and work for Brambles. If the union and the company did not have any places for that person, he would not get the appropriate experience. If the Minister had occupied any part of a truck other than the passenger seat he would know that the requirement for appropriate experience is another myth, as is the claim that finance companies stand out on the footpath and drag unsuspecting blokes in black shorts and blue singlets off the streets to sell them a truck and to force finance upon them. That is a load of rubbish. I have been in the industry and I know some very good people with long trucking experience who have had quite significant finance, including a family home, who have been rejected by the finance companies as having insufficient capital to buy a truck. They have come to me for assistance by way of providing a guarantee. On a number of occasions, knowing those people, I have taken the risk and given them that guarantee so that they could get into business. This proposal is one that the State governments have not yet considered. I suggest that they will not do so. Eventually, the only feather that the Minister will have to fly with will be the paper on which this legislation is printed. He can go flapping around with that. The proposed amendments are not appropriate to the trucking industry. The only purpose of this legislation and the proposed amendments is to gain money and to take people's livelihoods from them. The amendment, which will require an operator to be licensed, will take people's livelihoods from them and will result in regulation of the industry. We will have the situation whereby if one has not been a member of the TWU and has not worked as an employee for Brambles or Thomas Nationwide Transport one will not be able to take the final step into owner-driving and small business, which has been a wonderful part of the transport industry. Yes, there have been failures and there have been people who have found the going very rough, but they still queue up to get into the industry. A lot of them like the life and have done very well out of it over the years. Strangely enough, they are all working at very similar rates. So that puts down the argument for introducing the amendment. We have to oppose it. It will make the situation worse. It is tokenism, because Australian Democrats have caved in. The other amendment relating to a fee of $100 for an operator's licence is hardly relevant. That again is tokenism. I have received a telex that states: A fleet operator will if he has 10 trucks have to outlay $24,000 in the first year. The haulage contractor with 10 trucks and subbies will have to outlay $34,000 in the first year. Yet we are arguing whether we should have a $100 ceiling on an operator's licence. Again, that is tokenism. The real problem is that the Bill makes legitimate a road maintenance tax on interstate operations. That is the absolute and only reason for the introduction of this Bill into this Parliament. All the other matters of safety which have been thrown up as the reason for introducing this legislation could be dealt with by State governments. Had the Minister, when he was negotiating the road funding agreements, said to the States `I think it is imperative before we finalise this legislation that you get your act in order on reasonable measures of safety and on reasonable measures of standardisation and uniformity' I believe that the States could have resolved overnight the silliness that exists in some of those areas. But the Minister did not do that because he did not want to. He wants to be the king of transport and have more rides in big trucks. Maybe the truckies will give him the chance to blow the horn before long. He has produced this unnecessary legislation to which Democrat amendments were agreed to in the Senate by the Government to give the Democrats some credibility. Senator Vigor, having promised truckies in South Australia that he would help them, the Minister brings in this sort of tokenism. The Government is bad enough-we know its ambitions regarding socialism and regulation-but the real fault lies with the Democrats. They were asked to, and could have done, a simple thing such as referring this legislation to a committee in which the realities of it could have been discovered. But no, the Democrats caved in. I do not know what the Government has offered them, but it must have been pretty good. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.26) —We have heard from the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) a continuation of the baseless assertions they put forward in the second reading debate in this place. They are not arguing a case with any substance. It is simply a proposition to continue to do nothing. For decades in this country we have seen the contempt with which the conservative parties have treated the road transport industry. We would not be debating this matter now if, as a result of the 1979 Razorback Mountain blockade, the then Government had done something about it. We would not be debating it now if, as a result of the demonstrations outside this House in 1980 by the road transport industry, the then Government had done something about it. All we have heard from the Opposition this morning, as we heard in the Senate, have been rather futile arguments about why we should do nothing, why we should just leave the matter alone and it will sort itself out. It is really a filibuster, an argument for nothing. The personal reflections by the honourable member for O'Connor on the stature of the spokesman for the Australian Democrats or his personal reflections on other persons do not do anything at all for the road transport industry. It is a pretty puerile and infantile kind of approach. I am surprised that the honourable member takes that kind of line. He rejects the safety arguments of the industry. He rejects the graduated driver licensing approach. The honourable member for O'Connor and the honourable member for Murray are really saying: `Do not recognise that this legislation is supported by the industry, by the masses of decent, responsible truck operators who have pleaded with successive governments for years to do something to restructure their industry, to put it on a decent, fair basis'. That is what the industry wants. From the Federal Government's point of view there is nothing in the legislation of a remunerative nature that attracts us. All we are doing is providing the means by which there can be a fairer basis of operation within the industry and a fairer contribution by all who participate in interstate trade and transport to the costs they generate by the use of their vehicles. By and large the industry accepts that. What is before us is the result of two years work; a year of inquiry and a subsequent year of analysis and time for response to the recommendations of the inquiry. Honourable members opposite have led the arguments in support of the view put by the honourable member for O'Connor from a defunct organisation. It has not existed for several years. It did not make a submission to the road transport inquiry. It was invited to make a response to the recommendations of the inquiry but it declined to do so. However, at the last moment it hops in and wants to go against all the arguments that have been accepted by everybody else in the industry. The proposition has been put up again that we are trying to rush this legislation through the House. The opposite is true. I said earlier that we were being criticised for not having put the legislation through earlier. What we are carrying forward is the request of the industry. There will be some, represented by the honourable member for O'Connor, who do not want to see fairness across the industry. They do not want to see all those who use and generate expenditure on interstate roads and presently do not make a contribution, make a contribution. That is really the substance of their case. What do the States think about the matter? The Opposition stands alone in its opposition to this legislation. The industry wants it and there is unanimity between all governments; they all want it. We are supporting it and carrying it through. Mr Hinze, the Queensland Minister for Local Government Roads and Racing, telexed his own members on 17 September saying: Given the constitutional realities and the complexity of other alternatives, Queensland agrees that the Commonwealth Government should implement the type of scheme proposed. He went on to say: Generally there has been good co-operation between Commonwealth and State officials working out the administrative details of the scheme. Contrary to the quotations put in this place by Opposition spokesmen earlier, Mr Gray, the Tasmanian Premier, in a subsequent speech to the Australian Road Transport Federation on 20 October, at which I was present, said: My Government has expressed its support for the fast track package and is currently working on means of implementing those recommendations requiring State government action. I have not quoted the State Labor governments, just the two conservative governments to show their attitude. It is the Opposition that is out of step. The question of the operator licence, which was mentioned earlier, is yet to be fully discussed. There was a meeting of officials yesterday working on the basis of implementation on 1 July next year. The States are clear about the need for Federal legislation as a prerequisite for State action on their part on the fast track package. In respect of the court action mentioned by the honourable member for O'Connor, the court still has the option of taking no action. The argument put forward in this respect is quite spurious, as it was previously. The court can decide to take no action, to inflict admonishment or disqualification. Where there are two admonishments in the previous 10 years the option of admonishment is no longer available. But the other alternatives remain. There is no economic regulation of the industry. That is the nonsense of the case put forward by the Opposition. I will not rehash the arguments that were put during the second reading debate. The legislation is needed, it is long overdue, the industry wants it, the State governments support it and I commend it to the Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Consideration resumed from 12 November. Consideration of Senate's requests. Senate's requested amendments- No. 1-Page 3, clause 5, at end of clause, add the following new sub-clauses: ``(4) The amount of charge in respect of the registration of a motor vehicle shall not exceed $1,000. ``(5) The amount of charge in respect of the registration of a trailer shall not exceed $400.''. No. 2-Page 3, after clause 5, insert the following new clause: Indexation ``5A. (1) In this section- `index number', in relation to a quarter, means the All Groups Consumer Price Index number, being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities, published by the Australian Statistician in respect of that quarter; `relevant amount' means- (a) the amount specified in sub-section 5 (4), being the amount that the amount of charge in respect of the registration of a motor vehicle is not to exceed; or (b) the amount specified in sub-section 5 (5), being the amount that the amount of charge in respect of the registration of a trailer is not to exceed; `relevant year' means the period of 12 months commencing on 1 July 1987 and each subsequent period of 12 months. ``(2) Subject to sub-section (3), if at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section, the Australian Statistician has published or publishes an index number in respect of a quarter in substitution for an index number previously published by the Australian Statistician in respect of that quarter, the publication of the later index number shall be disregarded for the purposes of this section. ``(3) If at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this section, the Australian Statistician has changed or changes the reference base for the Consumer Price Index, then, for the purposes of the application of this section after the change took place or takes place, regard shall be had only to the index numbers published in terms of the new reference base. ``(4) Where the factor ascertained under sub-section (5) in relation to a relevant year is greater than one, this Act has effect as if for each relevant amount there were substituted, on the first day of that relevant year, an amount calculated by multiplying by that factor- (a) in a case to which paragraph (b) does not apply-the relevant amount; or (b) if, by virtue of another application or other applications of this section, this Act has effect as if another amount or amounts were substituted for that relevant amount-the substituted amount or the last substituted amount. ``(5) The factor to be ascertained for the purposes of sub-section (4) in relation to a relevant year is the number (calculated to 3 decimal places) ascertained by dividing the index number for the March quarter immediately preceding that relevant year by the index number for the March quarter immediately preceding that first-mentioned March quarter. ``(6) Where the factor ascertained in accordance with sub-section (5) in relation to a relevant year would, if it were calculated to 4 decimal places, end with a number greater than 4, the factor ascertained in accordance with that sub-section in relation to that relevant year shall be taken to be the factor calculated to 3 decimal places in accordance with that sub-section and increased by 0.001.''. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.33) —I move: That the amendments requested by the Senate be agreed to. The Government is prepared to support the amendments requested by the Senate in respect of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985. The effect of these amendments will be to place a maximum limit on annual registration of $1,000 for a prime mover or motor vehicle and $400 for a trailer, with these ceilings indexed from 1986-87 to movements in the consumer price index. There will still be a requirement for the actual charges to be set and varied by regulations up to those limits. If it is decided that these charges should be increased beyond these limits, it will be necessary to introduce amending legislation. Whilst we have reservations about the necessity for such provisions, believing that there is adequate parliamentary scrutiny of regulations, the concerns that have been expressed in some quarters lead us to the conclusion that it will be a reasonable compromise to accept such a ceiling on the charges being included. This is what the Hawke Government's policy of consultation and consensus is all about. We listen to what people say to us and we are prepared to modify our approach where reasonable points or concerns are expressed. As all honourable members are aware, the basis of the initial charge of $1,400 for a typical 38-tonne rig is the report of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. Variations of those charges will be based on current and future investigations carried out by the Inter-State Commission, having regard to the equivalent State charges and the level of cost recovery achieved by railways. I recommend the amendments to the Committee. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Howe: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with order of the day No. 4, the Home and Community Care (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(10.36) —The Opposition supports the Home and Community Care Bill and the cognate Bill introduced by the Government to amend certain legislation covered by the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970, the Home Nursing Subsidy Act 1956, the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969 and the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act 1969. In fact, we congratulate the Government on moving towards what could be described as the privatisation of care in this area. The coalition has long supported the view that government has a role to assist people to live independently in the community and not to require them to move into institutions. Regrettably, in the past, the degree of funding available for this aspect of aged care has not been adequate, and there have been, I believe, unnecessary numbers of people who have been forced, because of circumstances beyond their control, to move into institutions on a permanent basis. If the support had been available in the past, people could have remained in the community, close to their family and close to their friends. This Bill raises the important point about how we in Australia care for our aged people. I think even the most cursory reading of demographic statistics indicates that we do, in fact, have an aging population, and that over the next generation the number of people of retirement age in the community will increase considerably. There is an important need, I believe, for governments in Australia to recognise this fact and to incorporate it in the development of their policy. No longer can we go about thinking simply that we can put the aged people in our community, once they turn the magical age of 60 or 65, into an institution, sweep them under the mat, and forget about them. It is important that we have policies which encourage them to remain part of our community. What we need is care in the community and also by the community. It is sad, I think, that in many cases the community is only too keen to move the aged section of our population out of sight; out of sight being out of mind. I have personally been aware of many cases where a nursing home which has been established in the past has become the site of redevelopment, and there has been tremendous community pressure to relocate that nursing home away from the centre of the community and out into an area away from the general population. That is sad, because I think it is important that we leave the aged section of our community well and truly in the centre of the community. I know of one town in New South Wales where a nursing home has been established in what was formerly a hotel. This has achieved nursing home care in the middle of a town. The residents of that institution are able to do as they have done for all of their lives in many cases, to actually walk up and down the main street, to sit on a bench outside their converted hotel, which is now a nursing home, and converse with people whom they have known for many years. I think that is an appropriate tactic and strategy for aged care in Australia. This Bill establishes a framework for home and community care. The program was originally announced in 1984 as part of the Budget. The home and community care program is to be a joint section 96 Commonwealth-State program to assist State and local governments and non-government organisations to provide basic community support and maintenance services. Services are to be targeted to aged or disabled people to minimise premature and unnecessary admission to long term residential care. As I have said, the coalition supports that philosophy. The Bill incorporates a Schedule which is to be a model agreement between the Commonwealth and States for funding for the program in the future. The Schedule also sets out levels of funding and growth for the program-$10m growth funding on an unmatched basis in the first year, $25m growth in 1985-86 on a 3 : 1 matched basis, and $30m in 1986-87 on a 2 : 1 matched basis. I have mentioned those figures because later I would like to address the way in which this Government has approached the announcement and promotion of this scheme. It is, as I have said, a good scheme and philosophically the Opposition supports it. However, we do regret that the Government has found it necessary to promote the scheme for what amounts to selfish political purposes. It is creating expectations among aged people and organisations concerned with the care of the aged in our community which just will not be realised. I will return to that point in a few moments. It is important also to recognise that the Home and Community Care Bill has been the cause of some concern within State governments. I hope that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), in responding to this debate, will explain what action the Commonwealth has taken in response to those concerns expressed by some State governments. The home and community care program was first announced in the 1984 Budget. It resurfaced, amazingly, during the 1984 election campaign when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised a new sweeping initiative in the care of the aged. He promised a new cost-shared home and community care program at a cost of some $300m. They were his words in the context of the election, and I refer honourable members to the figures I read out, incorporated in the Schedule of this Bill, which provide for $10m worth of growth funding in the first year. That is not $300m, as promised by the Prime Minister. This is the same Prime Minister who during that election campaign made a number of promises, most of which have not been kept; the same Prime Minister who during election campaigns makes promises such as there will be no capital gains tax and then engages in the most incredible piece of sophistry we have ever seen, trying to explain that that was for only one fixed period of time and now the Government has been re-elected those promises can go by the board. It is worth examining in some detail the short-comings of this Government's program in aged care. This Government has created unreal expectations for the HACC program, suggesting that $300m would be made available and inducing major welfare groups to believe that the Government had created a major new program, had instituted a major initiative which would be welcomed by the community generally and result in an increased standard of aged care for people in Australia. Frankly, assistance for the aged under this Labor Government has been nothing short of a disaster. The first thing we had when this Government came into office was an income test on pensions for people over 70 years of age. Then we had the 31 per cent income tax on lump sum superannuation payments. This is the Government which is supposedly concerned to encourage people to look after themselves in their old age, so what does it do? It imposes a tax on superannuation payments, on the capital that people have been accumulating over a working lifetime so that they can have a degree of security, a degree of comfort and a lessening of worry, and a degree of increased independence in their old age. This Government, with one stroke of the pen-contrary again to assurances given by the Prime Minister that there would be no taxes on superannuation-has imposed a lump sum superannuation tax which will force Australian aged people in the future to be increasingly dependent upon the state and the community generally. Their capacity to become independent in their old age has been reduced as their capacity to accumulate capital over their working life and to obtain the benefits of that capital, albeit modest, when they retire has been significantly reduced by this Government. The Government further decided that it would pick on a relatively helpless section of the community by introducing the assets test. The real problem with the assets test is that it just did not work. It was one of those band-aid schemes that this Government is quite prone to. Instead of sitting down and coming up with a comprehensive retirement incomes policy, needs based and equitable right across the community, it came up with version one of the assets test. Then of course there was an immediate public outcry and the Government realised that there were some problems with the assets test so we then had versions two, three and four and now version five; and it still does not work equitably. It still does not apply right across the community without discriminating against certain people. It still assumes that if someone lives in a modest bungalow in a country area on 25 acres that he is wealthy and not in need of any community assistance. It does not address the problem of people who live in very expensive houses in the metropolitan areas but it does discriminate against rural pensioners. The reason is that this Government does not care and does not understand the problems faced by people who live outside the major metropolitan areas. Increasingly, this Government subscribes to the philosophy that it can govern on the votes of the people who live in Sydney and Melbourne, and particularly in the western suburbs of those cities. There is no care, no policy and no determination to reflect the views and the needs of the people who live outside those areas. I have mentioned that this Government, firstly, income tested people over 70 years of age, then introduced the lump sum tax on superannuation and then the assets test. In addition, we had the Medicare fiasco. Medicare has resulted in growing waiting lists in public hospitals. Pensioners, who are justifiably concerned, because of their age, about their health and the standard of health care they are able to receive, have in some cases been forced to take out private health insurance in an attempt to ensure that they can get the sort of health care that they want because they no longer have any confidence in the public health system in Australia. I mentioned earlier that the Government had engaged in a lot of hype and self-indulgent publicity when it announced its home and community care program, and people were given false expectations. They thought $300m really would be available. The South Australian Labour Minister of Health, Dr John Cornwall has, I believe, shown this Government to be exactly what it is in terms of this Bill. Dr Cornwall admitted, in reply to a question in Parliament, that the amount South Australia will receive under this Bill `will be a little less than $1m'. I do not know where the other $299m are. Perhaps they do not exist in terms of a new initiative. Dr Cornwall then added: Unfortunately I believe it may have been oversold . . . Let me repeat the word `oversold'. The program came out in the 1984 Budget and suddenly, during the 1984 Budget election campaign, it turned into a bold new initiative with $300m. That amount really represented money which was already in place under the four other programs that are covered by this Bill. In fact, the Government has a $10m commitment to additional funding and South Australia is receiving $1m of that additional amount. That is quite an equitable share but it is a long way short from the public perception that $300m of extra funding was to be given to aged care in Australia. Mr Cornwall continued: Unfortunately I believe it may have been oversold significantly in the pre-Federal election climate. I think that expectations may have been unduly raised . . . it will certainly not be the answer to all our problems. That was said by the Labor Minister of Health in South Australia, the same Minister who is about to contest an election, and his Premier has suggested that the South Australian Government is independent of this Federal Labor Government and that it runs its own ship and it is not too keen to have the Prime Minister campaigning in South Australia. Is it any wonder when in Parliament he has to admit that the Government is prone to overselling its programs, and that instead of getting some share of the $300m South Australia will get only $1m. In March we were told by Senator Grimes who was responsible for this program: We see the new program to be largely about providing an essential service to maintain elderly people and older and younger disabled who need long-term support, to stay in their own homes or with supporting families. In November Senator Grimes promised that the home and community care program could provide gardening, home maintenance, shopping and laundry services. I guess that is part of the same overselling program that Dr Cornwall referred to. Quite frankly, the whole thing has been wrapped up in this Government's hype. When it comes to an election it will say and do anything in order to dupe the Australian people into voting for it. We have another example of that which is directly related to the home and community care program and that is the Office of Aged Care. This represents one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the aged community in Australia. Mr Hawke promised to establish an Office of Aged Care in the 1983 election campaign. Of course the promise was not carried out. That is quite amazing, because this proposal has bipartisan support. The Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia agree that there is a need for an office specialising in the care and policy development of the aged section of our community. The Government promised it in 1983 and did not do anything about it. It rehashed the promise in the 1984 campaign, making it sound new and different and something that had not been promised before. Again, the Prime Minister promised an Office of Aged Care. Finally, I think in August of this year, it got around to establishing it. We might ask why it took so long. I guess the answer is that as with everything else this Government has had so much difficulty; be it tax reform, maintaining the value of the dollar or coming up with a youth employment program. The great problem is factionalism. It just cannot get things straight. The reason we did not have an Office of Aged Care earlier is that we had this almighty Donnybrook between the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, and the then Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes. They were both engaged in what could loosely be described as power or factional politics within the Australian Labor Party. They and their departments could not agree on who would have responsibility for this new Office of Aged Care. Finally the matter was resolved when, after the last election-the Prime Minister would have liked to have reshuffled his front bench, but he was not game to do so because that would have unleashed this incredible war among factions within the Labor Party-we had what was described at the time as a reshuffling of the deckchairs on the Titanic. Out of that reshuffle was created the Department of Community Services and Senator Grimes is still the Minister for that. Dr Blewett is still the Minister for Health, although he does not have the same ministerial responsibilities he used to have. Mr Carlton —Who is that? Mr BLUNT —He is now the Minister for plastic cards with or without photographs. Of course the Minister for Social Security is now a member of this House and the Office of Aged Care went to Senator Grimes. That is how factional wars are resolved in the Labor Party. It waits until after an election and then its members do a deal on the big issues, such as who will sit on the front bench. The Prime Minister then says: `Listen, stop fighting. You are going to do this'. We finally got the Office of Aged Care, and about time. Now let the Government get on with the job of coming up with some policies and programs which will actually do something to help the aged people in our community. Like so many things this Government attempts to do its intentions are perhaps good, but it is distorted by factionalism and blind ideology. We really need a government which is committed to achieving an improvement in the standard of living of Australians, and that means keeping the value of the dollar up and doing away with those ridiculous policies of appeasement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, which are increasingly forcing our dollar down. As many people in the community predict, it is likely to hit 50 cents before this Government comes to its senses and does away with its ridiculous agreement with the ACTU to govern for and in its interests and damn the interests of other Australians. If we are to have good government in this country and good policies which will benefit the people and if we are to have a caring government we should do away with the hype. This Government should resist the temptation at election time to promote policies such as the home and community care program as a $300m new sweeping initiative and should actually say: `What we are going to do is to encourage the care of aged and disadvantaged people in our community by the community in the community and keep them part of that community'. It should resist the temptation to indulge in all sorts of hype. I guess it was probably only the shortness of the time span that prevented the Government from engaging some advertising agency to promote its aged care policies. Heaven only knows who it would have used. It is also a wonder that we do not have full page newspaper advertisements screaming and proclaiming the benefits of this Government's policy. If it had done that, it would probably have spent more on the advertising campaign than will be spent on the program. As I have said, the coalition supports this program as a move in the right direction. We subscribe to the view that there should be care for the aged and disabled in our community in the community and by the community. We congratulate the Government on moving in what could be described as the direction of privatisation in this area. We offer to support it in further moves in this direction. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.56) —I am glad that the Opposition supports the Home and Community Care Bill but I am absolutely astonished that the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) chose to find criticisms. The only criticisms he could make were that we raised expectations and indulged in hype. He asked why it took so long to bring in this legislation. I will tell him why it has taken a decent time. This Government felt the need to consult. We wanted to find out what the community wants and we are now delivering what the community wants. He had the hide to talk about frauds perpetrated on the community and then to carry on about the assets test and the taxing of superannuation. Was there ever a greater fraud perpetrated on the community than the scare tactics of the Opposition on those issues? It terrorised little old ladies by telling them that we would take the gold wedding rings from their fingers and the gold fillings out of their teeth. I come to the Bill. In the August Budget last year the then Minister for Social Security-Senator Grimes-the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Geitzelt) announced a new cost share program, the home and community care program. The aims of this new package are to incorporate existing programs and include additional initiatives to provide an even wider range of community care for aged and disabled people and families in crisis who need home care services. Four existing Acts are to be amalgamated to enable the HACC program to operate. They are the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970, the Home Nursing Subsidy Act 1956, the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969 and the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act 1969. Our Government is to be commended for initiating this new program which will be cost shared with the States and Territories and administered by the States. The main objective of the Bill is to provide a comprehensive range of integrated home care and community based services for people who might be at risk of premature or inappropriate institutionalisation because of the absence of such support. It is targeted at the frail or at-risk aged persons and younger disabled persons in order to enable them to remain in their own homes or in the community in a non-institutional setting. The Commonwealth will be assisting State, local government and community organisations in providing a range of sub-programs covering services and capital facilities currently funded by the Commonwealth under the four existing Acts. Those services include meals, community nursing, home help, home maintenance, community paramedical services and senior citizens centres, and services not now funded, such as community respite care, transport, assessment and referral services. New projects are to be approved jointly by the Commonwealth and the States, as are the allocation of funds. Significant variations to such allocations to those projects have regard to such matters as the views of local government councils, community organisations and service users on needs and priorities under the program. The community sector supports both the principle of planning and co-ordination of social support services and our commitment to increased resources. The Government has already been congratulated on taking the initiative. As we have seen, many areas of social welfare have been disgracefully neglected since the Liberals grabbed power in 1975, 10 years ago. This area of home and community care has needed a new approach for many years. When in government the Opposition did nothing to recognise the changing needs of the frail aged, or of the disabled who might require long term support services to stay in their own homes. It did not care enough to develop a program that would give those people an appropriate choice between community and institutional care. Our Government recognised those changing needs. We wasted no time after being elected in beginning the process of shaping a more coherent direction in the delivery of community services. To achieve this objective the Government has also recognised that for this program to be successful wide-ranging discussions must take place between government and non-government sectors, particularly over the next three years of the program's development. The most important administrative change is the introduction of three-year rolling cost sharing agreements. The introduction of a rolling program will allow the States and Territories to plan ahead for the next three years with confidence of the certainty of funding. The Government has set up Commonwealth and State negotiating teams, where organisations which provide home and community based services for aged and disabled people can present their views on the new program. The Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has already said in his Press release: Once the program commences in each State later this year, I would also hope that consultative machinery will be established which will enable community groups to participate in the on-going planning development and administration of services. I have spoken to many groups in my electorate who are providing these community care services and they all stress the importance of national consultative mechanisms. In New South Wales there is a coalition of non-government and community organisations which convenes regular forums to monitor the implementation of the program in the State. The HACC forum provides an independent voice for those groups in negotiations with State and Federal representatives. The forum acknowledges that this HACC program can offer a unique opportunity to review and restructure the framework for the delivery of home support services in New South Wales, providing the development of the program focuses clearly on the integration of services leading to a complementary range of service options for the target groups identified in the guidelines. It is a concern of the forum, as indeed it is a concern of many community groups to which I have spoken, that the HACC program cover a wide range of service types to meet the desperate needs of special client groups. The services required by younger disabled people, for example, may not be appropriate for the frail aged. I want to concentrate now on the services provided for the disabled. There are many disabled people in Phillip and a concentration of groups involved in their care. First, there is the Prince of Wales and Prince Henry Hospital group, a centre vital to the work of many of the community services. For instance, the Prince of Wales Hospital provides meals for the Meals on Wheels service. The Australian Quadriplegic Association in Maroubra, while not in Phillip, certainly serves the needs of many of my constituents. The Randwick Disabled Persons Action Committee is one with which I have constant contact. It is full of articulate and vocal members. We also have in the electorate the Wairoa Special School, a State Department of Education school for developmentally disabled children and the Windgap Special School. Since election to this House as the member for Phillip I have become acutely aware of the specific needs of the disabled. Because the HACC program will involve a range of community support services it is particularly important for disabled people because of the current moves away from institutionalisation towards independent living. It is therefore very important that disabled groups be involved in the consultation process. They are adamant that new services deployed under HACC will not perpetuate the models that enshrine dependency and that funding of these services will be not just adequate but fully supported and suited to their needs. A disabled person living at home can need up to four hours personal care a day-two hours in the morning and two hours at night-seven days a week. Understandably the disabled are concerned about the proportion of funds allocated to their needs. They are concerned that the disabled should not have to compete with the frail aged for services necessary for both groups to exist in the community. In my electorate an attendant care pilot program for the disabled has been operating. This initiative recognises that the Goverment understands some of the special problems that a disabled person faces in an endeavour to live independently. This new legislation does not yet meet all the needs of the disabled, but it is a start. HACC is itself a pilot program and will, through the consultative processes, reveal both strengths and weaknesses and allow the Government to make a planned response. An example of the Government's commitment to consultation with disabled people on how best to help them participate fully in the mainstream of society was the handicapped programs review. After a most comprehensive public examination, involving over 6,000 individuals and organisations, the Minister for Community Services tabled the report and recommendations in the Senate in May this year. One of the significant recommendations of the review is the replacement of the current Handicapped Persons Assistance Act with new disability services legislation. This will allow for greater flexibility in service types and funding arrangements to meet the real needs of people with disabilities. Once again, the Government has been congratulated by the disabled groups for bringing out and supporting such a revolutionary document as the handicapped programs review. The Disabled Person International said: Never before has a Government committed itself so strongly to a `philosophy' which is mirrored throughout the community of people with disabilities. We are off to a good start. With the mutual goodwill of the Government and the community we will achieve fully what our legislation sets out to do. I look forward to New South Wales completing its negotiations soon to allow the HACC program to be fully implemented in our State. I commend these Bills to the House. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(11.08) —I have noted that, in recent months, it has been standard for Government members, when referring to previous Liberal governments, just to make the bland statement that they did nothing. That is obviously nonsense but it is a trap that the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) has also fallen into. In contrast, this legislation and its heralding by the Government could be described as much ado about very little indeed. While it is certainly commendable that aged care programs be brought together the Government, in its election campaign and indeed even since, raised expectations in relation to its commitment to home care well above its intention. For example, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) in his second reading speech stated: Total Commonwealth expenditure on home and community services in 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87 is estimated to be $317.6m. In statements on this program before it was unveiled people were led to believe that the Government was committed to a new expenditure program of $300m. Certainly the wording of Press releases and statements during the election campaign would have led to a confidence that that was the substance of the Government's promise. The substance has proved to be a shadow. There is actually only additional Commonwealth funding in 1985-86 of an unmatched $10m. Further additional money is subject to the States agreeing to matching funding. It is truly said that the worth of a community can be judged according to the care that it takes of its aged and its young. In the last couple of decades the Australian community has dramatically upgraded its care of the aged. That is not to suggest that care of the young has not been upgraded but the aged are the substance of the debate today. That upgrading has included actions by both Liberal and Labor governments over that period. It should be a matter of pride to Australians that we have attempted to take good care of the aged in our community, particularly the frail aged. However, the essence of this debate is about directions in the care of the aged. I think it is commendable that elderly people be encouraged to stay in their homes if that is the appropriate form of living for them. The Minister, in his second reading speech, placed some emphasis on the term, `appropriate' and a number of comments in the early part of the speech refer to appropriate solutions in the care of the aged. However, the only alternative to home care he considered was care of the aged in nursing homes. That shows a blindness about trends in recent times. The honourable member for Phillip, throughout her speech, referred to alternatives as institutionalised care. The term `institutionalisation' in relation to the aged has very negative connotations indeed, particularly for the elderly. One would have hoped, however, that the negative connotations that attached to nursing home care 20 years ago had faded and for good reason. Standards have been lifted so substantially that nursing homes are a very important part of care of the aged in this country. People in other countries who become acquainted with the standards set in our nursing homes for care, and with the availability of nursing home care, recognise that they are remarkably above what obtains in other countries. I support the extension of home support for the elderly but am concerned that it should not be seen as an absolute alternative to nursing homes. Nursing homes have a very important role in our community. Naturally I am also concerned that nursing homes not be seen as the only alternative to home care. One of the things that troubled me about the debate that preceded the introduction of this legislation on home care for the elderly was that many of the proponents of it, I believe, have not been fully aware of the realities of elderly people living in their own homes. It is true that there are many elderly people who are independent and vigorous and who, with a certain amount of support in essential matters, can live in their own homes quite successfully. My mother is one such case in point. Good luck to them. However, there are certain problems in maintaining one's own home. I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the most ardent proponents of keeping elderly people in their own homes really do not know very much about the realities of the day to day running of a home. I do not know whether they are aware of the reality particularly for a woman-many of the elderly in their own homes are women on their own, most of them widows-of the day-in, day-out and year-in, year-out grind of having to attend to the marketing, the cooking, the cleaning, the washing, the ironing, the gardening and taking out the garbage. After 60 or 70 years of that many people get a little weary and actively look for alternatives. We are not debating a program that suggests elderly people will not have to go on doing such things as the marketing, the cooking, the cleaning, the washing, the ironing, the gardening and taking out the garbage. We are looking at suggestions of support in fairly obvious areas. As I have said, many of the people we are discussing are women on their own. Some, a fairly small percentage, are men on their own and some are married couples. I suggest to those who are proponents of these types of programs that, before they too ardently and blinkedly pursue this path in the future, they should consider some of the risks for elderly people in staying in their homes too long. In my time in Parliament I have spent some time with the Blue Nursing Service travelling with the nursing sisters as they have visited people in their own homes to provide a minimum amount of nursing care. I have seen some very heartwarming situations, such as an elderly parent living in a loving family relationship, where the Blue Nurses have made all the difference to that family's ability to cope and to keep a dearly loved parent living with them in good circumstances. In many of those cases these people are not by any means well off. In fact, I think some of them would be struggling financially to extend themselves to caring for an extra person in the home. But they do it with love and with joy. It is good that services such as those the Blue Nurses provide allow that to happen. However, there is another side to that coin. I have also seen elderly people who really ought not to be attempting to stay in their homes. One case which stays very vividly in my mind is that of an elderly couple in their eighties, totally devoted to one another, where the woman was a bedridden invalid, and the man was in extremely frail health. They clung to one another and their home because it was what they knew and what they loved and they did not see themselves as having any alternative. However, the husband was literally killing himself looking after his wife. That is another side to the coin and one to which we should be alert. I have long felt concern that many of those who have much to say on the subject of care of the elderly start from a proposition that profits are bad, therefore a nursing home which is run at a profit is an undesirable feature of our community. Not all nursing homes are profit making facilities. They are a mix of private and community facilities. My electorate of Moncrieff has a very high number of retired people. The majority of residents of my electorate live on the Gold Coast, the premier retirement area for Australia. The Gold Coast in many ways encapsulates what is happening to lifestyles of the elderly in Australia. In recent years there has been a development in the types of living facilities for the aged which has manifested itself in some of the more recent establishments in my electorate. I think the trend in these facilities is highly desirable and I am very attracted to it. In my opinion the most desirable alternative to living at home is that development which combines independently standing units where people usually own two-bedroom homes, incorporates hostel living-whether that is single room plus bathroom facilities or bed-sitting facilities-plus a nursing home. There are many attractions and advantages to retired and elderly people living in that kind of community. The first attraction and advantage is that it is a community. A major problem for elderly people in our society is loneliness. As they grow older, after a spouse dies, as family moves to other parts of Australia in this very mobile community which we have and as friends die as they too grow old, elderly people become more and more isolated. They do not necessarily become ill at the same time, and therefore in need of nursing home care, but they do need company. Without a doubt people who have taken the step of moving into the sort of complex that I talk about say the first benefit, the reason they have no doubts they did the right thing, is that they have community living at their disposal if they want it. Company for elderly people, whatever their state of health, is terribly important in their expectations of life. The hostels do away with the onerous home duties that I referred to earlier in my speech, but they add something else; they guarantee a minimum standard of nutrition in the diets of elderly people. It is a fact that as people grow older, as they stop caring for families, as women stop having the responsibility of thinking what the next meal will be that they will prepare for themselves and their husbands, they allow their nutritional standards to decline. They allow themselves to just snack and do not give consideration to balanced nutrition. Those who go into hostel accommodation often have an increase in their energy and their well-being simply because meals are provided for them. They no longer have to decide three times a day what they are going to eat, having to go out and buy it from the shops, with all those hassles, and cook it. The most important element of this combination of facilities is the nursing home. It is important that nursing homes are available for the disabled and the very frail aged. Nursing home matrons and doctors of nursing home patients have said to me that some people considered to be in need of nursing home care have shortly after admission reached the stage where they really did not need that level of care. There were two reasons for that, which I have already mentioned. The first and most important reason is nutrition. Elderly people should get proper vitamins and a proper diet but many living on their own do not achieve that ideal. The second reason is having company rekindles their interest in life. Those institutions make a very valuable contribution, not only to the physical health but also the psychological health of our elderly citizens. This Government has indicated that it does not want to see expansion of nursing homes. Its attitude towards the subject of profitability of private nursing homes has been such as to make private investment in nursing homes totally unattractive. In the last three years there has been a further noticeable trend, that is, the building of establishments containing the first two elements I mentioned-free standing units plus hostels, but no nursing home. That is better than elderly people living a lonely, aimless and sometimes neurotic existence, but it is not the most desirable option. The inclusion of a nursing home in the aged person living complex is critical for a number of reasons. Firstly, the older people get the more traumatic it is if they have to change their place of living. One of the reasons many elderly people stay in their homes too long is that they leave consideration of moving into another type of establishment too late and it becomes too daunting a prospect for them. Imagine the trauma of elderly people who are too reluctant to make the move into hostel or community-type unit accommodation suddenly having to go into a nursing home. They have the trauma of acute illness which requires the move, they have the trauma of having to abandon their homes under those circumstances, and the additional trauma of being surrounded by strangers in an unfamiliar situation. From my own observation of the retirement complexes I discussed earlier, one of their great benefits is that if those residents need nursing home care they can move within an environment with which they are familiar and have their friends around them. Their friends can visit them and even help feed them at meal times if that is necessary. This makes an enormous difference to the morale of nursing homes residents. It also makes a big difference to the attitudes of elderly people not in nursing homes as to what their prospects are if the worst comes to the worst and they do suffer some severe disability, such as a stroke, which means that they are totally dependent on care. Whilst saying to the Government that I certainly support reasonable, well thought out and comprehensive home care programs, I urge it to move away from the anti-nursing home attitude to which it has been moving. It needs to recognise the reality that many elderly people who are quite fit in recent times have chosen to leave their homes and move into the aged persons complexes I have described because they are realists about what the future may hold for them. I ask the Government also to face the fact that it is critical for elderly people to have first class medical care rapidly at their disposal. Those who have elderly parents living alone in their home on their own dread the thought of the chest pain that invariably comes in the middle of the night. When people reach a high risk age they should have within reach a button they can press which will summon within seconds the sort of medical care that is immediately required. I say to the Government: By all means pursue realistic programs for the elderly which will make living in their homes more viable and for whom it is the most desirable alternative, but please desist from programs that fly in the face of the realities of an alternative type of excellent care for the aged. My greatest fear is that the path we are pursuing at the moment in relation to nursing homes will lead to a great bottling up of demand-a demand that will have to be met some time in the future. In fact, we are just deferring the cost of what has been an essential element in maintaining a standard of good, compassionate, loving care of the aged in the Australian community. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(11.25) —If there is one area of policy debate that highlights the deep philosophical division that exists in this Parliament between the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties, it must be the policy area in the Bills that we are debating today; namely, the Home and Community Care Bill and the Home and Community Care (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. Mr Blunt —We are supporting the Bill. Mr TICKNER —The honourable member for Richmond will get his turn to receive some comments from me in a moment. I want to emphasise in my introductory comments on these Bills that so much of what we are talking about in terms of government support for the aged and the disabled concerns public expenditure-government expenditure-to meet the needs of those in the community who, without government support, would not be able to maintain a basic and decent standard of living. When we hear the rhetoric of the Liberal and National parties and their comments about small government and reduced government expenditure, they never tell us the areas in which they will make their draconian Budget cuts. They never specify that. On reading what some of their mentors such as Mr Stone and some other guiding lights have to say, we see that what they are on about is a massive reduction in the level of public expenditure required to meet the needs of the aged and the disabled. That is one of the many areas on the hit list of the Liberal and National parties should they ever regain government. It is important that the Australian people understand that reduced government expenditure is not a question of some remote academic debate in the corridors of the Treasury. It will affect them-the men, women and children in the streets and homes of Australia. They are on the hit list, because they are the people who will suffer a greatly reduced quality of life should draconian Budget cuts occur in this area. I raise these general questions in speaking to the Bills before the House because I believe that the compassion of the Government in this matter and our belief in the important role of government in providing support for the aged and the disabled go to the core philosophy behind this legislation. We reject the notion that the aged and disabled should be thrown on the social scrap heap and that government expenditure in this area should be cut. The purpose of the Bills before the House is to authorise the payment of financial assistance by the Commonwealth to the States and the Northern Territory in accordance with agreements relating to the home and community care program and to amend the four Acts referred to by other honourable members to enable the home and community care program to operate. The first object of the Government's program is to promote the provision of a comprehensive and integrated range of home and community care designed to provide basic maintenance and support services, both directly and through their carers for aged and disabled people and, thereby, very importantly, to assist them to retain their independence in the community and to avoid their premature and unnecessary admission to long term residential care. A second major aim is to expand and develop home and community care services through joint co-operation with other levels of government. One of the basic philosophies of the Australian Labor Party is that people ought to have the right to control their own lives. This policy has particular significance for the aged and disabled people who for too long have remained in a rather vicious cycle of dependency and have not had the resources to be able to exercise that effective control over their lives. We are the supporters of the promotion of human potential and personal development of the individual to the fullest extent. While that does not happen in our community, the wider Australian society will be the worse for it. While institutional care in the form of nursing homes and other accommodation has a vital place in society for those with no other alternative, it is far more preferable that aged and disabled people be empowered to take their rightful place in the community as active participants in society. It is my hope that the legislation before us will advance that end. I believe that in the comments made by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) in speaking to the Bills the philosophical divisions were clearly highlighted. Those of us on this side of the chamber sat back in awe when we listened to the comments made by the honourable member. We thought that this legislation and this debate were about giving aged and disabled people greater power and the right to be able to determine their own lives and adopt their choice of lifestyle, but what we heard from a prominent spokesman for the Liberal Party was a defence of the profits of nursing homes. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to examine the intellectual and economic bankruptcy of the arguments that the Liberals advance in this area. One would think that nursing homes were operating out in the free market and that they were able to provide those wonderful services to people free of government support. What the Liberals do not tell us is that each bed in each nursing home is funded from the public purse to an amount in excess of $14,000 per annum. I do not for a minute deny the important role played by nursing homes, but let us really do what we can for aged and disabled people and let us allow people to have a real choice. I thought that the Liberal Party was about giving people the right to choose. That is what its rhetoric says but, of course, the substance and the brutal reality are that it is the greatest defender of the privileged and the haves. The Liberal Party, when in government, simply failed to do anything to defend the lot of those who were not among the privileged group in the community who have managed to make it. We reject that philosophy. Clearly, our alternative philosophy is reflected in the terms of these Bills. In relation to the aged, it is my view that future planning of services and support facilities is vital. In this regard, I commend the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) who was Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure which delivered a report in 1982 that paved the way for so many reforms that are occurring at present. The Committee reported that the aged population increased by almost 90 per cent from 1964 to 1980 and it is projected to increase by 66 per cent over the next 20 years. It also noted that the number of old people over 75 years of age in the community-if I can describe them in that way-increased between 1954 and 1981 by 114 per cent. It is projected that in the next 20 years a similar percentage increase will occur. In public discussion about aged persons living in the community a distinction is drawn between care in the community and care by the community. As the McLeay Committee pointed out, the former involves policy measures giving public support to develop services in a variety of community settings, while under the latter view the responsibility for care shifts from public authorities to informal support and voluntary sector activity. Again, in that regard there is a very clear philosophical difference between the major political parties. In this area the issue of the implementation of draconian Budget cuts and privatisation policies coincides with the view of the Liberal Party and the National Party. While the support of family and friends in the community is essential for aged and disabled persons, there are many occasions when, for various reasons, that support is simply not available. We, as members of Australian society, ought to be striving as much as possible towards that kind of caring and compassionate community wherein we have extended families and linkages between friends so that support can be given to those in the community who need it. As I have said, that support is not always available. Often it imposes an unmanageable load on family and friends and, importantly, a state of total dependency which operates to the disadvantage of all parties. It is, therefore, vital that the support of family and friends be supplemented by an extensive system of care and support and the provision of government funding and programs in appropriate areas. This is particularly important because the great bulk of elderly people require some form of social and/or medical support to maintain their quality of life. A recent survey revealed that for every 1,000 elderly people in Australia aged 65 years and over, 776 experienced at least one chronic condition and most of them suffer far more than one chronic condition. Obviously, such people need considerable support to maintain their quality of life. I place on record that traditionally it has been women who have ended up taking almost full responsibility for the care of elderly relatives. In the case of married women, surveys have chronicled the adverse effect of such responsibility on the carer's marital and family life. This is another area in society where women have been the source of unpaid labour. There has been a growing level of community and government awareness of the need for far more initiatives to be taken to allow disabled persons to take their rightful role in the community. Support by government for the disabled is increasingly thought of not in the form of some handout that has to be lobbied for at every Budget but, importantly, as a right of disabled people to allow them truly to take their place in the community equally with other Australians. The report of the handicapped programs review, referred to by the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) is an extremely important document for the future of this country. Submissions to that review stressed that home care services should be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week and that more emphasis should be placed on home visits by occupational, physio and speech therapists. Submissions also called for increased benefits, a national attendant care program and additional respite care. Although a number of major concerns of disabled people and their families have been met by this program and the programs referred to by the honourable member for Phillip, much more needs to be done. I know, from discussions and meetings I have had with my constituents, of the enormous financial, physical and emotional burdens which are borne by disabled persons and their families. I conclude by calling on the House and, I guess, Australia to reassess seriously our national priorities as we move towards our bicentennial year. I only wish that the Australian community gave as much support and thought to future planning for services for the aged and disabled to allow them to take their place in the community equally with Australian citizens as we give to some of the more, perhaps, grandiose proposals that are being put forward in the lead up to the Bicentenary. If only we could channel half the money that is being spent, for example, on the America's Cup preparations into meeting the real social needs of the Australian community, the bicentennial truly would be a springboard for reform, social change and social justice in our country. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.39) —Mr Deputy Speaker, before I begin my speech, can you clarify for me the position when there is no Minister in the House? Is that a serious matter, reflecting upon the Government itself? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the honourable member taking a point of order? Mr RUDDOCK —I would like some clarification of the matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member has been called to address the question before the Chair. The Chair is mindful that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is temporarily absent. There is clear evidence that his absence is of a fleeting nature. I think the House might accommodate that circumstance. Mr RUDDOCK —It is a very severe reflection upon the Government that there is no Minister in the House when we are discussing important legislation such as the Home and Community Care Bill 1985 and the Home and Community Care (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985. Another point I make is that this debate has been politicised in a way which I think is quite inappropriate for the discussion of a matter of this sort. I sat through a debate last night on veterans' affairs. I had a Minister on the other side of the House hectoring me and my colleagues about a monopoly of conscience as though nobody should be reflecting upon the Government in regard to the important matter that was being considered by suggesting that the Government was in some way derelict in its responsibility, views, compassion and concern. Yet today in this debate we believe, if we listen to the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), that the only people with any concern, care and compassion are on the Government side of the House. There is nothing further from the truth. The sooner honourable members opposite start to recognise that we might have more sensible debates on topics such as this. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) started this. He said in his second reading speech: When this Government came to office it had before it an array of reports done over the last 10 years . . . He implied that nothing had been done before it came to office. If honourable members, including the honourable member for Hughes, had taken some time to read the brief prepared by the Legislative Research Service of the Department of the Parliamentary Library, they may have received some elucidating information about the history of care programs from 1945 when a referendum was conducted to give the Commonwealth power to legislate for health benefits, nursing home benefits and other matters. The brief records the dates upon which specific legislation was introduced into the Parliament dealing with matters relating to the care of the aged. In 1954 the Aged Persons Homes Act was introduced by a Liberal Government. The brief goes on to say that in the 1960s and 1970s a concentration on institutional care became apparent. It records that in 1966 the capital cost subsidies available under the Aged Persons Homes Act were extended and that certain additional Acts were passed in 1969 dealing with the care of the aged and the frail, such as the States Grants (Nursing Homes) Act and the States Grants (Home Care) Act. The brief talks about the institution of those Acts, again under a Liberal Government. The Delivered Meals Subsidy Act of 1970 again was introduced by a Liberal Government. It goes on to say: A major attempt to make home care a viable alternative to institutional care occurred in 1972 when the National Health Act 1953 was amended. So what we are talking about in relation to a range of programs, including the programs which are the subject of some rationalisation now, are programs which were instituted by the previous Government. Some credit ought to be given where it is due. I was prepared, in the context of this discussion, to go through and look at the proposals in a constructive way and to offer some constructive comments, except in relation to the New South Wales Government, a Labor Government which appears to be unwilling to co-operate with its Federal colleagues on this legislation. It is important when we are considering matters of this sort to give credit where it is due. I note that my colleagues have taken the opportunity to refer to the constructive role of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), who will follow me in this debate, when he was chairman of a sub-committee of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure of this Parliament under a previous Government and had the opportunity of considering expenditure in the area of nursing home benefits. We saw some constructive recommendations develop in that area in a bipartisan way by that parliamentary committee. Some acknowledgement in relation to those sorts of matters is equally due. I hope that by raising these matters in this way I can indicate my concern that we ought to be constructive contributors and not seek to come into this chamber and score cheap political points in the way in which some of the Minister's colleagues have done in this debate today. I realise that there are very high expectations of people in regard to the way in which the elderly should be able to make valid choices about the way they live their twilight years. I understand that because I see it. I have experienced it in my family. One has had to make the choices and consider what provision is going to be made. When I was a young person my parents were away from home living with grandparents who were ill and in need of care. I saw the situation in regard to their home. In their more frail periods they were not able to provide for their own needs, to get up and down ladders, clean leaves out of gutters and do all the sorts of things that need to be done around the home to enable one to live in some dignified way. I appreciate as much as anybody else in this Parliament why we are anxious to provide that level of choice. Time and time again I have had to sit in my office, as so many honourable members would, and advise people about the way in which they should provide for themselves and consider their own frailty and the possibility of illness when they are agonising about where they might go and what provision might be made for them. I appreciate that there are many people today who would like to live in their own homes but who feel almost compelled to move into an alternative environment because they know that at the end of the day if they are ill and in need of continuous care, particularly in a nursing home environment, unless they are already in an institutional environment-an aged village or a hostel-they will not be in a ready position to obtain accommodation in their own area, close to their friends and relatives. I have seen people agonising about having to move 20 or 30 miles from their own homes and their friends because they cannot find nursing home accommodation in their district. These are the sorts of problems that beset our aged community. They have been with us for a long time. I understand that and I welcome any programs that are designed to provide services and care for these people in a more meaningful way. However, we must also understand, as the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) has said, that people's expectations have been very considerably increased by the way in which this matter has been discussed over time. I have before me a quotation from the Press statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) of 15 October 1984, dealing with this particular program after it was first announced in a Budget context shortly before an election. It was obviously intended to attract support for the Government on the basis of its care and compassion. This quotation was: `The Government would provide more than $300m in a new program over the first three years'. I recognise that the Government has changed its language since then because what it is really talking about is taking all the money that has been previously allocated for programs in this area and using that, together with the small amount that will be used to top up the program, to provide a program for $300m. But in fact it is not, as people were led to believe, a new $300m program. That is the reality. That is the hype that the honourable member for Richmond was talking about. That is why the State Minister in South Australia is so concerned about the matter. If honourable members opposite have any concern about the way in which they project these matters, they might care to look at the language used by the Prime Minister in his statement of 15 October in order to appreciate why people might feel that they have been misled in their expectations of this legislation. I recognise that this is not a matter which has turned out to be significiantly political. I note that the Minister in his speech told us of the States that are co-operating with the Federal Government on the implementation of this new program. He said that three States-South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia-as well as the Northern Territory had to date indicated that they would sign or had in fact signed the home and community care program agreement-that is, two Labor governments, one Liberal Government and one Country Liberal Party Government. That is an indication of the way in which this matter is being approached. It is being approached in essentially a non-political way in order to try to devise the best form in which programs of this sort can be administered. I had hoped that there would be some recognition of that. As a New South Welshman I am disappointed about that and I had hoped there would be some acknowledgement from my colleagues in New South Wales who have participated in this matter before me and, perhaps, the honourable member opposite from New South Wales-the honourable member for Grayndler-who may participate later. No, he has just indicated that he will not drop a bucket on his colleagues in New South Wales. I was hoping that he might be prepared to recognise that there are problems in New South Wales in relation to participation in this program. In a spirit of bipartisanship with the Government, I would hope that all New South Wales Labor members of parliament would urge their colleagues in New South Wales to look at this legislation in a more realistic way and to see whether some accommodation could be reached which would enable New South Wales to participate in the development of these worthwhile objectives. There is a concern in New South Wales and this is evidenced in the Pensioners' Voice, a paper of the Combined Pensioners Association. If I remember rightly this organisation has its office in the Trades Hall, so it is not particularly critical of this Government or the Government of New South Wales. I wish to read from that paper's editorial of August 1985. This editorial is very elucidating and it should be a matter of concern to all thinking Labor members and non-Labor members in this Parliament. The editorial, which is headed `HACC under threat', says: As the deadline for signing the State/Federal Agreements draws near the HACC Program is already at risk in N.S.W. The N.S.W. Government has dug in its heels over what it sees as the unsatisfactory financial agreements imposed by the Federal Government. On the other hand, the Federal Government says that N.S.W. is getting a fair deal in which to maintain and extend the State's home support services. The wrangle has placed the entire Program in jeopardy. The Commonwealth has already given significant concessions in the dispute. Indexation for the Program is guaranteed and the funding has been considerably broadened in an attempt to placate the State Government. Yet N.S.W. is continuing to cry wolf. Members of the N.S.W. Consultative Committee fear for the entire Program. `While Governments wrangle, home support services in N.S.W. continue to limp along with insecure and inadequate funding' said Linda Adamson, the Combined Pensioners Association representative on the Committee. `We certainly don't want N.S.W. to come off badly in the financial negotiations. However, the Commonwealth's promise to index the Program is a significant and welcome concession. It is difficult to understand the skittish behaviour of the N.S.W. Government when in fact the Consultative Committee has been provided with such little information on the State's financial provision'. Right across N.S.W., consumers and service providers are establishing HACC Forums to share information and plan for the Program. It will undoubtedly prove to be a social disaster if such goodwill and enthusiasm is rejected. Consumers always seem to lose out. They are the last ones to be consulted about the direction of Government Programs and the last to know why a Program is about to be dumped. The outcome of this dispute is awaited with bated breath as the future of home support services hang in the balance. That is a very severe editorial and I would hope that the Minister would be able to clarify the situation. As a New South Welshman, I am troubled that over time we have seen tremendous problems in the relationship between the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments. Some of this is seen in the New South Wales Government endeavouring to shift responsibility, which has traditionally been a State responsibility, for the care of the mentally ill. In relation to the psychiatric hospitals in New South Wales we even see disputes continuing today as the New South Wales Government endeavours to shift mentally ill people into the hospital system in the expectation that the hospital's funding, in which there is a Commonwealth contribution, will provide for those patients. In a psychiatric environment the New South Wales Government would be obliged to provide for them on its own. We have also seen efforts to shift such patients into the community health program, under what is called `the revolving door policy', so that the State Government can reduce its involvement there and transfer that responsibility to a Commonwealth program I notice that in the agreements before us there is an effort to try to contain that sort of shifting of further responsibility from New South Wales onto the Commonwealth and to ensure that this program is able to be directed where the need exists and not to subsidise programs which the State is already funding through its ordinary programs. I will come to that in a moment because I am concerned about hospitals and their relationship with the HACC program which I would like to develop. This approach at limiting New South Wales Government participation in areas in which one expects that services will be delivered to people in need is at a time when that Government is involved in expanding its activities in a whole range of other areas which have traditionally been Commonwealth responsibilities. In passing I just mention the efforts that the New South Wales Government made in order to get involved in film funding, which was an area in which the Commonwealth was involved. I refer also to the area of migrant services, where the Commonwealth has accepted a responsibility. In that area New South Wales made efforts to set up its own commission and its own funding lines so that it could get some credit for that. One only has to look at the bicentenary, which was mentioned by the honourable member for Hughes, who spoke of the need to look at programs in this area as having as worthy objectives as programs in other areas. But in addition to the Commonwealth's funding for the bicentennial we have that huge program in Darling Harbour complementing so many other facilities of a community nature that have been provided for the central part of Sydney as against the western suburbs of Sydney. I think that priorities are distorted in my own State and I feel obliged to say that in relation to this particular legislation, particularly when the conflict is over financial arrangements. I hope that my comments will be something that the Minister for Community Services can use in his discussion with the New South Wales Government to get it to come to the party in relation to this. I hope that they are the sorts of comments that will enable New South Wales members, in talking to their colleagues, to say: `We are embarrassed that we have you as our colleagues when we cannot get some agreement in relation to this particular program'. There are many other matters that I could address in relation to this legislation, but time really does not permit me to do that, particularly in view of the injunctions I have had from my colleagues to try to sit down a little earlier than I might have otherwise done. But I do want to point out, referring to clause 7 of the agreement contained in the Schedule to the Bill, some of the points I was making about the problem of New South Wales shifting responsibility. In paragraph (3) there is a reference to the sorts of services that shall be outside the scope of the program, that is: (a) the provision of accommodation (including rehousing and supported accommodation) or a related support service; or (b) the provision of an aid or appliance. Paragraph (4) states: A service of the following kind shall be within the scope of the program but only to the extent and for the period that it is eligible for funding by virtue of sub-clause 8 (2)- (a) a rehabilitative service directed primarily towards increasing a person's level of functioning; (b) a service providing direct treatment for acute illness . . . (c) a service designed specifically for persons with the same disability other than a service provided to persons within the target population suffering from brain failure . . . I caution the Minister in relation to those particular matters. I am very conscious that within the hospital environments where hospital funding in New South Wales is being contracted at this very time, many of the rehabilitation services that are conducted within hospital environments now may very well become the target area for New South Wales to again try to shift responsibility from its own sources of funding to this new program, HACC, in order to escape some level of responsibility of its own. I caution the Minister to watch that very closely. In relation to clause 10, I note and welcome the recognition of the need for co-operation and consultation between the Commonwealth Minister and State Ministers and, where appropriate, local government and community organisations and service users-using the words of the clause itself. That is very appropriate. I simply record that there has been criticism from the New South Wales Council of Social Service that there has been a lack of consultation in relation to this legislation in New South Wales, and certainly amongst community-based organisations that is the feeling; and it is a real feeling and a real concern. It is something that I hope the Minister will keep in mind and consider in conjunction with clause 25, which says: During the first 3 grant years the Commonwealth Minister and the State Minister shall jointly develop standard terms and conditions to be attached by the State to payments . . . No reference is made to consultation there. That, in a sense, is disappointing. I hope that in relation to the development of the standard terms and conditions to be used for payments and agreements with local government and community organisations, consultation will also be possible. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(11.59) — I take great pleasure in joining in the debate on the Home and Community Care Bill and the cognate Bill. Since 1980 I have lived, in a way, with some of the things that are in this Bill. I thank honourable members for their generous remarks about the report of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, `In a Home or at Home', tabled in 1982. I guess that report was a precursor of many of the things that are in this legislation. When the Committee looked at the aged care area in 1981 and 1982, it found that there were two things of great interest in regard to the funding of programs for the aged in those days: That there was a demand for nursing home beds, the cost of providing which was getting out of hand; and there were many other reports that had come in over the years that recommended that the imbalance between institutional and community based services should be rectified. But unfortunately, nothing was done. Indeed, the home and community care program, which was part of a package of programs that the present Government has brought into the Parliament over the last two years, has been the first move to bring about some recompense for the imbalance between institutional care and home care. I was interested in what the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) had to say earlier about the advantages of nursing homes. I think that she was a little off the track when she said that the present Government's policy is anti-nursing home. The Government's policy is not anti-nursing home. The present Government's policy is about giving older Australians a choice in what to do with their own lives, because prior to 1983 that was really no choice. It is interesting to look at what was happening in the community prior to the Government making these changes. Indeed, I will quote a few paragraphs out of the Committee's report. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) mentioned that previous Liberal governments had brought in a number of pieces of legislation that provided benefits for the aged. Unfortunately, their approach was one very much of ad hockery and, indeed, a number of pieces of legislation were brought in by the McMahon Government in a helter-skelter to the election run-up. But it is interesting to hear what people said prior to 1982 about the delivery of health and welfare services for the aged. In August 1975 the Social Welfare Commission reported: The present basis of care for the aged and handicapped is haphazard, expensive and inadequate. The lack of support given to large numbers of aged people and the limited alternatives of institutional care available to them may in fact contribute to the accelerated deterioration of their health. In April 1975 the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty noted: At least some of the deficiencies in the care of the elderly can be blamed on the complicated way in which the field is administered. In any State up to half a dozen government departments can be involved, divided between the centre and the State. And even within one department affairs are by no means straight-forward. Two years later in 1977 the Committee on the Care of the Aged and Infirm referred to: the largely ad hoc way in which programs had been launched; the lack of co-ordination between the effort of various levels of government and between governments and the non-government sector; past concentration on institutional accommodation rather than on the development of comprehensive domiciliary services; failure to develop effective assessment and rehabilitation procedures which could improve the efficiency of programs by matching services to people's particular requirements. In 1981 the Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals, which was set up by the previous Liberal-National Party Government, observed that: . . . the machinery for administering the nursing home sector is something of a maze, the key to which gives various financial powers to the Commonwealth. The Jamison Commission went on to note that the effectiveness of the sector had been criticised by all parties involved and suggested that this criticism reflected the `ineffectiveness of the profusion of machinery to produce effective policy'. With a touch of irony, Jamison added: . . . it was striking to observe how effective the Commonwealth financial machinery had been in shaping the nature of available services for the aged with its predominance of nursing homes. In the report of the Auditor-General on the efficiency of the nursing home programs of the Commonwealth, he made the more general comment that: Effective interaction between Commonwealth departments (Health, Social Security and Veterans' Affairs) in the planning and evaluation of related programs of care for the aged and the infirm is largely absent . . . The Australian Council of the Ageing, in its submission to the Expenditure Committee in 1982, said: Once established, there appear to have been few attempts at systematic monitoring of services to establish levels of effectiveness and efficiency in relation to clearly defined goals. This has led to haphazard development that is patchy in coverage and often dictated by needs other than those of the intended beneficiaries, i.e., the aged. I believe that that was one of the classic problems of the Commonwealth funding of programs for the aged until the present Government came to power, because the programs tended to be financed and operated for anyone but the aged. The programs were financed by Commonwealth bureaucrats for their own empires in some instances. There were very large State and charitable organisations that were interested in getting their share of the Commonwealth dollar. All the way along the line no one asked the aged what they thought about it. We had this very simplistic approach that nursing homes must be good for them, so they could go into a nursing home or struggle along at home unattended. What happened along the way was that the system collapsed. One of the reasons it collapsed was the increased participation of women in the work force. But no one planning the delivery of these services ever considered that. The number of women who forsook their own careers or personal lives to look after an aged parent or relative has declined remarkably in recent years. People who in the past played out the role of being a family carer no longer did so. There was an increasing pressure for some other sort of service, and the only service that the Commonwealth provided was in the form of nursing homes. That suited State governments because it cost them nothing. One of the real problems of the nursing home program was that it allowed State governments to make economic decisions that did not affect them at all. They were very much in favour of nursing homes because they were totally funded by the Commonwealth. They were willy-nilly approving services because it was good for them; it cost them nothing. But the people who were getting the service, the elderly Australians, were put in an unenviable position. In 1980 and 1981, when I spent a lot of time visiting nursing homes around the country, it was very difficult to find anyone who happily went into a nursing home. Many of the older people talked about that lack of choice. In the package of Bills that the Government has brought into the Parliament over the last two years there is an element of choice. It is an embryonic choice, I admit, and I had hoped that that choice would have been a bit wider by now, but at least we are getting somewhere towards providing for the first time some choice for elderly Australians. HACC is part of a program that includes hostel provisions. The present Government has provided far more money for hostels than previous governments did. It is part of a program that provides for respite care, because it was only the recent changes in the nursing home system that allowed for respite care for people in the community being cared for by a relation or looking after themselves but who needed some time in a nursing home to build up their health, perhaps to recover from an illness. In the past that service could not be provided; now it can be. In the past the alternative was to put a person into a nursing home permanently. There was no system whereby people could go in for a little while, build themselves up and come out again. The Government has also instituted a carer's pension, which acknowledges that it might not only be an older person's spouse who provides care but it could be some other member of the family. It is amazing that it has taken governments this long to recognise what in fact happened in what people term the good old days when the family looked after its older members. At least now we are recognising that there needs to be some assistance for those people in both financial and support terms. The HACC program is of great assistance in support terms. The Government's proposals to amalgamate many of these programs will make such programs more cost-effective and it is sensible for the Government to put for the first time all programs under the control of one Commonwealth Minister. We had a ludicrous situation in the past. For instance, under the arrangements for deficit financed nursing homes the Department of Social Security could give an approval and some funding to a person to start a nursing home but then the Department of Health picked up the continuing cost of running that nursing home. There was not a great deal of co-operation between the two departments and I believe that there was a quite significant distortion of the way the Commonwealth should have been carrying out its role in the provision of care for the aged. As other members have pointed out, it was in 1949 that the Commonwealth first took on the responsibility of providing assistance to older Australians and I do not think that up until now we have come all that far. The present Government's policy of granting a choice to people, of allowing people to have some control over their own lives, is one way of ensuring that people will live out their remaining years in dignity and that their families can feel confident that they do not necessarily have to make the horrendous choice of whether or not to put a person in an institution as there is now an alternative. The Government should be commended for that. I do not wish to participate in the debate for too much longer except to say that the discussion on these Bills and the previous legislation that has brought forward other changes in the provision of care for the aged has made me feel that there are some benefits in being a member of parliament in that if we work at it sometimes we can get change to occur. However, we should all consider why it has taken so long for this imbalance between institutional care and community care to be accepted by the Commonwealth. A lot of it probably goes back to some of the less fortunate things that governments and we as members of parliament do. Members of parliament like to think that governments build buildings or do other things in their electorates. The old syndrome of the brass plaque has a lot to do with it. Some of us often think that to measure our ability to serve our electorate we must count up the number of buildings in the electorate. Executive governments must have thought that that was a good idea too because under previous Labor and Liberal Governments there were Cabinet decisions that anything that the Commonwealth had funded had to have a plaque on it saying that the Commonwealth had funded it. So obviously executive governments thought that there was some value in being able to tote up these buildings. Of course, it is hard to point to a community service and say: `That is what I have been able to provide'. They are very amorphous things. We need to be a little more careful in our thinking as members of parliament and maybe treat our constituents with a bit more respect. I really do not think that Australians in the 1980s are venal enough to think that the only measure of their local representative is whether he gets another Commonwealth building provided in his electorate, or a building into which the Commonwealth has had some financial input. As we run up to the turn of the century we should be providing people services rather than buildings, and programs like HACC will allow us to do that. The aged and their lobby groups nowadays would not allow governments to get away with the things that they did in the past. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Dundas quote from Pensioners' Voice, the newspaper of the Combined Pensioners Association of New South Wales. In years gone by the pensioners did not have a newspaper, they did not write editorials and they never pricked the conscience of politicians. Had those organisations been as active in the late 1960s as they are in the late 1980s we would have had an entirely different type of service provision for older people in Australia. I say to all my colleagues that whenever we support proposals that governments put forward we should ask ourselves whether the proposal is really going to help the people that it is supposed to help. The real problem with aged persons programs in the 1960s and 1970s was that no one was really taking too much interest in the well-being of the people the programs were supposed to be targeted to. Programs such as HACC and the changes that have been made in nursing home and hostel funding have ensured that at least there is a mechanism for reviewing every now and again whether the program is reaching its target. In the HACC program in particular there is provision for consultation with community groups and service providers as well as the clients of the services, and I think that is extremely healthy. Any program that provides assistance to help people to make a choice for themselves is a program that should have support. I commend the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) for it. Finally, while sitting here listening to some of the other speakers I had occasion to thumb through the report of the Expenditure Committee entitled: `In a Home or at Home'. Recommendation 7.74 states: The following strategy be implemented: an Extended Care Program be introduced to replace the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969, the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act 1969, the Home Nursing Subsidy Scheme and the Delivered Meals Subsidy; the Extended Care Program include an Attendant Care Allowance to replace the Domiciliary Nursing Care Benefit and the Personal Care Subsidy; the range of services to be funded be decided in consultation with the States to encourage a diversity of services to meet local need; resources be distributed so as to achieve a basic provision in all areas rather than solely in response to submissions for funding; and the Extended Care Program be funded through a grant without matching conditions. Whilst the whole of that recommendation has not been adopted I think this program and previous programs put forward in this House by the Minister for Social Security and the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) have gone a long way towards doing that. I am very proud to take part in the debate today and I commend the Government for moving away from institutionalisation and towards providing community care for people. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(12.17) —It is with some pleasure that I rise to speak to the Home and Community Care Bill and the Home and Community Care (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill because they promise great benefit to an important section of our community, the aged and disabled. I do not think there would be any argument on either side of the House that it is really no good our striving for longevity if we cannot ensure at least some measure in that regard to the quality that that life will hold for us. Excellent initial work was done by the coalition when in government in providing some assistance to those eligible groups in the community under the provisions of the four Acts, the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970, the Home Nursing Subsidy Act 1956, the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969 and the States Grants (Paramedical Services) Act 1969. However, the inflexibility of the provisions of these Acts and the growing recognition of a great variety of additional needs in the community provided the catalyst for a series of reports as to what changes ought to be effected to accommodate these newly recognised needs. It is to the credit of the Government that it has collated the reports, important among which was the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `In a Home or at Home', which was completed in 1982. It has now produced a program which, if correctly developed, will offer an extension of services and flexibility. For this reason community organisations and other providers of services in the community are enthusiastic about the prospects of being able to provide improved services to those many people requiring them. For country residents the prospect of institutionalising a loved one, not because it was wanted but because there was no alternative, often meant the virtual isolation of the aged person in a home many kilometres away from the relatives. Of course this situation results in less regular visits and is traumatic for the person taken away from the area which he or she has grown to know and love as they suddenly find themselves institutionalised in another environment which is completely different from what they have lived in for so many years. The decrease in the number of visits by the relatives is also a problem of great dimension. For those families and the aged and disabled there will now be alternatives which can be implemented in some circumstances but, we must remember, not in all circumstances. The second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) submitted data revealing that only 10 per cent of aged people living at home regularly receive help from formal health or welfare agencies. A couple of conclusions can be drawn from that information. Firstly, there are a great number of families looking after their elderly loved ones and hence no need for outside assistance exists. Secondly, there are a significant number of people who are in desperate need of care and/or assistance but who are missing out at present. I believe that both conclusions have a degree of validity. Fortunately many families can provide the level of care that these people need. Some no doubt are trying to provide care at the required level, but would welcome additional support if it were available. Unfortunately the second conclusion-that people are missing out on aid-contains an element of truth. Community organisations in the electorate of Hinkler have confirmed a need for assistance to people, a need which is not being provided now because it is not covered by any of the provisions of the existing Acts. I am delighted that the Government has recognised the importance of planning and co-ordination as an essential ingredient for the effective operation of the program. It is most important that all groups involved in the program continue to consult and be consulted to ensure that the noble aims of the program are met and continue to be met. The Government must recognise that what suits one locality may not suit another. I therefore stress that the program implementation must be flexible to accommodate local conditions and needs. In attempting to achieve the second of the program's two main objectives-namely, to expand and develop community care services through the joint co-operation of the four tiers-it is most important that each group in the co-operative arrangement be fully informed and knowledgeable of the prevailing conditions. After all, the most important part of the program must surely be that the user receives the assistance he or she needs. Good intentions are no substitute for an informed mind. Education will therefore be an important component under the home and community care program. The 11 sub-programs represent a significant expansion of services. Many of the community groups in the Hinkler electorate, who have provided an input to my contribution, have queried some of the terms used to describe the programs; for example, `information'. The confusion is probably conceptual in that they are unsure whether their assessment of each sub-program agrees with the Government's intention. However, I am appreciative that clarification will probably be forthcoming when the more detailed sub-program guidelines are delivered, following consultation and negotiation between the Queensland and Federal Government Ministers in regard to the Hinkler electorate. At this point I feel obliged to digress for a moment to acknowledge the wonderful assistance given to me by officers of the Department of Community Services in Brisbane. Over a period of months they have been asked many questions about home and community care. The enthusiasm which they feel for the program is obvious in their answers and their attitude and I publicly thank them for performing an important job and doing it well. I think it is important that those people who are to help to administer the Act do take note of it and are anxious to see it implemented. I have been asked about the `above the base' funding arrangement being distributed on a resident population basis and whether the formula would be applied intra-State on a regional basis and whether the local authority area would be the determinant of what constitutes a region. The absence of guidelines has prevented my being able to provide any accurate answer to this query, but I hope that the agreement between the Queensland Government and the Federal Government will be finalised in the not too distant future so that the specifics of the program can be sorted out and that information can then be provided to my constituents. I recognise the importance of co-operation and liaison, this time intra-State, and between providers and users who need to work within an administrative framework which will be conducive to the speedy identification of gaps in existing service delivery. The providers of service who have been contacted by my office are in no doubt as to the shortcomings of the existing coverage but recognise that the program must maintain flexibility even while it is up and running. One of the departmental officers in Brisbane mentioned the phrase `the dignity of risk' used by Dr Glenda Powell of Ipswich in Queensland. She was of course referring to the opportunity for our aged to stay in the community and be provided with those services that they themselves cannot manage, and yet maintain their dignity and an element of hope by being allowed to remain at home, of course mindful of any risk attached to that. This embodies the main thrust of the home and community care program. We do not want to institutionalise people in the target groups if they can receive sufficient assistance to remain at home: We would be mindful, of course, of their respective wishes. Home and community care can now provide options which were lacking under previous initiatives. It must be acknowledged that people may require more than one of the sub-program services, either permanently or occasionally. To do this efficiently and effectively will require a high level of local co-ordination, maximising the resources available. The involvement of local service providers in the development of a national database to enable effective monitoring of the program was regarded as most essential by those local providers in the Hinkler electorate who commented on this aspect of the home and community care program. They also agreed that the development of standards for service was complex and contained an element of subjectivity that was important. The input from both providers and users of services will surely present both sides of the story and assist those developing a set of standards. Because of the variety of tasks likely within each sub-program, it could be a mammoth undertaking. Those service providers in receipt of Commonwealth-State funds will be most appreciative to receive written advice of what effect the introduction of home and community care will have on their operations. To date their response to the possibilities of the programs has been enthusiastic. Effective liaison right from the beginning will certainly give recognition to their work in the past and encourage them to participate and co-operate fully with the Government. I note with pleasure the recognition that this Bill gives to service users and providers by offering them the continuing opportunity for involvement in priority setting. My only concern is about the mechanism by which these priorities are handled and determined. I know the last thing that the Government and the Opposition want is the proliferation of somewhat obscure services which squander funds but are not really what home and community care is all about. I consider that co-ordinating machinery to be very important. This aspect of home and community care, that is, user and provider input, generated enormous interest in the Hinkler electorate. Some of the extensions to home and community care that were suggested include a home handy-person service to help the aged and disabled with house- housework; odd handyman jobs; such duties as shopping-a tried and proven service in that area under a community employment program grant but now dormant because of the lack of continuing funds-respite care to enable the family carer to have a holiday or to provide a back-up in the case of sickness of the carer; a day care centre for handicapped and elderly people where they can enjoy activities and outings under supervised care and to give relief to the relative at home who is providing care 24 hours a day; day care in facilities with fully fenced grounds for people who tend to wander and who normally live at home with relatives in order to give the caring relatives relief from the constant strain of supervision yet still provide the people with loving care; laundry services to include heavy laundry such as blankets and daily laundering for the incontinent, which is very important; and the provision of specialised diet facilities. We know that Meals on Wheels cannot cater adequately for people with dietary problems. Many other suggestions have been given to me by people through the length and breadth of the Hinkler electorate. I am very thankful for their co-operation in providing information and in displaying the enthusiasm that they have for this program. The final point I wish to make, which is perhaps outside the provisions of home and community care, concerns the importance of communication facilities for the elderly and disabled. Some of my constituents are without a phone service or have a reduced hours service. I know that Telecom Australia is working towards solving that problem and I wish it God speed. But what I am really concerned about is the cost of phones and accessories and the absence of suitable phones for people suffering some impairment. I have seen the lengths to which some people very close to me have gone to maintain a phone facility for an aging sight impaired relative. When one is not able to see very well, it is very difficult. But when one's hands are not too nimble, it is virtually impossible to differentiate between buttons on some of those alternative phones which offer a memory facility of 10 numbers or so. If this does not fall within home and community care, it should, nevertheless, be looked at closely. Those community groups which have been so kind, so concerned and so enthusiastic in giving me input on the home and community care program are looking forward to being involved in the decision making process and to submitting their proposals in an effort to utilise the flexibility this Bill promises to provide us. I certainly hope that they are involved in that decision making. I sincerely trust that the hopes and aspirations of these people and the many people who have worked so hard over the years to improve services to the elderly and disabled will be satisfied with the home and community care program when it is implemented. I heartily support the legislation before the House. Ms FATIN(Brand)(12.31) —I am very pleased today to support the Government in the introduction of the Home and Community Care Bill. As many people will know, for years a number of people working in the health and welfare areas have been suggesting that the Federal Government, with co-operation from the States, should have a program which enabled more aged and handicapped people to stay in their homes rather than be admitted prematurely or inappropriately to an institution. I congratulate the Government and particularly the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) and his advisers and departmental officers, who have at last put together the Bill that we are debating. Discussion has been going on in the community for many years. My experience has been that the nursing profession and others who have cared for people in the community, such as social workers, occupational therapists and others, have been saying for quite some time that a number of beds in our nursing homes could be released for people in more need of them. These beds could be released if we were able to keep in their own homes a number of aged or handicapped people who, with a little help and assistance, could stay at home and who, undoubtedly, would much prefer to do so. The funding of this program relies on the co-operation of the States. In 1985-86 $25m of above the base funding will be available on a 3:1 matching basis for States which have signed the home and community care program agreement. In 1986-87 the amount allocated is $30m, which will be available on a 2:1 basis for eligible States. Already three States-South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania-and I think also the Northern Territory, have signed the HACC program agreement. Co-operation between the States and the Federal Government is absolutely essential to this whole program. The Federal Government cannot on its own fund this type of program. I suggest that it is clearly the responsibility of both levels of government to involve themselves in this program. The services provided under the HACC program will be administered on a day- to-day basis by a unit in the various State health departments. Community groups will be asked to submit proposals for funding and there will be consultation with groups which provide services and with the people who use the services. National program guidelines and sub-program guidelines will be available. It is essential that the services offered reflect particular community needs and that there is a responsiveness and sensitivity to the needs of those elderly or handicapped people requiring our care. If one asks people who are worried about becoming frail or who are concerned at the prospect of becoming dependent on others as they grow older what assistance they would need to enable them to remain in their homes, one can be sure that the suggestions will be many and varied. The Government is faced with determining a wide range of services to be assisted under this HACC program. I feel quite sure that, if in the future it is shown that there are some necessary services which are not available for funding under this program, the Government will amend its proposals and include these other services as appropriate. However, at the moment the range of services proposed is indeed very wide and extremely varied. Mr McGauran —Who wrote this? Did the Department write it for you? Ms FATIN —Not at all, my friend. It incorporates existing services and introduces new ones. The purpose of all these services is to enable people to remain as long as they can in the familiar surroundings of their own homes, in the streets where they may have lived for years and in the areas where they may have a network of friends, neighbours, shops and, of course, where they have their memories. The existing services which the Government has been funding include delivered meals, home help, home maintenence, and day care and community care nursing. Those services not previously funded include community respite care, laundry and linen services and transport. In response to some of the interjectors on the other side of the House I just indicate that, for many years prior to coming into this place, I worked in the community with a number of people who required and received these services. Without doubt, services such as delivered meals, home help and home maintenance have enabled a number of elderly people to stay in their homes. Those of us who have experience of men and women, whether they be single or in partnerships, who have lived in their homes as they have become very aged will know that, when those people are not able to have meals delivered or to have home help or home maintenance, many of them decide to leave their homes quite prematurely. It is not easy for aged people to sit in their homes and see the downpipes, the gutterings or the window hinges come apart when, with a little help, they would be able to have maintenance done to their homes and they would be more than happy to stay there. Delivered meals have been absolutely essential for aged people who are not able to shop, to cook and to prepare for themselves the appropriate daily diet. With this service we have seen many people being maintained in their homes. I am very pleased to hear that this service will be extended even further. Home help is a very important service which is essential for people to be able to stay in their homes. On occasions men and women will require anything from two, three or four hours help a week to be able to maintain their homes. When this help has been given to them they have been able to stay in their homes until they reach quite an old age. The new community respite care program is also absolutely essential. As previous speakers have said, those who have cared for the aged in their homes in the past often have not been able to get any form of change or rest from this care. Often they have not continued caring for aged persons because they were not able to get relief or to have a holiday. Respite care enables a person receiving care to leave the home and enter a nursing home for a short period and be cared for while the carer actually gets a rest. I am delighted to see the laundry and linen services included under this program. It has been my experience that, when these services are not extended to aged persons, a number of them cannot stay at home. Often, if there is just a few hours help each week with the laundry, those aged people who cannot actually work washing machines any more and who cannot physically put washing on the line are able, in many instances, to look after the rest of their homes. So this service will enable them to stay at home. I have a very vivid memory of a couple in their nineties, he blind and she very feeble, who were yet still able to stay in their home because they were given assistance with their laundry. Actually, this service was delivered by neighbours but I am now delighted to see that it will be extended still further to many other people and will undoubtedly be delivered by people who will be paid for doing it. A visit for may be two or three hours a week will enable such people to whom I have referred to stay at home. It will undoubtedly enable many people to stay in their homes longer and not take up a nursing home bed. What we are really talking about today is supplying a much needed support service for our elderly and handicapped citizens. I am sure that most honourable members present in the House today will at some stage have heard someone, perhaps relatives or parents, discussing plans for their old age, perhaps putting their names on a list for a nursing home or perhaps selling their home in order to buy a unit in a retirement village or a unit with associated hospital facilities. I suggest that one of the main reasons for this is that people fear aging. They fear becoming frail and they fear becoming a nuisance to their families. They fear becoming dependent and they also fear being left in a situation where they cannot cope. The services proposed in the home and community care program should help to allay some of these fears. The services will support people in their homes and they will deliver a health maintenance program so that people do not necessarily become ill while living at home. What is more, the community as a whole will benefit from having its elderly members remain in the community. What a shameful waste it is to have elderly people who are still mentally active and alert isolated in a nursing home where their accumulated experience, knowledge and wisdom are inaccessible to the wider community. Since the Government has begun to develop the notion of keeping people at home, many people within politics and within the Public Service have had an input into the development of this program. The result is that today we are seeing before the House legislation which I believe deserves support and which has been put forward by a government which is to be congratulated. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(12.41) —I speak on this legislation with a great deal of pleasure because the care of the aged is a matter which is very dear to my heart. The Home and Community Care Bill is based upon the philosophy for the provision of programs for the aged and disabled outlined by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure in its report entitled: `In a Home or at Home: accommodation and home care for the aged'. That report suggested that it was vital that service programs for the aged be provided which would ensure that nursing homes would be available to those who need full time care and attention and, further, that programs would be adopted which would enable the aged to maintain themselves in their homes for as long as possible until such time as institutional care became necessary for them because of their state of health. Inherent in the latter proposal was that it would be necessary for there to be built up the structures of both personnel and facilities which would support aged and disabled people in the community in such a way that they would be able to live at home for as long as possible. With the escalation in the proportion of aged people in the community and the demands that would be made on institutional facilities, such as nursing homes, if the Commonwealth did not promote alternative forms of aid services, both the report and the home and community care agreement are trying to ensure that alternative, less costly aid services are in place which will assist in controlling the amount which the Commonwealth has to spend on nursing homes. I really cannot argue with that. I think perhaps the more significant point is not that it is less costly but that we have to think in terms of the individual aged person. As far as I am concerned, the whole basis for supporting this legislation is not to save money, but because I believe that the extension of services to help people stay in their own homes and to live more of a normal life is the important factor. As I said earlier, I am pleased to support this legislation. I am prepared to support any move which will increase the services available for the aged in our community. Mr Cowan —You have worked hard for your nursing homes. Mr NEHL —I have certainly done my very best. Mr McGauran —And you have achieved results. Mr NEHL —It is very kind of the honourable member for Gippsland to say so. When we are considering the provision of these additional services we have to be very careful to ensure that home care is not taken in isolation. There has to be a widespread and adequate support structure. There has to be sufficient finance and personnel for Meals on Wheels. There has to be home maintenance. If one is in that aged area, mowing the lawn can become an impossibility. If one is a pensioner with no other source of income one just cannot afford to hire anybody to do that. Even getting a broken window- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A the debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I ask the honourable gentleman: In view of Australia's mounting economic difficulties, will he undertake that the Government at the adjourned hearing, amongst other things, into the new wage fixation principles, will seek the inclusion in the wage indexation guidelines of a new principle; namely, that there should be full discounting for the price effects of currency devaluations? Mr HAWKE —The position that we will adopt before the hearing to which the Leader of the Opposition referred will be determined by the Cabinet. I will not go into the details at this stage; no proposals have been put to us at this point by the Minister. But let me say this: We will be approaching not only that hearing but all hearings in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with the sorts of policies and proposals which will continue to produce in this country the outstandingly successful economic outcomes which not only are apparent in their own right but which become more starkly obvious when compared with the miserable outcomes which represented the implementation of the range of policies, including the non-wage policies, of the Leader of the Opposition when he had the responsibility for the conduct of the economic policy of this country. One of the more ludicrous features of the economic and political debate in Australia is that we have this blusterer from Bennelong who brought this country to its economic knees purporting to stand up and lecture this Government which rescued the country from the result of his ineptitude on how we should conduct ourselves. The prices and incomes accord and the wages policy of this Government have been a central feature in turning the Australian economy around. We inherited from the Opposition a country which, as I have said before, had simultaneously double digit inflation and double digit unemployment, which represented more than anything else the impact on this country of the wages policy of the current Leader of the Opposition. It was the most disastrous approach to wages fixation that this country had ever seen and it is an act of unbelievable hypocrisy that, having inflicted that result upon this country, he should seek to lecture this Government on wages policy. We will continue to follow policies which will continue strong economic growth and strong growth in employment, which put us at the forefront of economic achievers in the Western world. Mr GRACE —My question also is addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the Government press ahead with its proposed reform of the Australian taxation system following the Opposition's decision to oppose key elements of the taxation package? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for this question. It is the fact, recognised not only here but around the world, that this Government inherited a taxation system which had been undermined by an avalanche of avoidance, evasion and minimisation which had been encouraged under the preceding Government. It is recognised that there is need for substantial basic reform of the tax system. At last this country has a government which, after extensive analysis and consultation, has the guts to go ahead and undertake that reform, and we will do so. By contrast, what do we have on the other side? We have an Opposition which, when in government, produced this shambles that we have inherited and which now, in opposition, is showing itself singularly incapable of achieving a responsible position in regard to tax policy. It is fascinating to look at the emerging story on this issue. Until yesterday the Opposition had said repeatedly that its vote on the tax package, other than on the capital gains tax, would be determined only when it knew the final shape of the Government's legislation. Just so we can see how recently that was the Opposition's position, let me quote from the Leader of the Opposition last week. Mr Duncan —Which one? Mr HAWKE —This one here, for the time being. The honourable member would not like to put too much money on him staying there for too long. This is what he said last week. This was last week's statement of the Opposition's position on tax. On 6 November he stated: `We will make a decision on the fringe benefits part of the legislation when we actually see it. I haven't seen it yet'. So last week's position was: When we see it we will say it. But yesterday that all changed. Members of the Opposition yesterday said they would support the reductions in income tax rates, but they would oppose all means of getting there. They would take the goodies, but oppose the nasties. In case it be said that I coined the phrase goodies and nasties, I must confess that the language is not mine; it comes from members of the Opposition themselves. I want to share with members of the Government and with the people of Australia this quote from the minutes of the shadow ministry. Government members-Who is the mole? Mr HAWKE —Mole, one could not count them. There are so many over there who want to undermine this bloke and stab him in the back that one would lose count. There are more moles opposite than positions on taxation. Let me quote from this document because Mr Speaker, as you know, I never claim credit for something that is not mine. So the goodies and nasties phrase comes from those opposite. It is stated: We can produce-- that is, members of the Opposition- impeccable arguments for opposition to each element of the package, while not opposing the whole. However, it is important to present a face of consistency and responsibility. We therefore do not have the luxury of having our cake and eating it. Government members-Ah! Mr HAWKE —Ah, but it gets better. Here comes the language. Honourable members can see my plagiarism about nasties and goodies. They go on to say: The four main nasty issues are central to the package and are the main sources of funds for the `goodies'. By appearing to oppose the `nasties', while supporting the `goodies', opens us to the charge at the very least of inconsistency and more likely, of irresponsibility-in supporting tax cuts, but opposing the means by which they will be funded. So that is the analysis of members of the Opposition, their own exposure of the hypocrisy of what they did yesterday. In these circumstances it is not at all surprising that the Opposition is totally divided on this approach to taxation. The Leader of the Opposition is known to be supportive of many of the measures which his Party now opposes. The former Leader of the Opposition has the biggest smile to be seen anywhere in Canberra. The Leader of the Opposition and the honourable members for Warringah and Denison are opposed to the new policy approach. Others in the Opposition, the third group, oppose any opposition to the revenue measures at all, and the other lot just have the pick and choose approach. The simple facts are that the current Leader of the Opposition went around undermining the previous Leader of the Opposition because he accused him of not having any firm, principled positions on any policy issues. That is how he undermined the previous Leader of the Opposition. What he is trying to do now is to straddle the wets, the dries and the rejects. In the end he is left in a position of total expedience. Let me conclude by saying that members of the Opposition can go on playing their games of wait and see and hide and seek with one another. The simple unavoidable truth is that this divided Opposition and its unprincipled Leader have made themselves totally irrelevant to the taxation debate in Australia. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to Senator Button's comments in the Senate on 11 November that both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer had been incorrect in their promises made prior to last year's election and repeated as late as April this year that interest rates would fall. Can we regard these promises as inoperative, as was the Prime Minister's unqualified promise in 1983 not to introduce a capital gains tax? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, would you give me a few minutes to recover from that mortal blow? The Treasurer and I have made it clear that the events that unfolded in 1984 unfolded in a way which meant that some of the indications we gave on how we thought precise- Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —The Leader of the Opposition may laugh his hollow laugh now, but it will be to no avail. The fact is that with regard to what the Treasurer and I were saying during 1984, that reference is true; things have not turned out precisely as we stated. That prediction was but one part of an unfolding economic scenario. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to look at the predictions of the Treasurer and of the Prime Minister speaking on behalf of the Government, it would be as well for him to look at the whole of those predictions and not just at one part. We predicted, not only this year but also in 1983-the Leader of the Opposition referred to 1983 predictions-that there would be an increase of half a million new jobs. The Leader of the Opposition ridiculed the Treasurer and me and said that would not be the case. From the beginning of 1983, the present Leader of the Opposition predicted that the prices and incomes accord would fail. With regard to every central element of this Government's economic policy, the Leader of the Opposition said that each one would fail and would not work. The truth is that we have the best rates of economic growth in the Western world, we have the highest rates of employment growth recorded in the history of this country, and they have been achieved within containable levels of inflation. It is little wonder that the head of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, having come here and having looked at the operation of the economic policies overseen by the Treasurer, described them as brilliant. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have had some difficulty since the start of Question Time trying to adjudicate between whether I should rebuke the cheers or the jeers. I suggest that the House settle down. Mr CHARLES —The Minister for Health would be aware that I have made several representations to him on behalf of a family in my electorate regarding the possible resumption of the human growth hormone program which was stopped in May this year. As this program benefits several hundred children suffering from stunted growth, has the Federal Government reached any decision regarding a resumption of the program and what is the status of the synthetic growth hormone which is being developed overseas? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Isaacs for his question. I am familiar with the questions that he has asked me in private about this problem. Until 29 May of this year, some 300 Australian children had been treated with a natural human growth hormone, but on that day we halted the program. This was because there was overseas evidence that it was possible that a viral disease might be spread through this natural human growth hormone. In several countries there had been deaths resulting from this disease, known as the Greutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which is a rare and incurable infection of the nervous system. It was my view that this Government could take no other course but to halt that program. Since then, as a matter of urgency, we have sought to get access to a biosynthetic replacement. I am very glad to say that we have now succeeded in obtaining a biosynthetic hormone from Sweden. From the end of next month, we will be recommencing this program using this biosynthetic hormone. I have to say that there is as yet insufficient data to justify making this new product available unconditionally for general use. However, it has been recommended to me by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee that we enter into clinical trials with this drug, and all 300 children under the present program will be offered participation in these trials using this biosynthetic drug. Mr Porter —Are you going to fund them? Dr BLEWETT —I will come to the funding point. This will cost us some 10 times more than did the natural hormone, but the Government will accept the cost involved in renewing this program. At the same time, we are working all out to get a biosynthetic replacement produced here in Australia. Mr N. A. BROWN —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to an answer given by the Prime Minister to the effect that the Cabinet had not yet received a submission from the Minister on possible changes to wages policy on the basis of the devaluation of the dollar. Has the Minister prepared such a submission as yet? Is he proposing to prepare such a submission to put before the Cabinet? In the light of his own concession yesterday that it may well be necessary to adjust aspects of the Government's policy if the value of the dollar remained below Budget forecast, will he inform us how long the dollar will have to remain at that level before there is any revision of wages policy and any further renegotiations of the Australian Labor Party-Australian Council of Trade Unions prices and incomes accord? Mr WILLIS —The answer to the first two parts of the question is no. With regard to the third part of the question, as I said yesterday, we will have to consider policy continually in the light of developments. At this stage, there is no intention to change that policy. As we continue on, we will continually re-assess it as things change or develop in the way in which we expect they will. At present, the Government's basic position is that the policy stance it has adopted is one which is right for the circumstances, that the adjustment to the wages policy in particular is appropriate for the devaluation price effects so that they will not be built into the system, and that by 1987-88 we will be back to the inflation rate that we had prior to the evaluation. Unless something happens later in the financial year or subsequently to change our minds about that, that is the position with which we will stick. At this stage there is no intention to change it. Whilst I am on my feet, let me say that I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is now talking about how he would effectively achieve discounting for the price effects of devaluation. I would be interested to know how he would achieve that, because in the deregulated world in which he would be operating if he were in government I would find it difficult to conceive how he would achieve these full price effects. Would he go along to a national wage case and argue for a full adjustment of wages to allow for the devaluation price effect? Mr N. A. Brown —It would not be paid. Mr WILLIS —I am presuming that there would be national wage cases in a deregulated system, which I find rather hard to envisage. If we had one, presumably, the Leader of the Opposition would argue for that adjustment. If the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission agreed that there should be a full devaluation adjustment and a full discounting for the price effects of devaluation, how would he have that enforced in the market? How would he be able to ensure that some compensating wage increase would not be granted outside the Arbitration Commission? That is the question to which the Opposition has no answer, except the answer that it had last time when it was in government. It would recreate the conditions of 1982-83 in which we had soaring unemployment, plummeting employment, declining living standards and the worst recession for 50 years. That is the only way in which the Opposition could achieve what its Leader says it would achieve if he were in government at present. We know that is the situation. The accord gives us the chance to avoid all of that by negotiating an adjustment to wages policy in a way which is simply not otherwise possible. That is what has been done. It is the most effective and appropriate way by far to do so. This country will be far better off as a result of that adjustment being made through the accord. Mr BILNEY —Has the Treasurer seen reports of proposals by the shadow Treasurer for cut backs in funding to the States in the next Federal Budget? I ask the Treasurer: Is there any danger that the Hawke Government will adopt this advice? Mr KEATING —We definitely will not be adopting that advice. We will not be adopting it because the outcome for the States which the Government secured at the Premiers Conference and Loan Council meetings this year was perhaps the tightest outcome for the States for some years. It was a realistic outcome of a zero real increase in grants this year, a 2 per cent real increase the year after and 2 per cent the year after that. The fact is that the intention behind the proposals of the shadow Treasurer is to go back to the old, squalid policy of deflation-just deflate the economy and tear the guts out of it so one can handle inflation because one does not have any other policy, or handle external imbalances because one has no other ideas. That is the basis of that policy. The result would be to put very great hardships on the States. Given the fact that there is an election on in South Australia, an issue the South Australian people should ponder is that the coalition is urging the Commonwealth Government to cut back funds to the States, including South Australia. Finally getting under control the difficult position Mr Bannon inherited from his predecessor, that is, enormous fiscal imbalances, just as we inherited from Mr Howard, certainly would lead to a debilitation of the State's revenues or to increased taxes and charges being imposed by a coalition government upon the people of South Australia. This is an old game played by the coalition. The former Treasurer used to try to suggest that lower outlays growth in various Commonwealth budgetary years was achieved by genuine reductions in outlays. What he did was throttle the States to try to cut back on grants to them, knowing full well that the States would then move into borrowings around the Loan Council by a whole lot of subterfuge borrowings, front end payments, lease arrangements and all sorts of things whereas when we became the Government only 25 per cent of Loan Council business was under the control of the Commonwealth. The previous Government attempted a cosmetic change in the level of outlays growth at the Commonwealth level by unreasonably squeezing the States, knowing full well that the States could not bear such a burden and that they would then balloon out their debts in their borrowing programs which, of course, they did. The rise in the public sector borrowing requirement in respect of the States throughout the Howard and Fraser years was the result principally of that policy. There was also the borrowing program for the electricity and infrastructure program, but that was for productive investment. The recurrent deficits on the States' accounts was the consequence of a foolish policy from Canberra, one which apparently, the shadow Treasurer enjoins us to repeat. We will not squeeze the States unreasonably. We wanted them to share outlays restraints with the Commonwealth this year. They have done so. We will not be changing the deal. We will not make the people of South Australia pay more in State taxes and charges. We will not require Premier Bannon to go back to South Australia with charges induced as a result of changes in Commonwealth policy. I am sure that he will be very interested in the views of the coalition in this place which believes that his revenues ought to be cut back and that he ought to be keeping the wheels of government turning in South Australia with higher taxes and charges on the people of South Australia. I am sure that Mr Olsen will be very pleased with that policy shift. Mr CARLTON —My question is directed to the Treasurer. Given the increasing upward movement in interest rates, with the notable exception of the Autralian Savings Bond, which is now clearly uncompetitive as reflected by the volume of net redemptions, I ask: Has the Treasurer now abandoned the Aussie Bond as a means of managing the Government's financial policies? Mr KEATING —No, I have not abandoned the Aussie Bond. Mr Howard —You have just cut it adrift. Ha, ha! Mr KEATING —The shadow Treasurer should not laugh. He never met his monetary target once in six years. He was bleeding all over the landscape. He was never able to do it. He should not laugh about any aspects of economic policy. He had better just keep quiet. This Government is running an appropriate monetary policy. I am currently reviewing the Australian Savings Bond as an instrument and its rate. It is a useful instrument, however, the Government has chosen to use other instruments primarily over the last 12 months. It is true that the Government- Mr Cobb —Go west, young man. Mr KEATING —There is the voice from under the dashboard again. The Government is running an appropriate monetary policy for the economic conditions of Australia. As the Prime Minister and I have said in recent days, we have tightened monetary policy. I indicated yesterday that I believed that domestic demand in the economy was running stronger than the Budget forecast. Of course, monetary policy will play a role in moderating that demand. In so moderating it, it will moderate what would otherwise be a potential for growth beyond the Budget forecast, which would be more consistent with our predictions in respect of the external accounts. I find all these remarks about monetary policy, interest rates and inflation interesting, coming as they do from a party which has no policy on inflation or wages. I suppose that no remark demonstrates better the naivety and arrant foolishness of the Opposition than an absolutely laughable interjection made by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party when my colleague was answering the last question. The remark was: `Without a centralised wage fixing system employers would not pay the wage increases'. I say to my friend that they would pay them with the first telephone call, as has been the case in years gone by. Does the honourable member believe that, in an economy growing this strongly, with pressure from trade unions and even the prospect of some bottlenecks in the labour market, employers would not pay because they have their eye on the external account? Is he really suggesting that they have their eye on the external account and in some way, according to their own economic model, they would not pay? Of course they would pay. That is the central, stupid, mindless, crazy tenet of the Opposition's wages policy. The fact is that employers will always pay because they have never had the cohesive strength not to. It is only by an incomes policy that one can keep that strength. Perhaps the best demonstration of the intellectual muddle which the Opposition is in was the Leader of the Opposition today speaking on television about wages. On 28 August the Leader of the Opposition said at the Press Club: The first priority of an incoming coalition government will be to deregulate Australia's rigid and centralised industrial relations system. Freeing up our inflexible labour market is our next deregulatory cause. Today, on a program on Channel 7 the Leader of the Opposition was asked the following question: What about a wage freeze? He said that if the economic circumstances required, he would do it again. He also said: Well, our credentials on a wage freeze are immaculate. I was the Treasurer responsible for bringing in a wages freeze. Mr Hawke, let it be remembered, bitterly opposed that wages freeze all along. That is the strength of the intellectual framework on the benches opposite. On the one hand, as a first priority, the Oppositiion would deregulate wages and have a flexible labour market, and on the other it would have the most centralised policy of all-a wage freeze. What sort of nonsense is that? Wherever one looks in the area of economic policy, one sees that the Opposition has no policy. It has no anti-inflation policy; it is in a total intellectual muddle on wages; and it is in a spiv position on tax because it wants reductions in marginal tax rates while supporting all the measures which have always made the economy rotten-a tax system which has always allowed high income earners to slip through the net. The Leader of the Opposition is the former Deputy Leader with the great platform, the Deputy Leader with the commitment to economic rationality, the Deputy with the policy commitment to market outcomes. He is now the Leader of the Opposition with no policy on wages, no policy on taxation, no sensible policy on inflation and no policy on interest rates. He is tugged, pulled and changed by the lowest common denominators in the Liberal Party. This must be the cause of great mirth for the honorable member for Kooyong, who was disposed of by his Party in seeking a return to principle and rational economic policies. Now we have this grab bag of policies coming from the Leader of the Opposition, who has given up any pretence of being a politician who is interested in decent, rational economic policy. The question, the interjection and the television remark all reveal that the Opposition will be in opposition for a long time. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to keep asking me about what I said about interest rates after the next election campaign when I am Treasurer again, I invite him to do so with pleasure. Mr CAMPBELL —My question is directed to Mick Young, the very Special Minister of State. I ask him what new arrangements have been made by the Federal Government for increased coastal surveillance in the north of Australia. Mr YOUNG —I would like to answer Graeme Campbell's question. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie paid you the compliment of also referring to you as the Special Minister of State. Perhaps you should refer to him as the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. Mr YOUNG —There has been some Press about the question of coastal surveillance in the north of Australia in recent days. It appears that every time the National Party of Australia meets in the north and spends a bit of time in the sun, its members look around for an issue and it is always coastal surveillance. As the Treasurer just pointed out, they cannot talk about any of the major economic issues and, if they can, they remain silent about their policies. It is always coastal surveillance. The fact is that the Labor Party representatives, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, the honourable member for Leichhardt and the honourable member for Herbert, together with the honourable member for the Northern Territory-three out of the four representatives are Labor members-are looking after the north of Australia. They are looking after it very well. The honourable member for the Northern Territory has told us that he was doing his best to represent the north of Australia and he was sacked from the shadow Ministry. One can gauge from that that the Opposition does not take too seriously the question of coastal surveillance, which is one of the major issues of the north of Australia. Then Senator Kilgariff got involved when he got back to Darwin and he claimed that Australia was facing catastrophe as far as coastal surveillance was concerned. The Leader of the National Party told the audience in north Queensland that he thought the Defence Department should be running coastal surveillance and we had all sorts of predictions about what would happen. Since the election of the Labor Government, coastal surveillance has been upgraded enormously because of the carrying out of the recommendations of the Beazley Review of Australia's Peacetime Coastal Surveillance and Protection Arrangements that the law enforcement agency of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth police, should be used as the co-ordinating unit for all coastal surveillance purposes throughout the north of Australia. Those units were set up almost immediately in Cairns, Darwin and Broome to co-ordinate the work that had to be carried out. It is interesting that the Leader of the National Party, a former Minister for Defence, should tell us that the Defence Department should carry out this work. When these people go into oppositioin with all these views one wonders why they did not do these things when they had eight years in government. The Defence Department, in its evidence to the Beazley inquiry, put forward the view that it was not its role to be responsible for coastal surveillance functions. The Department takes responsibility for assisting, but in a democracy such as ours it does not see its role as that of a policeman. That is a very important aspect of the views that were put forward by the Defence Department in the conclusions drawn in the Beazley report. In addition to that, since we have established these units in those three major centres in the north of Australia, I have visited each of them twice and held meetings with every representative of every State authority and every Federal authority in the three centres, together with those in Townsville and on Thursday Island. We operate under a user pay principle. There are meetings between Commonwealth and State and Territory authorities before each year begins so that the charter flights that have to be flown in each of the areas are agreed upon between those authorities. There has been no downgrading of coastal surveillance in this country. Some people put forward the view that our coastal surveillance should be used to the extent that we know that we can cut off any aircraft that might want to fly into Australia. This Government, the previous Government and any future government in Australia can give no such undertaking. In June this year I was briefed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States of America about the problems it faces in relation to the illegal entry of aircraft into the United States. The United States spends billions of dollars on coastguards, coastal surveillance, intelligence and all the law enforcement methods that one would expect such a country to use, yet it cannot stop illegal entry. What we can do and what we have done is to invest a great deal more in the intelligence network of the Australian Federal Police by putting liaison officers in many countries outside Australia so that we can act on intelligence and stop those entries by stopping people before they leave their country of origin. For example, Exercise Lavender, which saw the arrest of many people in this country, was conducted not by intercepting lights in Australia, but on the basis of intelligence that was gathered in countries overseas by members of the AFP working with other international law enforcement agencies. That is the way to go, to cut off that sort of entry into Australia. It is absolutely ridiculous for members of the National Party to whip up some sort of frenzy in the north of Australia and claim that the people in the north will be invaded because the Government is not doing enough. At the moment it costs the Commonwealth a little over $50m for coastal surveillance in this country-for charter flights, for use of the defence forces and for expenditure on the Australian Federal Police. That itself is kept under constant surveillance and before Christmas I will visit all the centres again. All members of parliament who represent those areas are invited to the meetings to put their views. If the Leader of the National Party and some of his cohorts who go to the north of Australia would like to talk to people who actually work in coastal surveillance operations, they would not be able to run to the Press with some of the predictions that they have made recently. In fact, a member of the AFP was made available to talk to the National Party Conference about questions of coastal surveillance in this country. It is not as if we were forgetting the issue or ignoring it. A great deal is being done but, by itself, that is not the ultimate answer. A lot of the other work we are doing in our law enforcement agencies, together with coastal surveillance, will make Australia a much safer place. Mr SINCLAIR —My question is directed to the Treasurer. In the light of Senator Siddons's comments on the Carleton-Walsh program last night that in the negotiations on modifications to the tax package the Treasurer has set a revenue limit on the concessions that he will give, will he advise the House whether that statement is correct and, if so, how much revenue he has agreed to concede. Mr KEATING —That is not correct. I have not spoken about revenue at all. I saw the Australian Democrats yesterday and they have agreed to give us a letter expressing their concern about the detail, rather than the framework, of some of the taxation changes. They opened the conversation by rejecting the opportunist approach of the Liberal and National parties in seeking to destroy the Government's package by having the temerity to vote against it after the Government had secured a mandate for these tax changes in an election. As they are also primarily fiscal measures, they are measures which should have the support of the coalition parties, on both the basis of the proprieties as well as the quality of the measures themselves. What we finally come down to in respect of the coalition is that it will take the reductions in marginal rates and oppose the rest. I do not know how coalition members can hold their heads up and be taken seriously after they made such a mess of the tax system throughout the 1970s. Not only did the coalition not move against the more subtle tax shelters of the kind which the Government is committed to changing; it actually left the blatant criminal schemes untouched for years. It was only under the public pressure of two royal commissions that it was forced to remove the blight of the criminal schemes from the Australian economic landscape. This Government has now taken it further to deal with the more rutted in tax shelters, the ones which Opposition members left for years to let their constituency slide through without paying their fair share of tax. Our removal of those they do not have the decency even to acknowledge. The Australian Democrats have approached us on an entirely different basis. I expect to receive a letter from Senator Chipp, and I will respond accordingly. But we are not giving away any principles, because we do have a few on this side of the House not like the sleazebags over there. Dr KLUGMAN — My question without notice is directed to the Minister for Communications. I hope that he is his usual very relaxed self today. Has the Australian Broadcasting Corporation given an undertaking not to broadcast the questions or extremely simple clues to the questions in the French paper in the current New South Wales higher school certificate exam which was also stolen and given to 2JJJ? Does this seem a more responsible attitude than its behaviour in relation to the ancient history paper, about which it claimed that any information in its possession should be broadcast? Does the Minister support 2JJJ's attitude that the only competition in our society should be for a position in the Top 10? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Prospect for his question. As Minister for Communications, I have consistently refused to discuss matters which relate to programming and news of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and it is not my intention to depart from that practice. In relation to the matter referred to by the honourable member for Prospect specifically, no such undertaking has been given, nor has it been sought. The reason that I have adopted the practice that I have in relation to programming-and programming includes news-is simply that the day that any government attempts to interfere in the editorial conduct and programming of the ABC, it is my view that this country ought no longer to have a national publicly funded broadcaster. On the question raised more specifically by the honourable member for Prospect of whether the 2JJJ broadcast eroded the integrity of the exam paper, with consequent disruption to the exam timetable and students, I think it ought to be said that, as a matter of fact, the theft of the exam papers destroyed the integrity of the examinations. As a result of that theft, some had knowledge of the contents of the exams while others did not. Obviously, in those circumstances, the New South Wales authorities needed to take action to remedy the situation. The 2JJJ broadcast of itself did not breach the security of the exams, because that security had already been breached by the theft of the papers. Mr DOWNER —Does the Minister for Housing and Construction endorse the decision by the Premier of South Australia to subsidise, with taxpayers' money, building society home loan interest rates for six months, up to April 1986, to help him through the State election? If so, is the Federal Government proposing to provide similar subsidies to other Australians with building society loans? Or does the Minister accept that Mr Bannon's policy is just an election gimmick designed to direct the attention of South Australian voters away from the failures of the Federal Labor Government's high interest rate policies? Mr WEST —Unlike the crowd opposite, the Premier of South Australia happens to have a very high degree of public support. I have no doubt that the South Australian Government will have no trouble in winning the State election in early December. Mr Howard —That is interesting, but what about the question, mate? Mr WEST —It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to talk, the famous dry leader of the Opposition who gets wetter by the hour, particularly with regard to his tax policies. Mr Hawke —The Bennelong blusterer. Mr WEST —Yes; as the Prime Minister interjects, the Bennelong blusterer. We do not have any intention of subsidising building societies or savings banks, or trading banks for that matter, with regard to housing interest rates. As I said yesterday, the lending from savings bank early this year, and up into the first two months-for which I have records-has been particularly strong. For instance, lending by all significant lenders in the year to August was running at a record level of 336,000 housing loans. During August, the savings banks lent $622m. Mr Carlton —What about answering the question? Mr WEST —I have already answered the question. We do not intend to subsidise savings banks or building societies, so get that right through your heads. What is more, we do not have any intention or see any necessity to subsidise building societies or savings banks loans. The commencements of housing units in Australia during 1984-85 just happen to be 153,000 in comparison to the miserable 105,000 commencements of three years ago. As far as the latest activity is concerned, in the September quarter of 1985, my early advice is that we will get 36,500 starts which is only moderately down on the 38,500 for the September quarter of 1984, the fundamental point being that the 153,000 starts that we achieved in 1984-85 was a 50 per cent increase on the miserable number that honourable members opposite achieved three years ago. The Indicative Planning Council, headed by Professor Fred Gruen, which advises me on these matters, says that we will get about 140,000 starts this year. In spite of the current level of interest rates, we expect that figure will still be achieved, as will the 36,500 starts that I am advised we will achieve for the September quarter in 1985, which shows that the yearly forecast is right on line. Mr N. A. Brown —Mr Speaker, I ask that the Minister table the papers from which he was quoting. Mr SPEAKER —Was the Minister for Housing and Construction quoting from a document on public affairs? Mr WEST —I was quoting from my own notes, Mr Speaker. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, the Minister has admitted that he was reading from his own notes. I request that in accordance- Mr SPEAKER —He was quoting from his own notes. If the right honourable Leader of the National Party of Australia examines the Standing Orders he will see that a request can be made only for the tabling of a document on public affairs. When a Minister is quoting from notes he is not required to table them. If the Leader of the National Party would care to read House of Representatives Practice he would understand the two-stage process that is followed in these matters. Mr SPEAKER —I present the annual report of the Australian Audit Office by the Auditor-General for 1984-85 Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members I present a report by the Administrative Review Council on the Review of Customs and Excise Decisions, Stage 2. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, I present the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission annual report for the year ending 13 August 1985. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 27 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978, I present the Australian Science and Technology Council annual report for 1984-85. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 14P (1) of the Commonwealth Schools Commission Act 1973, I present the Curriculum Development Council report for the period 1 July to 31 December 1984. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present a report on Australia's Population Trends and Prospects 1985, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr. N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 21 of the Papua New Guinea Staffing Assistance Act 1973, I present the Papua New Guinea Superannuation Scheme annual report for 1984-85. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Community Services annual report for 1984-85. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —Pursuant to section 45 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, I present the Industries Assistance Commission 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. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce) —Pursuant to section 31 of the Steel Industry Authority Act 1983, I present the Steel Industry Authority annual report for 1984-85. Limited copies of the report are available from the Bills and Papers Office. When further copies are printed they will be made available to all honourable members. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for the Department of Territories for 1984-85. I commend to honourable members opposite the photograph in the front. They might show it to one of their Liberal colleagues who says that there are never bushfires in the Australian Capital Territory. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SINCLAIR —I do, Mr Speaker, and terribly, by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). The Minister, in his attempt to justify the reduced coastal surveillance effort in northern Australia, suggested during Question Time that I had stated that the Department of Defence should undertake the coastal surveillance effort in lieu of the Australian Federal Police. It should be recognised that a range of agencies is necessarily involved in coastal surveillance. As the Minister himself would comprehend, there is involvement by the Defence Department and by the Australian Federal Police. There is a role for chartered aircraft, a role for Norforce and a role for civilian participants. I have suggested -the Opposition parties will implement this in government-that the Defence Department should co-ordinate the coastal surveillance effort and act in a way that will bring together all those separate instrumentalities that have individual roles. We do not believe that the Australian Federal Police is properly equipped to undertake that co-ordinating function. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr YOUNG —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr YOUNG —In regard to the question raised by the Leader of the National Party of Austalia (Mr Sinclair), I did not intentionally set out to misrepresent him. I took what he said from a newspaper in north Queensland. I will get him a copy of it because I think that the newspaper actually says that he would put the Department of Defence in charge of surveillance. It may not be that I misrepresented him, rather that his Press secretary put out the wrong Press release. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member for Prospect claim to have been misrepresented? Dr KLUGMAN —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Dr KLUGMAN —A few minutes ago in Question Time I asked the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) whether the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has given an undertaking not to broadcast questions in the Higher School Certificate French examination paper. He understood that to mean had the Corporation given an undertaking to him. That was a misunderstanding. I was of course referring to the well-publicised undertaking given by the ABC in New South Wales to the Department of Education in that State not to do the same sort of thing with the French paper as it has done with the ancient history paper. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —by leave-I table the report of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance which was presented to me on 25 October 1985 by Professor Peter Self, the Chairman of the inquiry. The inquiry has considered the financial position of local government within the federal system, the developing roles and responsibilities of local government, the objectives of general purpose financial assistance to local government from the Commonwealth and the processes according to which it is distributed to councils. The report contains 50 recommendations. The overall finding of the inquiry is that the Commonwealth should maintain a program of general purpose support for local government, but that the character of the program should be changed in certain respects. The inquiry has found that there are considerable inequalities between local councils in respect of revenue raising capacity and basic expenditure needs and that a principal objective of general purpose assistance should be to strengthen Australian local government by targeting support to the most disadvantaged councils. The inquiry proposes that the basic amount of funds available to local government should be subject to the same real terms guarantee as applies to general revenue grants to the States. The grants would continue to be untied and would continue to be distributed by the State local government grants commissions. The inquiry has recommended that councils be paid a minimum entitlement to be distributed on a weighted per capita basis up to a maximum of 30 per cent of total funds available. The balance would be distributed on an equalisation basis. Another important recommendation is that the Commonwealth Minister promulgate guidelines in respect of the general policies to be applied in determining grants for equalisation purposes, so that a certain degree of consistency can be attained across the States. This report is, of course, important for both local government and the States. Because of this and the need to get consultations with those spheres of government under way as soon as possible it was released on 29 October. On that date it was circulated to all members of parliament and to State Premiers and the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory. It was subsequently sent to every local government in Australia. Before any decisions are taken by the Government on this report the views of the States and local government will be obtained and taken into account. Already arrangements are in hand for a meeting of the local government Minister's conference in early December at which it is intended to explore State and Northern Territory reactions to the report. The annual conference of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations began its consideration of the report in Hobart this week. We will be working through that organisation in order to obtain local government views. Within the Commonwealth an interdepartmental committee has been established under the chairmanship of my Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. On the basis of that Committee's report and the reactions of State and local government I will be bringing forward to Cabinet a suggested response to the inquiry's report early in the new year. I would like to put on record my thanks to Professor Self and other members of the inquiry who worked with great energy and enthusiasm in producing such a comprehensive document. Mr MOORE(Ryan) —by leave-The report of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance which was presented to the Parliament today by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) is indeed very comprehensive. It ranges over the whole area of the financing of local government in Australia and, because of that, brings into contention the relationship between the Federal Government, the State governments and local governments. The relationship is complex and one which I think is breaking a lot of new ground. It is understandable that since the last election the Minister has put the name of his Department of Local Government and Administrative Services up in lights. That has never occurred before and it indicates the degree of interest that the Federal Government is taking in local government which is created by State governments. Because of that we need to take particular notice of the political pitch of the Self Committee report as well as its financial angling. I noted the Minister's comments that there are 50 recommendations in the report. It is certainly a very sizable report and I have read no more than the headings to it, but in that time I can see that no doubt State governments would have severe reservations about some of the recommendations. Indeed the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, which was addressed by the Minister on Monday, is addressing itself at some length to the propositions put forward by Professor Self. I know that Council is concerned about a number of aspects in the report because its recommendations would have an enormous impact at the grass roots level of local government. One of the recommendations referred to by the Minister in his speech today is that there be an upper limit of 30 per cent of total funds to be distributed to local government authorities according to their capacity. Therefore the remaining 70 per cent would be distributed in an equalising sense. That means it would be possible for there to be a number of local government authorities which would get nil. Mr Uren —No, that is not possible. Mr MOORE —Well, if they fall from the bottom someone moves to the top. Mr Uren —There is a 30 per cent portion. Every council will get that portion. Mr MOORE —I am talking about the 70 per cent. It is possible that a lot will get nil. That is the point. Because of that possibility councils around the nation should be concerned. On top of that there is a considerable administrative thrust in the recommendation, which requires the Australian Council, which is based in Canberra, to be involved in a three yearly review of the base, which is taken as the current base established under the most recent Act. Every three years a review of that will take place. The Government is building up a bureaucracy, adding more to it and making judgments on it. These are things which will cost the local government associations here because they will have to bone up for it. In terms of accountability, the thrust will be to enter State politics. Here the recommendation is that State local government authorities be judged by a State Grants Commission. Some State grant commissions are equipped to do that and plainly some are not. Some have more political objectives than economic objectives, and that alone causes me apprehension. The report also brings into question the method of the allocation of funds within States and the question of State government contributions to local governments which, in the past, have been variable. Some services have been offered by local governments for and on behalf of State governments, for which they have not had full cost recovery. The States have either put the weights on them and because of political circumstances they have given way, or the local governments have not followed the matter through. The other three major concerns are these: Firstly, although the Self Committee report has recommended the abolition of rate pegging, it is highly unlikely to happen. Can honourable members see the New South Wales Government and other Labor governments walking away from rate pegging. It is one of their cardinal rules. They would never be in that; but they are proposing it. Secondly, it is proposed that the exemption to be granted to State and Federal Government property be waived. Can we see State and Federal governments coming at that? Probably the most important concern is, thirdly, that the report recommends the absorption of road grants within local government payments. This is an enormous change. In my view it will be resisted by a wide ranging number of local and State governments. Mr McVeigh —Absolutely impracticable. Mr MOORE —Well, it would certainly take some working out, as the honourable member for Groom would know. Because of that the report raises a very considerable number of problems that will have to be addressed by the local government association and all the State governments in Australia. I hope that the response the Government gives to the report is practical and in the best interests of the local governments which function so well in their service to all Australians. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum``. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Halverson,Mr McArthur and Mr Reith. 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. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ``States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promsicuity (The Australian 26/1/85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mrs Child,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr McGauran and Mr Reith. 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 to 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 for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: (1) Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. (2) Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly,Mr Downer,Mr Jacobi,Mrs Kelly and Mr Langmore. 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 and Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 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 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: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Consumer Tax Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death Tax described as ``Capital Gains Tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer Taxes on Employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the increased tax proposals be rejected, in favour of lower taxes and small Government. We, your petitioners, will forever pray. by Mr Adermann. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to all returned service personnel. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that all changes to benefits for veterans, and conditions of service for military personnel, as announced in the May Economic Statement, be withdrawn as to allow sufficient time for sensible community debate before any veteran or service person can be unfairly disadvantaged. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that your Honourable House (The Government) act immediately to raise the Tertiary Education Assistance allowance to the level of the Unemployment Benefit. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the Arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. 1. That the handing over of Ayers Rock and associated environs is damaging to our country, and will divide this country causing racial prejudice. 2. That to have His Excellency, the Governor-General officiate at the handing-over ceremony can be damaging to the office and position of Governor-General, and may leave His Excellency open to criticism. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The handing-over of Ayers Rock and associated environs to any Aboriginal community should be postponed, until a national referendum be held concerning the matter, and that His Excellency the Governor-General be asked not to officiate at the ceremony for fear of his position being damaged. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. 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 Connolly. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Day Care Services are a reversal of A.L.P. 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 Ms Fatin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That pensions be adjusted fully to reflect the total increase in Consumer Price Index (CPI); and That the ceiling for pensioners incomes be increased to provide for an adequate `living standard', before any consideration is given to the introduction of reduced pensions and the fall of benefits. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that action be taken by the Government to implement these proposals immediately and not Nov. 1986. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the brumby declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House follow the example of President Nixon in the U.S.A. by declaring our wild horses protected from industry and discriminate slaughter. And your petitioners, and in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Halverson. 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 decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth; that your petitioners submit that the Government take urgent action in the matter of the complete restoration of the Highfield Estate in Stanley, Tasmania, and that all necessary funds be allocated forthwith. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that these actions be taken in order to preserve for future generations of Australians, a major and nationally significant historic site. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Miles. 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 percent 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 Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That there is a great need for an access, in the form of a ramp, to be provided for the elderly, disabled and parents with young children, at the Goulburn Post Office, Auburn Street, Goulburn. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will ensure access, in the form of a ramp, is included in the restoration of the Goulburn Post Office. 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (ie, set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to prevent this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Cobb. 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 ill considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Gilmore electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's total disallowance of tax deductibility 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 deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp and Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain concerned citizens of Brewarrina in the State of New South Wales, respectfully showeth: (i) The town of Brewarrina is in an isolated part of `Outback' Western New South Wales. It has a population of 1500 people with a substantial Aboriginal Population. (ii) Currently, the town and district receive only A.B.C. Television from a ground station situated on Mt Oxley. The town and district does not receive any commercial television service either by way of Satellite or ground Station; and other communications are limited to one A.B.C. regional radio station and one limited Community Radio Broadcaster. (iii) With Aussat to broadcast commercial television shortly, the surrounding towns of Bourke, Goodooga, Lightning Ridge and Walgett are to receive a repeater/receiver ground station provided at the expense of licensees broadcasting the commercial television. The town of Brewarrina has been completely left out, so it seems. (iv) Information emanating from the Department of Communications (albeit conflicting information) also indicates the possibility of the present ground station situated on Mt Oxley relaying A.B.C. Television could be replaced by Aussat and thus a weaker signal, resulting in Brewarrina being completely deprived of any television. (v) As Brewarrina is an isolated area of Australia, it is vital that it receives communications from the rest of Australia and thus television is an important part of communication within Australia. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House call upon the Government to: (a) provide an Aussat receiving/retransmission dish to the town of Brewarrina and district thus providing a commercial television service to the town and district; and (b) not reduce any current television service to Brewarrina and district. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the parents and friends of the students of Blackwood (S.A.) kindergarten, respectfully showeth that we deplore the proposed cut-back of funding for pre-schools and child care in the mini Budget. This proposal adversely affects young families, women's employment prospects and children's development in their most formative years. We urge you to increase rather than cut funds to 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 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 the nursing home benefit levels in South Australia. The pensioner patients and those on fixed incomes now cannot expect any relief from recent significant fee increases approved by the Department of Community Services and which have coincided with the decision to freeze benefits. 80-85% of nursing home patients are pensioners and the majority are now required to pay in excess of their pension for their nursing care for the very first time. Some are paying over $5 per day on top of their pension. Many are looking for cheaper nursing care that doesn't exist. We request that the Federal Government: (1) alleviate the distress of South Australia's nursing home patients and their families by effective restoration of the principle that pensioner patients should not have to pay more than their pension for nursing home care. (2) restore the review of the benefits 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 Steele Hall. To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens, teachers and parents working in and for the interest of the pupils in government schools and colleges throughout the A.C.T. respectfully showeth that the Australian Government reconsider the cuts to funding of education in the Australian Capital Territory announced in the economic statement in May 1985. The proposed cuts are too severe to be sustained by an educational system that has had no increase in funding in real terms over the last ten years. The undersigned deplore and oppose the announced cuts to funding and consider if reductions of expenditure are unavoidable these should be achieved in non-staffing areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: (1) That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right of Work on behalf of all Australians. (2) That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. (3) That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. (4) That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. (5) That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and (6) That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And you petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital Gains tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The ban by the Hawke Socialist Government 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 Slipper. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Wages/Prices Accord and its effect on Australia's deteriorating economic performance. 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 N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(3.14) —If ever there were any doubt about the sickness in this economy and any doubt about the way in which the economy is presently being managed in this country, that doubt must surely have been dispelled yesterday when we got the balance of trade figures and the current account figures for October. As the House is well aware, those figures showed a current account deficit of $1.6 billion, an increase of $575m over the figures for the previous month, September. But it is worse than that. If one looks at the balance of trade figures for the previous four months, one sees that there was a decline of over $1.3 billion in the four months to October 1985. When we look at what those figures represent and what stands behind them, they make a number of things plain about the state of the economy. They make it plain to us in the first place that we are selling less overseas and producing less that the world is able to or wants to buy. We are importing more from overseas. As a result of the process under way the value of our dollar is falling and our interest rates are going through the roof. What is the cause of this sickness in the economy that has now become all too apparent to all Australians? What is the reason for this maelstrom which has visited itself upon this country? We know that if we ever want any answers about the economy the Government tells us to look at what it calls the foundation of Australia's economic management. What is the foundation of Australia's economic management? It is the prices and incomes accord. When we ask questions about the economy, the Government tells us to look at the accord and we will see the marvellous achievements of that accord. If we want to know anything about the health of the economy or what has caused it, the Government tells us to look at the accord. The Government's case is that the wages and prices accord that it has negotiated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions constitutes, in its words, the foundation of Australia's economic management. That is the first point: We know where to look. We have three points to make about the wages and prices accord and the effect that it is having on the Australian economy. The first point is that the successes claimed for the accord by the Government have been greatly exaggerated. The second point is that the accord is producing an economic disaster for this country. The third point is that the accord will go on producing an economic disaster for this country if it is not renegotiated and changed and if it remains as it is, as part of a crazy centralised wage fixing system which continues to force into our wage structure wage increases which individual industries and individual employers cannot afford to pay. If it is allowed to go on in that way, our balance of trade will become worse; our industries which have the final vestiges of any chance of competing overseas will continue to suffer and so will the entire nation. We say that it should now be beyond doubt and beyond argument, as seen in recent events over the last few weeks in this country, that what is needed at the very least is a change to the terms of the Government's wages and prices accord. What would be better would be to abandon the whole thing. Those are the basic three points we wish to make. May I elaborate on each of them in turn. The first is that the successes that the Government claims for the accord have been greatly exaggerated. What does the Government say that the accord has produced? I will refer to a publication produced at government expense to tell us what the accord has produced. What do we find when we look at this government publication, illustrated with a Superman cartoon in the simplistic way that the Government uses to put these points across? What astounding proposition do we find set out as the result of the wages and prices accord? According to this publication- I quote its exact words-we have `an unparalleled economic revival'. That is what the book says. If it had said an unparalleled economic disaster, it may have come closer to the point. But the publication tells us in more detail and in extraordinary words what are the results of the accord and the processes that have flowed from the implementation of this accord. What are the results? The answer, according to the Government's claims in this publication, is: This makes Australian goods more competitive, both overseas and at home, as they become relatively cheaper than foreign products. Who could possibly maintain such an outlandish proposition at the time this publication was written? Who would have the gall not to recant from it in view of the latest figures that we saw yesterday? No one in his or her right mind could make such an absurd claim about the state of the Australian economy in the light of recent economic statistics, in the light of the interest rates that we see and in the light of the rising inflation rate. In the light of any of the economic statistics that we have had visited upon this country in recent months anyone who makes that sort of claim about the Australian economy is a complete fool; either that or a person who is making such a claim is endeavouring to mislead this Parliament and the Australian people. The plain fact which we have now seen from the figures and are aware of from our own knowledge is that our goods and industries are not becoming competitive. They are not becoming competitive so far as trade overseas is concerned and they are not competitive at home. How can that be when our inflation rate is twice that of the United States of America and three times that of Japan? It is a completely false assertion and, in our submission, it makes out, beyond any shadow of doubt, our proposition that the claims made by the Government for the success of this accord are grossly and deliberately exaggerated. As if this were not enough, the Government goes on and says: `Let us do it again. Let us have another accord. Let us have accord mark 2'. In the course of mark 2 what did the Government say about that? Again I am reading from the actual document, the agreement between the two parties. Do honourable members know what the Government says the accord is producing? I ask them to listen to this. The document states that it is `producing reduced inflation'. I thought, when we looked at the figures, we would see that the inflation rate was going up, not down. Believe it or not, this document goes on to say that the accord has `produced improved international competitiveness'. How could such an extraordinary claim be made by anyone who could read the most obvious statistics? How could such a claim be made by anyone who is in communication with industry, trade unions or anyone else? The claim is outrageous, it is exaggerated and it is utterly false. The accord is not giving us improved competitiveness; it is giving us less competitiveness and our industries are suffering as a result. The Government goes on to say that the accord has brought about employment improvement. It is true that in some fields there has been an increase in employment but it is about time that the Australian people looked at the detail of what is actually happening in employment growth in this country as a result of the Government's policies. In the export industries and in those industries where we make things which we should have some prospect of being able to sell overseas, employment is going down. In the 12 months to May 1985, the figures which I have access to, employment in the rural industries declined by 0.9 per cent. In the mining and export industries employment is down by 6.3 per cent, in manufacturing it is down by one per cent, in power generation it is down by 11 per cent and in transport it is down by 0.4 per cent. Those are the areas of the economy where things are produced, where we should have a prospect of being able to make things which the rest of the world wants to buy and is prepared to sell. In all those areas, without any exception, there has been a decline in employment. No doubt the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) will get up and say: `But there has been an increase in employment in recreation and in community services'. There has been an increase in employment in those areas where the Government either puts people on the payroll or pays for them. That is the trend which is emerging-a trend of employment diminishing and drying up in all those industries where we should have a chance to make things which the rest of the world is prepared to buy and be able to make them at prices that the rest of the world is prepared to pay. But there is a decline in employment in those areas and an increase in employment in those unproductive areas which do not produce things that the rest of the world wants to buy. The Government has said that there is a decline in industrial disputation. It has said: `Look across the national landscape and you will see that we have a situation where strikes have almost gone to sleep', and it cited the statistics of the decline in man hours. I do not want to take up the time of the House for too long in dealing with individual statistics but I want to put to the House one statistic which is a basic proposition. Let us look at the situation in the 12 months before the accord came into operation, which I think is a fair test. There were 1,819 major industrial disputes in Australia in the 12 months before the accord. What about the first 12 months operation of the accord itself? There was an increase to 1,923 industrial disputes. So the number of industrial disputes in this country has increased and not reduced while the wages and prices accord has been in operation. That is what has been produced as a result of the accord. When we put it altogether we see that we have a decline in what we produce and what we can sell overseas; we have prices that the rest of the world cannot afford to pay; we have enormous trade deficits and a falling dollar; and, as a result of the carry through of those policies, we have astronomical interest rates. We have, as I have just said, employment moving into those areas which are not the productive areas that we should be looking to. All this is fuelled by what the Government calls the foundation of Australian economic management-its wages and prices accord. We say that it is time the Government has another look at it. It is time that it either abandons or renegotiates the accord to put some more realism into its terms. Our third point is that the Government will continue to produce a disaster while the accord remains with its present terms and conditions. The Government will continue to produce a disaster while there is anything less than full discounting for depreciation of the currency. It will continue to produce a disaster while it stands by and lets the union movement drive a coach and horses through the terms of the accord and bludgeons compulsory superannuation agreements out of employers and out of this economy in complete breach of the terms of the accord. Let there be no doubt whatsoever that that pursuit of union-controlled and employer-financed superannuation schemes is a direct breach of the wages and prices accord. Our complaint is that the Government will do nothing about this. We say that it is not too late for the Government to act. Even at this late stage it can take steps to go to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and say: `There are industries which simply cannot afford to have forced into their wage cost structure the 3.8 per cent increase'. It may well apply to all industries, but at least there are some that still have a vestige of competing internationally and that should be given a chance of producing goods and services that the rest of the world wants to buy and will buy if the price is right and if we get our cost structure under control. We say to the Government that that is what it should do. But, above all, the Government should have the productivity case deferred because that cannot help but exacerbate and make much worse the very situation we are complaining of today. The Government should renegotiate the award with the Australian Council of Trade Unions if it wants to continue with the accord to provide for the very thing that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) promised in his Budget Speech-full discounting as a result of the de- valuation of the dollar. Above all, we want several things which are even more important than that. This country needs a wage fixing system that takes account of the prices of what we produce; one that does not impose wage costs on industries that industries cannot afford; one that does not impose on employers and also employees-let us not forget the employees who work for those employers-wage costs which those employers and those businesses cannot afford to bear; one that is more sensitive to the world of reality; and one that does not impose wage costs on all industry across the board irrespective of whether an industry can afford it. We want more realism, more flexibility and more reality in our wages pricing system so that this country can compete again and, before it is too late, be given a chance to survive. But, above all, this country needs a new government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.30) —Every time we hear any economic statement from members of the Opposition these days it demonstrates once again what economic cretins they really are and how they have learned nothing from their experience in government and from the period that they have been in opposition. Rather than having, in the terms of the matter of public importance, a deteriorating economic performance, this country has been experiencing extremely strong economic growth and indeed has been performing in a way which was described by the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development only a few weeks ago in this country as brilliant. Those circumstances hardly accord with the situation of a deteriorating economy. We have a list of successes for this Government in respect of all the major areas of economic indices which the previous Government would have given its eye teeth to have had. Never in its whole seven and a quarter years in government was it able to achieve anything remotely resembling what this Government has achieved in its period in office. The previous Government, in its seven and a quarter years in office, had an average rate of growth of 2.3 per cent. This Government has had two years of growth of 5 per cent and will have another year of about 5 per cent of growth with the way the economy is going at present. In the employment area, we have had an increase of 460,000 jobs in 2 1/2 years. Employment in Australia is currently growing at the fastest rate of any country in the Western world. Is this an economy with a deteriorating economic performance? It is quite obvious that members of the Opposition are so bereft of economic policy that they have resorted to absolute make believe. They are out there in their own little world pretending that things are totally different from what they are. We just saw that in respect of the employment figures. They are just making absurd statements about employment. Faced with the fastest rate of growth of employment of any country in the Western world, they are now trying to say that it is not really occurring in all sectors. They particularly went to some sectors and said: `There has not been employment growth here'. In fact they are not even right about that. Let us look at some of those sectors. The latest figures we have on an industry basis are for August 1985. In the last 12 months in agriculture there was growth in employment of 3 1/2 per cent; in the mining sector, another sector referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), there was growth of 9.9 per cent; in transport and storage, another sector which the honourable member pointed to as showing a reduction, there was growth of 5.9 per cent. The figures that members of the Opposition are producing are just out of their own make believe world; they are just not true. I have not had a chance to check them all, but I can say that all of those figures are quite wrong. The bottom line is that we have had growth in employment over the last 12 months to August of 2.8 per cent. We have had an increase of 462,000 jobs in 2 1/2 years and that dwarfs the amount of employment growth under the previous Government of about 340,000 jobs in seven and a quarter years. Yet members of the Opposition tell us that we have a deteriorating economic performance. It is just absolutely absurd. Unemployment has come down from 10.2 per cent when we took office to 7.8 per cent now. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a lot of noise about competitiveness and referred to wages and other factors. Let me just say a few things about that. The rate of wage growth under this Government has been historically rather low. Under the accord, in the 1984-85 year we had the lowest rate of growth in average weekly earnings since 1967-68. The year period June to June had the lowest rate of growth, 3 1/2 per cent, that this country has seen since 1962-63. Yet members of the Opposition tell us that we have got an accord which is producing too high wage increases. What absurd nonsense it all is. It is absolute make believe out of their own tiny minds in some sort of make believe world which has no relation to the realities facing this country at all. We have seen a tremendous reduction in real unit labour costs. An index has been published by Treasury. That index, which reached 108.9 in 1977-78, was 107.2 in 1982-83, with the base of 100 being the late 1960s and early 1970s. That has now fallen to 97.8 in the June quarter, which is a tremendous reduction below the level it was in the period of normality picked by Treasury-the late 1960s and early 1970s. We have had a reduction from 108.9 in 1977-78 to 97.8, below the 100 per cent base line for the late 1960s and early 1970s. So real unit labour costs have been dramatically reduced. The flip side of that is that profitability of industry has considerably increased and is back at levels which are higher than at any time under the previous Government's period of office. That is providing the basis upon which we can get increased investment and increased recovery of the economy. We have been told time and again by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that there was a terrible loss of international competitiveness under this Government and that we were totally unable to compete. He was using the balance of payments figures for that purpose. I say to the honourable member for Menzies that the Treasury publishes-he would have no knowledge of this of course, but I will tell him for his own edification; I see him trying hard not to listen-three indexes of international competitiveness. They are indexes of wage and price changes compared with those of our trading partners, adjusted for exchange rate movements. If the honourable member would like to know where to find them, he can look at page 28 of the October 1985 Round-up economic report of the Treasury where he will see those indices. They all show a dramatic increase in the international competitiveness of this country. If honourable members look at the figures, which are based on the gross domestic product deflator, they will see that that has come back from a high of 112.8 in 1981-82 to an index of 100 in March of this year. It would have improved considerably since that time with the further devaluation. The unit labour cost index of competitiveness had its peak of 118.7 in 1981-82. It was back to 108 in March this year and would have fallen considerably since then. The consumer price index deflator was 107.8 in 1981-82 and was back to 93.3 in March 1985. So looking at two price indices and a wage index on an internationally comparable basis, adjusted for the exchange rate variations, and looking at our trading partners, our international competitiveness has dramatically increased. It is just nonsense and absolute make believe for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to be parading around the argument that there has been a massive deterioration in our international competitiveness. It is a total distortion of the truth and he knows it. If he does not know it, he ought to. I say to the House that this Opposition has not only got bad economics, but also shows an absolute disregard for the facts. This is becoming increasingly reprehensible in my view because it happens so often it cannot be an accident. Members of the Opposition completely make up figures or use false figures to distort the realities. I believe that they are losing credibility massively by doing that, not only because of the idiocy of the things they are saying, but because of the falseness of the things they keep saying. The inflation rate came back from over 11 per cent when we came into office to just over 5 per cent. The inflation rate has increased again because of the devaluation effects but it will come down again as the appropriate adjustment to wages policy is made, as it will be, which will get us back to an inflation rate of 5 per cent by 1987-88. Honourable members can look at the deteriorating index in relation to the balance of payments. They will see that there is concern there. Let me say a couple of things quickly about that matter. Firstly, obviously our international balance of payments figures have been affected by very bad terms of trade. That is why our farmers are facing deteriorating real incomes and export prices are bad for rural and mining commodities. That is not a fault of this Government; it is just something that reflects the international prices and cannot be laid at our feet. As a result of the increased growth of this economy, the fastest growth of any economy anywhere in the Western world, we have had some increase in imports, which has exposed and added to the balance of payments weakness that was being hidden by the recession. With growth, it has now become obvious that there was this weakness in the balance of payments and the devaluation was therefore forced upon us. With that devaluation there is then a capacity for that balance of payments problem to be overcome, so long as the appropriate adjustment is made to wages policy to ensure that the inflation effects of that devaluation are not built in. In our view the Australian Council of Trade Unions-Government wages agreement gives us the appropriate adjustment to wages policy by ensuring that we have 2 per cent off the next indexation case, the postponement of the implementation of the productivity case and a very extended implementation of its outcome. Let me say that in all discussion on this matter the Government believes that it has made the quite appropriate adjustment to its wages policy, but it believes that this nation also needs to consider very strongly the alternatives that would be facing it without the prices and incomes accord. What would we be doing now if we did not have the prices and incomes accord to overcome the price effects of the devaluation? I say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we would be indulging in policies which would be gravely damaging to the economic welfare of the Australian people, because there would be no alternative but to deflate the Australian economy very considerably. That, of course, is what the recession-oriented Opposition wants us to do. The Opposition does not go around saying that, but that is really its underlying policy. It is an Opposition of recession. Its policies are based on recession. It controls unions by creating economic recession. It controls inflation by creating economic recession. It corrects its balance of payments by creating economic recession. It does everything on that basis. The coalition when in government went around the country implying that we had a beaut economy because we had soaring unemployment and declining employment and it seemed to think that that was terrific. It showed time and again in its period in office that it had no alternative policies to its policy of whacking the economy every time inflation reared its head, forcing more unemployment, creating more economic recession and bludgeoning the economy back to some lower inflation level, but at enormous economic and social costs. The accord gives us the capacity to avoid that. The Opposition is now saying that we should simply go to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and demand full offsets for inflation. We say that we have full offsets in the sense of the combination of the discounting and the productivity case adjustment. If the Opposition were to go to the Arbitration Commission and say `We want to have full discounting' and if the Commission were to accede to that request, how would it then stop wage increases from occurring out in the field? There would be no accord and there would be only one way to stop it and that would be to bludgeon the economy down, to increase taxes, to have much higher interest rates, to force more unemployment and to control wage increases and outcomes. That is what the Opposition would do. This morning the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) talked about how he would perhaps even contemplate another wage freeze. That is an incredible proposition to come from him. He has told us time and again since he came to office that the No. 1 thing that the Opposition would do would be to deregulate the wages system in this country, because that was the absolutely basic thing that had to be done to get the economy back on a proper footing, as the Leader of the Opposition puts it. Yet now the proposition has been floated that instead of a deregulated system we should have the ultimate centralised system-a total wage freeze. That is the absolute and total antithesis to a deregulated system. We have the absurd situation that just a few months ago a Liberal leader was elected who proclaimed to the nation that the first and most important thing he stood for was a deregulated wages system, and yet a couple of months later he has walked away from that. He is now talking about the most totally centralised system that this country could possibly have-an absolute wage freeze. So the Opposition is in total chaos on the issue of wages policy as it is on every other aspect of policy. It has no idea where it is going. Not only is there an absurdity in the sense of there being no consistency but also there is an incredible credibility gap. How would the Opposition enforce a wage freeze? How could we have a wage freeze without the economic conditions of 1982-83? Do honourable members opposite really think that we could have a wages freeze in 1985-86 with the economy going the way it is? Do they think that they could go the Arbitration Commission and say `Do not award any wage increases' and nothing would happen in the field? Of course that would not be the case. That would be an absurdity. There would be no possibility of having a wage freeze in the circumstances of strong growth. We now have strong growth and historically low levels of wage increases given the present economic conditions. That is something that the Opposition could not possibly achieve. So we have the absurd situation where there is total confusion in the Opposition with regard to policy. It is propounding a policy that it could not possibly deliver unless it recreated the conditions in 1982-83 when we had the worst recession in 55 years. That is what the Opposition's policies imply it would do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes)(3.45) —If ever a cruel deception has been perpetrated on this country, it is the awakening monster we call the prices and incomes accord. In some ways what is going on now is worse than what went on in Australia between 1972 and 1975. Honourable members will remember that those were the years when we saw the recklessness of the Whitlam Government ravish and rape our economy. Inflation rocketed from low levels, the deficit blew out and, saddest of all, unemployment in this country took a quantum leap from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, and we have yet to recover from that madness. What some people do not realise is that a similar debauchery is going on in Australia today. The magnitude of mismanagement is only marginally below that of the Whitlam wildness. It is merely papered over by a veneer of Orwellian newspeak, whereby certain words have been kidnapped from the English language and their meaning has been altered or reversed. For example, I refer to the word `consensus', which, as we know, is all con and no sense. The Government uses other expressions such as economic growth when it speaks of the so-called 410,000 jobs it has created. That has been done on borrowed money, with the highest per cent of those employed going into the Public Service. Every government that has ever existed since Federation, with the possible exception of the Whitlam Government, has created that number of jobs. The last coalition Government created-if that is the word-well over 500,000 jobs. We have heard other expressions such as `economic curves'. When the economy was taking a dip at the beginning of the year, we heard about the V curve, meaning that the economy would bounce straight back up. When the dip was prolonged, the curve blew out into the U curve. In the last fortnight we have been told about the J curve. Undoubtedly, next month we will have the L curve, when the economy collapses and stays flat. Probably at the beginning of next year, we will have the I curve, when the economy will plunge inexorably into a Third World oblivion. Another Orwellian word is `summit'. At a summit policy is put to the Australian people and it goes flat. The most insidious of all is the accord. Under the accord union members are fully compensated for the effects of the deteriorating economy while everyone else, including and especially the unemployed, has to pay for it. It locks us into a wage price spiral. We now have the highest spending government that this country has ever seen and the highest deficits. The last three deficits under this Government are the three highest in this country's history. Those three alone add up to over $20 billion. Interest being paid out is approaching $1 billion a month. We are rolling over our loans at higher and higher interest rates for shorter and shorter terms-terms of months instead of years. We have now entered the league of Brazil, Argentinia and Mexico. It is appropriate that I mention Mexico because the Mexican Treasurer was the last person to get the medal for the world's greatest Treasurer before our Treasurer-our Chinese Treasurer, Mr Keating- did. Given that mess, what did this Government do? What was its answer and solution? It abolished the wages pause and replaced it with the accord. It told us in further Orwellian newspeak that this move would restrict and moderate wage increases. In practice, what has that meant? It has meant three things: Full, or near full wage indexation; the continuation of pushes for increases in several of the wage on-costs outside the accord, such as the redundancy agreements, fewer hours, superannuation claims, et cetera; and wage rises for things such as productivity. So, under the accord, when the consumer price index goes up, wage rises will follow. This pushes the CPI up again and we get more wage rises. So what choice do employers have other than to shed labour and install more machinery? This pushes up their productivity and so there is a push for even more wage increases for productivity increases. How crazy that is! However, while all this is going on others overseas are passing judgment on our dollar, which has been falling. When our dollar falls imports become dearer, the CPI goes up again and then, guess what happens? Messrs Kelty and Crean-that is a good title for them because they are messers-ask for wage rises to compensate for those events. To avoid this nasty the Government has artificially jacked up interest rates so that the unions will not put pressure on the accord by asking for those compensatory rises. The trouble is that the Government has so much of its credibility invested in the accord that, even though every economist in this country worth his salt realises that the accord is stillborn, the Government still will not take the necessary action, reach for the scissors and cut the umbilical cord of its baby. To avoid the temporary embarrassment of this nasty, the Government has pushed up interest rates to over 20 per cent. This attracts overseas money into Australia and stops our dollar falling even faster than it otherwise would. However, one would think that the Government could see that it is creating an even bigger monster further down the track by following this course. Real interest rates are at the highest level this country has seen for over 50 years. Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing interest rates from the year of Federation which clearly demonstrates my point. Leave granted. The table read as follows- TRADING BANK MAXIMUM OVERDRAFT RATES 1902 TO 1985 Year Nominal interest rate Real interest rate 1902... 7.00 0.58 1903... 7.00 9.18 1904... 7.50 14.51 1905... 7.50 3.02 1906... 8.00 8.00 1907... 7.50 7.50 1908... 7.50 1.18 1909... 7.50 7.50 1910... 7.50 5.43 1911... 7.50 5.47 1912... 7.50 -3.43 1913... 7.50 7.50 1914... 7.50 3.98 1915... 7.50 -6.32 1916... 7.50 5.99 1917... 7.50 1.77 1918... 7.50 0.78 1919... 7.50 -5.49 1920... 7.50 -5.02 1921... 7.50 23.03 1922... 7.50 11.21 1923... 7.50 5.08 1924... 7.50 8.72 1925... 7.50 7.50 1926... 7.50 5.11 1927... 8.00 9.21 1928... 8.00 8.00 1929... 8.00 5.63 1930... 8.50 13.49 1931... 7.00 19.35 1932... 6.00 11.73 1933... 6.00 10.48 1934... 5.00 2.12 1935... 4.25 2.84 1936... 5.25 3.85 1937... 5.25 1.20 1938... 5.25 2.62 1939... 5.25 2.68 1940... 5.75 2.02 1941... 5.75 1.00 1942... 5.00 -3.66 1943... 5.00 0.84 1944... 4.75 5.80 1945... 4.75 4.75 1946... 4.75 2.70 1947... 4.50 0.56 1948... 4.50 -5.32 1949... 4.50 -4.48 1950... 4.50 -4.46 1951... 4.50 -12.40 1952... 4.50 -10.96 1953... 5.00 0.39 1954... 5.00 4.49 1955... 5.00 2.51 1956... 6.00 -0.15 1957... 6.00 3.69 1958... 6.00 4.18 1959... 6.00 4.21 1960... 6.00 2.54 1961... 7.00 4.03 1962... 7.00 7.43 1963... 6.50 6.08 1964... 7.00 4.51 1965... 7.25 3.25 1966... 7.25 4.14 1967... 7.25 3.50 1968... 7.25 4.69 1969... 7.50 4.30 1970... 8.25 4.45 1971... 8.25 2.05 1972... 7.75 1.63 1973... 7.75 -1.49 1974... 9.50 -4.84 1975... 11.50 -3.15 1976... 10.50 -2.67 1977... 10.50 -1.57 1978... 10.50 2.31 1979... 10.50 1.27 1980... 10.50 0.29 1981... 12.50 2.54 1982... 14.50 3.14 1983... 14.50 3.98 1984... 14.50 10.22 At 8.10.1985... 19.50 12.00 Mr COBB —I thank the House. Businesses which have money borrowed now are using their whole cash flow just to service these high interest rates. Investment in this country is drying up rapidly. Labour is starting to be shed again in numbers reminiscent of the Whitlam regime. All this is happening largely because of the accord. If the Government does not reverse this policy soon, Australians will end up being better off living in South America. The international judgment that overseas investors are making of the Australian economy is horrific. The value of our dollar has come down from parity with the United States dollar to about 66c in the last year. This is giving only marginal help to our exporters because overseas prices are depressed and our costs due to imports are rising. The net effect is negative. Mr Griffiths —What would you do? Mr COBB —We would use sound economic management. The value of our currency has fallen by 33 per cent against the Japanese yen, and Japan is a country blessed with no natural resources, such as Australia has. Our trade weighted index has slipped below 60, and our Treasurer tells us that we are doing well. I do not know what he would say if we were doing badly. Our inflation rate is twice that of our trading partners. We are working less hours than they are. We are working a 38-hour week which is decreasing to 35 hours. One should compare our situation with that of Switzerland and Japan whose working hours are now rising to 42, 44 and 45 a week. Our on-costs are horrific. We have the highest penalty rates in the world. We have the most leave in the world-four weeks. We are the only country in the world which has a 17 1/2 per cent leave loading. We have two weeks of sickies, the best long service leave in the world, the highest redundancy pay, which has just been introduced, and generous superannuation. The list goes on. We should be winding back these on-costs, not entrenching them via such policies as the accord. Who masterminded this madness? It was none other than the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). One should look at his record. He had a go at Bourke's Store and it went broke. He went over to Solo petrol and it went broke. He went to ACTU travel and it went broke. He is now trying to run Australia and it is going broke. I say to the Government: Stop being the spineless, parliamentary puppets of the Australian Council of Trade Unions who are interested only in those with jobs. What about the jobless in this country? What about the employers? The ACTU even sets the Government's foreign policy. One cannot even send a letter to South Africa! I found out only the other day why we pay 33c for a stamp. We pay 3c for delivery and the other 30c for storage. The accord has failed the exporters of this country. It has failed the jobless. It has failed the importers. Let us have no more of this Kelty cop-out. Let us stop playing this dangerous game of `Simon says'. Let us wake up to blow-wave Bob and the turbo-tongue nonsense he pours out to the media every day. Let us look behind the voodoo economics of the accord and see it for what it is. It is becoming more and more apparent that the accord is nothing more than a cord around our necks, strangling the initiative of free enterprise in this country today. Let us tell the people of Australia that the accord is a fraud. Let us blow the whistle on this nonsense and work to have it rejected from the economic policy of Australia forever. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(3.54) —After having listened to the drivel of the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), I am inclined to respond in equal terms, but I shall not embrace the temptation. However, let me make just a couple of quick points on the way through. The honourable member for Parkes indicated his absolute lack of economic knowledge when he compared the last three Budgets with their predecessors in terms of their being the largest deficits in the history of the nation. Anyone with any degree of political expertise or knowledge would fully understand that the only way one can gauge the comparative level of deficits is to embrace the approach of describing them in real terms, certainly not in nominal terms. It is an absurdity to do so and another indicator of the lack of economic expertise on the Opposition back benches which is approaching the situation on the Opposition front benches. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) indicated earlier the fundamental conflict between the call of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) for a wage freeze in certain circumstances and the Opposition's alleged policy of the deregulation of the labour market, that is, attacking the soft end of union power. Ever since the Leader of the Opposition began articulating that approach, mainly as a stalking horse to provide himself with a forum in which to bring down his Leader, and ever since he achieved the mantle of Leader of the Opposition, we have had not only a stepping back from that policy approach but also a hiding from it. The Leader of the Opposition has not articulated that approach anywhere in the community with the same degree of vigour that he held previously. Why would he not do so? The reality is that out in the Australian community people are not prepared to adopt a system that overturns the Government's industrial relations policies with all their problems from time to time, for the politics and economics of voodoo-land. The two positions on this issue-a freeze of wages or a deregulated labour market-are fundamentally opposed. They are philosophically opposed. The dries can argue that they want a deregulated wages system, but it seems to me to be an absurdity to do so when the Leader of the Opposition is pontificating on the possible use of a wages freeze. That is an institutionalised policy mechanism. It is the last suggestion that one would ever expect to come from a so-called dry. It is the absolute antithesis of the whole philosophical approach the Opposition has put forward to date. It is not only on wages policy that the Opposition indicates a degree of confusion. As was articulated today in Question Time by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Opposition has changed its approach to our taxation reform package. Initially, the Leader of the Opposition was going to await the legislation, to weigh carefully what it comprised and to adopt an approach accordingly. But, of course, he was rolled. The strong Leader was rolled. So much for the lack of leadership prior to his ascendency. Again, in all the other major economic policy areas, the Opposition stands alone in its absolute confusion about the Australian dollar. Its members come into this House embracing economic treachery and appeal to international money market operators to attack the Australian dollar just as they did in the lead up to the 1983 election when the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), adopted the same approach of attacking Australia's economy. It seems to me to be an approach based on a great lack of respect for one's own country to positively invite people to attack its currency with all the associated corollaries, that is, increased unemployment and so on. The situation which applied during October was unusual. It was atypical because a number of factors came together during October that made the current account deficit greater than it would otherwise have been. Because of my limited time I witness only the expatriation of our foreign aid donations during that month. It is an atypical month. I think everyone would agree with that. There is no doubt. Mr N. A. Brown —What about September? What is the excuse for September? Mr GRIFFITHS —If the Opposition has a view about the current account deficit, again it will have to approach some fairly fundamental philosophical positions. For example, do Opposition members support the float? If there is a float do they support the Reserve Bank's smoothing operations? Is that too much intervention? Do they want a dirty float? Do they want a fixed exchange rate? No, there is too much confusion there and they cannot attack it, so they go to the other side of the coin and embrace the old stock-in-trade-that is, attack the trade union movement. In my view the trade union movement is much more economically literate than the Opposition at the moment. In co-operation with the Government it has made the only consensual incomes policy agreement ever and the only one that is not established on a fiscal or statutory basis or on a number of other bases, such as the deregulated model. All those models have failed. The Australian model is unique. On Monday this week, in discussions with a number of politicians from the United States, I found that they were positively encouraged by the prices and incomes accord. These politicians were both Republicans and Democrats. They believed it was a very useful model from which their own country could learn many great lessons. Having regard to the way in which the American economy is moving, they may not be all that wrong. The accord has been renegotiated for another two years. Within the wording of it there is provision for consultation from time to time if economic circumstances change. If that becomes necessary, I have every confidence that the Government will embrace that approach. What is the record of the prices and incomes accord? It is worth going through it, although I know honourable members opposite get sick of hearing it. Unemployment was 10.4 per cent when we achieved office and it is now 7.8 per cent. A total of 460,000 new jobs have been created and I believe that we will shortly exceed our 500,000 target. That is a record for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Inflation has been halved. Mr N. A. Brown —A brilliant record! Mr GRIFFITHS —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is a great one for interjecting, but he comes to this argument with dirty hands. He was part of the Government which, in its last year of office, sent more than 200,000 people to the dole queues with increasing inflation, increasing interest rates and so on. It is no good the honourable member for Menzies just sitting there and making benign interjections. He will really have to do much better than lie to the House as he did earlier today-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member has used unparliamentary language. I ask him to withdraw. Mr GRIFFITHS —I withdraw that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me say that the honourable member for Menzies, in his total ignorance, indicated to this House a number of statistics relating to employment levels across a broad range of industry sectors. He was subsequently corrected by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and I hope that he has the decency at the conclusion of this debate to indicate to the House how he got it wrong. The way in which he got it wrong is very similar to the way in which he has been getting it wrong for a long time. As I was saying, profit levels have been restored, real unit labour costs are at their 1960s level, and surely there is no debate about that. The accord has inbuilt flexibilities, as I have indicated; there is discounting of the consumer price index and there may be more if and when that is appropriate. The deficit has been cut, the public sector borrowing requirement has been cut and the Government currently has in place a tight monetary policy. An easing of demand would be consistent with Budget projections and with the approach of this Government under the prices and incomes accord. The Opposition's freeze or deregulation, inconsistencies aside, would mean in reality a wages blowout as we had on consecutive occasions under its stewardship. We would have rising inflation, again as under its stewardship right through the latter part of the 1970s, and we would have massively increasing unemployment. All those things are a prescription for a massive collapse of the Australian dollar and there is no way in which one could get around that. If the Opposition argues for a particular economic prescription, it will have to do much better than come to the House with two economically and philosophically opposed positions for wages policy. This is an absurdity and Opposition members would not pass a Higher School Certificate exam by suggesting either of those approaches-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, I present the report of the Committee entitled `Who Calls Australia Home', a review of the Auditor-General's efficiency audit on the control of prohibited immigration by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, together with the minutes of proceedings, the transcript of evidence and documents authorised for publication. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr LEO McLEAY —by leave-The efficiency audit report of the Auditor-General on the control of prohibited immigration by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is the fourth such report that the Expenditure Committee has examined. The objectives of the Committee in carrying out its review were to assess the substantive content of the audit exercise and the quality of the efficiency audit report and also to examine the response of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The control function actually comprises a number of complex administrative procedures ranging from the issuance of visitors' visas at overseas posts to clearing of passengers at ports of entry, to apprehending, detaining and prosecuting prohibited non-citizens and finally, in some cases, deporting them. These procedures involve the use of sophisticated computer systems and the co-operation of other Commonwealth authorities, including the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Protection Service, as well as the Australian Federal Police. The Committee found the efficiency audit report a useful document in terms of assessing the administrative efficiency of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in its control of prohibited immigration. To a large extent the Department has accepted the Audit Office's recommendations and has proceeded to implement them. However, the greatest weaknesses of the efficiency audit report was its failure to address the issues of the effectiveness of administration by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. This is despite the claim in the report's introduction that the audit was concerned with efficiency and effectiveness. Little analysis seemed to have been carried out regarding the effectiveness of the Department's practice in meeting its objectives. Nor do any of the Audit Office's recommendations suggest that perhaps the objectives could be met more efficiently by using other means. The Committee has attempted to redress this weakness to some extent by making its own recommendations in its report. The committee's recommendations also result from the realisation in the course of the review that more general questions needed to be addressed, such as the extent to which prohibited non-citizens were able to obtain financial assistance and other benefits from Commonwealth sources. The Committee was disturbed to learn that prohibited non-citizens-that is, people who are illegal immigrants in Australia-are able to apply for legal aid. Some of them have Medicare cards and are being paid social security benefits. Many are working illegally, perhaps having obtained their jobs through the Commonwealth Employment Service. The Committee believes that as a matter of principle people who are in Australia unlawfully should not be entitled to the same forms of assistance or benefits given to those who have legal status in this country, be they temporary entry permit holders, permanent residents or citizens. The Committee's recommendations are designed to close loopholes of access to benefits where these exist and, more importantly, to suggest that legislation be amended in some instances to prevent prohibited non-citizens from using certain community services. The most glaring example which came before the Committee was the situation in which prohibited non-citizens could obtain Commonwealth-funded legal aid to appeal against decisions to deport them made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). The Committee was advised that some of these cases, which have reached the High Court of Australia, could have run up costs in the vicinity of $250,000. Another aspect of the Committee's report is its recommendation for two other significant legislative amendments. The first is to the Migration Act 1958. The essence of the recommendation is that visitors to this country who are here for six months or less should not be permitted to apply for permanent resident status while they are here. The second amendment is to the Citizenship Act 1948 to prevent children born to people who are not in Australia permanently or legally from acquiring citizenship status. Both amendments are intended to stop what is called `queue jumping'. In other words, we want all people who come to Australia intending to live here permanently to go through the proper application processes overseas. However, there is no suggestion that the immigration program should be reduced. On the contrary, we have specifically suggested in the report that any decrease in the numbers who obtain change of status should be added to the family reunion program. From my comments, honourable members will no doubt appreciate that the review has ranged over areas which are much broader than those covered by the efficiency audit. I think that this is only right and proper. Parliamentary committees have a duty to draw together the various strands of government administration and come up at the end with something which is in the best interests of the Australian community. I would also like to thank those members of the Committee who participated in the review, and I would like to thank the Committee secretariat who assisted in the preparation of the report. I would particularly like to thank Ruth Holzman, Peter Ratas and Penny Maher from the Committee secretariat. Ruth Holzman, who was on secondment to the Committee from the executive development scheme, had a large hand in the drafting of the report and in the conducting of the review. For an officer who came to the Committee from the Department of Communciations with no prior knowledge of the operations of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Miss Holzman's assistance to the Committee was invaluable and her standard of work was of a high order, and I think that it is proper that she be congratulated for the work that she did with the Committee on her secondment. I thank the House for the time. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —by leave-I think that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure has done a good job in examining this efficiency audit by the Auditor-General. Whilst I have not had the opportunity to read the report, I have read the evidence provided to the Committee. There are some matters that the Committee has investigated that cause me some concern. In paragraph 61 of the report, the figure given for the number of prohibited non-citizens entering Australia each year is 6,000 to 10,000. However, in an Estimates committee of the Senate, departmental officials indicated that the figure they were working on was somewhere around 15,000 or 16,000-considerably more than the figure given to the Expenditure Committee of the House of Representatives. I also commend the Committee for dealing with the difficulties of payments by departments of benefits and privileges which are normally attributable to Australian residents or citizens. It has tackled this matter in a comprehensive and thoughtful way. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has consistently maintained that there are 50,000 illegal immigrants in Australia. From the Committee's work it is possible to indicate that a considerable number of those may be in receipt of benefits. As far as Medicare is concerned, in paragraph 79 of the report the Committee has identified-on a very small sample, admittedly-that perhaps 22 per cent of those examined were in receipt of Medicare cards even though they were illegal immigrants. If one extrapolates the figures-and I know that this is a dangerous thing to do, but we have no information, unfortunately, and the Department cannot provide it; nor do other departments provide it -and says that of the 50,000 so-called illegals in Australia, 22 per cent may be in receipt of benefits, one comes up with a staggering figure of $52m being paid out annually to people who are here illegally. Nobody can prove or disprove those figures, and I think it is a shame that the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has not tighter control of the processes of entry to and exit from Australia. It does not have control of cards in Sydney so it does not really know what is happening. Also, I do not believe that its computer systems are up to scratch so that it knows who is here illegally and who is not. Frankly, I doubt whether there are 50,000 illegal immigrants in Australia, but the Department has stuck with that figure and, having been stuck with that figure, it has to wear the ramifications of whether benefits are being paid out in Medicare, legal aid, social security benefits and unemployment benefits to a big number of people who are here illegally. My closing comments are that I question not only the figures but also the controls. I wish to point out to members of the Government that its recent action in regard to illegal immigrants hinges on the identification card system. Every measure announced by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) and control of illegal immigrants hinges on the ID card, and yet we have the Victorian State Conference saying: `We will not wear the introduction of ID cards'. The interchange of information between departments is critical. The Committee looked at that matter and it did not come forward with a proper conclusion. But I believe that departments could co-operate. The Department of Social Security should be informed accurately of who are illegal immigrants and that Department, likewise, should inform the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of the whereabouts of illegal immigrants. That applies to other departments, too. It is too risky a thing to depend on ID cards to control illegal immigrants in Australia. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.18) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and the accompanying Australia (Request and Consent) Bill 1985 have been introduced at the request of the parliaments of all the States and in accordance with the established policy of successive Commonwealth governments. All the States have recently enacted legislation which requested this Parliament to enact legislation in the terms of each of the two Bills. The Bills will give effect to the agreement between the Commonwealth Government and all State governments to seek the removal of the outmoded residual constitutional links that still exist between Australia and the United Kingdom Parliament, Government and judicial system, and to substitute new constitutional provisions and procedural arrangements. This agreement has been reached following extensive consultations between the Commonwealth and State governments, dating from the 1982 Premiers Conference under our predecessors. At the outset, I emphasise that nothing in the legislation will impair the position of the Queen as Queen of Australia. In fact, the Queen, instead of being formally advised on State matters by United Kingdom Ministers, will now be advised direct by State Premiers in her exercise of the power concerned. The Australia Bill 1986, if enacted, will be an exercise of the power under section 51 (xxxviii) of the Constitution-the power to make laws with respect to the `exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia'. The Australia Bill bears the date `1986', and provides for the Act to be cited as the `Australia Act 1986', because it is desirable for the Act to have the same title as the corresponding Act to be enacted by the United Kingdom Parliament; this matter is dealt with in the accompanying Bill. In brief, the proposed legislation will terminate any powers that might still remain in the United Kingdom Parliament to make laws having effect as part of Australian law. It will remove existing fetters and limitations upon the legislative powers of the State parliaments except in respect of the conduct of foreign affairs. In particular, the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 will be repealed in relation to the States. As well, residual executive powers of the United Kingdom Government with respect to the States will be terminated. The legislation will also remove the remaining avenues of appeal from Australian courts to the Privy Council, thus making the High Court of Australia the final court of appeal for all Australian courts. This will end the anomalous situation in the area of legal precedent, where a State supreme court could find itself faced with two binding, yet conflicting authorities. Among other important provisions in the Bills are those concerning the State Governors. They are to be vested with all of the Queen's existing powers and functions in respect of the States except those in relation to appointments of State Governors and the termination of their appointments, and in relation to awards of imperial honours. On these matters, the legislation will put an end to the present position under which the Queen is advised by United Kingdom Ministers-following recommendations by the State Premiers to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom Government. Instead, the Queen will be advised directly in each case by the Premier of the State concerned. Furthermore, when the Queen is personally present in a State, she will be able to exercise a power or function in relation to a State but will do so on any occasion only if there has been mutual and prior agreement between the Queen and the Premier that it would be appropriate for her to do so. All State Premiers have confirmed their acceptance that such mutual and prior agreement is an essential ingredient of the proposed arrangements. In order to cater for those few States who may still wish to issue them, arrangements have been made for imperial honours to be awarded by the Queen upon the advice of the Premier of the State concerned. These arrangements do not need to be included in the legislation and have not been included. Procedures acceptable to the Commonwealth and State governments, the Queen and the United Kingdom Government have been formulated and will be given effect by amendments to the prerogative instruments in the United Kingdom constituting the various orders and awards. I turn now to the detailed provisions of the Bill. The Australia Bill departs from the usual form of Commonwealth Bills in that the provisions for its short title, commencement and interpretation are placed at the end so as to parallel the Act to be sought from the United Kingdom Parliament. This has been done so that the clause numbers of the two Bills fully correspond. Clause 1 of the Australia Bill terminates the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws having effect as part of Australian law, whether as law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory. Clause 2, which must be read subject to clauses 5 and 6 mentioned below, declares and enacts in sub-clause (1) that the powers of each State parliament include power to legislate extra-territorially. Sub-clause (2) removes any other limitations on the legislative powers of the States that might exist by reason of their former colonial status. However, sub-clause 2 (2) expressly provides that it does not confer upon any State any capacity that the State did not have immediately before the commencement of the Australia Act to engage in relations with countries outside Australia. Sub-clause 3 (1) removes the fetters imposed upon the States by the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865. Sub-clause 3 (2), which will operate subject to clauses 5 and 6, makes it clear that the States will be able to enact legislation repugnant to the laws of England or to United Kingdom Acts, and that those Acts may be repealed or amended by a State parliament insofar as they are part of the law of the State. Clause 4 expressly repeals sections 735 and 736 of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act 1894 insofar as they are still part of the law of a State. Clause 5 qualifies clause 2 and sub-clause 3 (2) by making them subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and the Commonwealth Constitution. Clause 5 goes on to provide that they do not operate so as to give effect to any provision of a State Act that would repeal, amend or be repugnant to the Australia Act itself, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, the Commonwealth Constitution or the Statute of Westminster, as amended and in force from time to time. Clause 6 provides that, notwithstanding clauses 2 and sub-clause 3 (2), a law of a State made after the commencement of the Australia Acts respecting the constitution, powers or procedure of the Parliament of that State shall be of no force or effect unless made in the manner and form, if any, required by a law made by that Parliament, whether before or after the commencement of the Australia Act. It thus preserves the entrenched provisions of State Constitutions subject to any changes made in accordance with State law. Clause 7 contains the provisions relating to the vesting of the Queen's powers in State Governors, except in regard to appointments of Governors, recommendations for imperial honours, and the exercise of the Queen's powers when she is personally present in the State. I mention again the understanding that the Queen, when personally present in a State, would only exercise a power or function following mutual and prior agreement between the Queen and the Premier. Clause 8 will put an end to existing powers of the Queen to disallow State laws, and will prevent any requirement for the operation of State laws to be suspended pending signification of the Queen's pleasure. Sub-clause 9 (1) will prevent any law or instrument from requiring the Governor of a State to withhold assent from any Bill that has been passed in the manner and form, if any, required by a law of that State, and sub-clause 9 (2) will preclude any law or instrument from requiring the reservation of any Bill for a State Act for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure. Clause 10 provides that, after the commencement of the Act, the United Kingdom Government will have no responsibility for the government of any State. Clause 11 will terminate appeals to the Privy Council from Australian courts. However, it will not affect an appeal instituted before the commencement of this legislation, or an appeal instituted after that commencement pursuant to leave granted on an appropriate application or petition presented before the commencement. Clause 12, which supplements clause 1, expressly repeals section 4, sub-sections 9 (2) and (3), and sub-section 10 (2) of the Statute of Westminster, relating to the powers of the United Kingdom Parliament to make laws with respect to the Commonwealth and the States of Australia, insofar as they are part of Australian law. Clauses 13 and 14 contain special provisions concerning the Constitution Acts of Queensland and Western Australia. These provisions are consequential upon the termination of the powers and responsibilities of United Kingdom Ministers in respect of the States. Clause 15 provides that the proposed legislation and the Statute of Westminster, as amended and in force from time to time, insofar as it is part of the law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, can be repealed or amended only by the Commonwealth Parliament at the request, or with the concurrence, of the parliaments of all the States. An exception is made in respect of Commonwealth legislation enacted pursuant to any constitutional alteration made, in accordance with section 128 of the Constitution, after the commencement of the Australia Act. Clauses 16 and 17 provide for matters of interpretation, short title and commencement. It has been agreed between the Commonwealth and State governments that the Australia Acts to be enacted by the Commonwealth and United Kingdom Parliaments will be proclaimed to come into operation at the same time. Passage of this long overdue legislation will complete the process of constitutional development commenced at the beginning of this century. It will eliminate those laws and procedures which are anachronistic and substitute new arrangements which reflect Australia's status as an independent and sovereign nation. It will also ensure the capacity of the States to exercise fully the powers that are appropriate to their position in our Federation, freed at last from the legal fetters and limitations derived from their earlier status as British colonies. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.27) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill flows from the Australia Bill 1986. By enacting this second Bill, the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill, this Parliament will declare that the Parliament and Government of the Commonwealth request, and consent to the enactment by the United Kingdom Parliament of an Act in the terms set out in the Schedule to the Australia (Request and Consent) Bill. That scheduled Act is in the same terms as the Australia Bill 1986 now before this House, except for some minor differences that are needed to take account of the fact that the scheduled Act will be an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. In addition to this Commonwealth request to the United Kingdom Parliament, each State parliament has enacted legislation directly requesting the United Kingdom Parliament to enact legislation in the terms of the proposed United Kingdom Act. The remarks made in relation to the provisions of the Australia Bill apply to the corresponding provisions of the Act to be sought from the United Kingdom Parliament as set out in the Schedule to this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Young, and read a first time. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.29) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In September the Government accepted the findings of the Remuneration Tribunal's 1985 review of the remuneration and allowances payable to the holders of all offices within its jurisdiction. I presented a copy of the Tribunal's review to the Parliament on 19 September. Honourable members will be aware that the Tribunal has again had regard to the wage fixing principles and has concluded that, apart from individual work value changes, it should continue to apply only national wage case increases to the offices within its jurisdiction. Allowances intended to reimburse outgoings-that is, travelling allowance, expense of office allowance, electorate allowance and charter allowance-have been increased in accordance with increases in costs as measured by the consumer price index or surveys of actual costs. The purpose of this Bill is to implement the Tribunal's recommendations in respect of holders of judicial office and the President and members of the Inter-State Commission. The Constitution provides that remuneration for these offices shall be such as the Parliament may fix. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the principal Act to be amended to reflect the current salary payable in respect of the offices as reported upon by the Remuneration Tribunal, and adjusted by the most recent national wage case decision. Other parts of clause 3 deal with increases in expense of office allowances as well as the salaries and allowances of the members of the Inter-State Commission. Clause 4 deals with rates of travelling allowance payable to justices of the High Court of Australia by providing for an increase and a new entitlement whereby an additional travelling allowance is paid in respect of an accompanying spouse whose travel costs are met by the Government. Clause 5 provides an increase to the additional allowance payable to justices of the High Court who are not resident in Canberra. Clause 6 provides an increase in travelling allowance payable to other judicial officeholders, including the President and members of the Inter-State Commission, and provides for a new travelling allowance entitlement, as for the High Court, in respect of an accompanying spouse. Clause 7 provides for a new section which fixes the rate of travelling allowances payable to the President and members of the Inter-State Commission. Clause 8 provides an increase to the additional allowance payable to the Solicitor-General where the holder of that office is required to establish a principal place of residence in the Australian Capital Territory. The cost of implementing the Tribunal's recommendations in respect of judges and the Inter-State Commission will be in the order of $99,000 in 1985-86, before allowance is made for the most recent national wage case. Further information on the clauses of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(4.31) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill is to amend the legislation governing the operations of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission to give effect to Government decisions taken following consideration of the report by the CTEC Chairman on the structure of the Commission and arrangements for co-ordination and consultation with States and institutions. As indicated in the supplementary guidelines to CTEC the report has received broad based support for its general objective of more co-ordinated consideration of State and national needs in tertiary education. The Government has largely endorsed the report's recommendations which will have the effect of reducing the costs and complexities of existing arrangements while supporting a more efficient and effective process of advising the Government on the development of tertiary education. Many of the recommendations of the report do not require legislation. Action has already been taken to reorganise the CTEC secretariat along functional lines and to improve arrangements for the formal consultation processes between the Commission and the States and institutions, for the triennial planning processes. The changes embodied in this Bill will extend the charter of the Commission to include in its functions the promotion of developments across the various sectors of tertiary education. The report concluded that the present structure impedes the promotion of the Government's participation and equity objectives as it acts as a barrier to cross-sectoral developments. The amended Act will include `institutes of tertiary education' in the types of tertiary institution on which the Commission can provide advice and will include provision for the Minister to declare a specified institution or authority to be an institute of tertiary education for the purposes of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act. It will also redesignate the sectoral councils as advisory councils with the function of advising the Commission on needs and new policies in their respective sectors. The report concluded that the existing system of sectoral councils advising the Minister, with the Commission in turn developing its advice to government, results in excessive report writing, considerable duplication and leads to unrealistic resource bids. Each advisory council will publish a triennial report on the state of its sector, its problems and priorities for future development but will no longer develop detailed financial recommendations for Commonwealth grants. It will also reduce the part time membership from eight to six in the case of the universities and advanced education councils and from eight to seven in the case of the Technical and Further Education Council. In addition, a part time member of each council will be appointed to membership of the Commission-in addition to the full time council chairpersons-to provide expertise in sectoral matters. Part time membership of the Commission will be increased from five to six. Savings of approximately $100,000 per annum will result from the changes arising from this legislation, in particular the reduction from 29 to 22 in the part time membership of the Commission and the councils. The Bill also provides for the insertion of non-sexist terminology in the legislation in place of existing sexist language such as `Chairman', et cetera. In addition a replacement listing of recognised colleges of advanced education is provided, reflecting name changes in a number of institutions and the establishment of the new Gold Coast College of Advanced Education. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(4.36) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Bill 1985 is to amend the Australian National University Act 1946 and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967 to empower the charging of fees for overseas students. In both Acts, the amendment will enable these institutions to charge course fees for overseas students in accordance with guidelines determined by the Minister. This action is being taken in respect of Commonwealth higher education institutions as a counterpart of similar provisions being introduced into the States Grants (Tertiary Eduction Assistance) Act 1984 for State institutions. The same procedures will be followed for both State and Commonwealth institutions. Revenue from fees will be retained by institutions on the basis that after direct costs are met any surplus is applied to the education activities of the institution in accordance with the relevant conditions as set out in the guidelines for full fee overseas students in courses provided by Commonwealth-funded higher education institutions. The Maritime College Act does not need to be amended because there is already a power in the Act to impose fees and the exercise of this power is already subject to the Minister's approval. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(4.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the State Grants (Education Assistance Participation and Equity) Act 1983 to: Firstly, supplement for cost increases the grants available to goverment and non-government education authorities in the States and the Northern Territory to conduct projects and programs under the participation and equity program in the years 1985 and 1986; and, secondly, to put into effect the Government's decision to extend the program to 1987 and to spread the funds currently provided for 1986 evenly over 1986 and 1987. The present Act as amended provides funds for PEP activities for 1984, 1985 and 1986. The cost supplementation proposed is in accord with the Government's undertaking to provide retrospective cost supplementation for this program. The adjustments are consistent with those being made to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) and States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bills which are also before the House today. The Government's decison to spread funds currently available for 1986 evently over 1986 and 1987 was announced in May as part of the initial expenditure savings measures. The amounts to be provided in each of 1986 and 1987 are sufficient to allow the program to proceed and achieve positive results. The financial impact of this Bill will be to provide an additional $0.624m in 1985, to reduce the amount currently legislated for 1986 by $38.462m and to provide an additional $42.423m for 1987. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(4.40) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill follows last year's historic legislation which set out policies for the implementation of a comprehensive long term scheme for the general recurrent funding of government and non-government schools in Australia. This Bill implements the Government's decisions on specific purpose and capital programs for schools in 1986 which I announced when tabling the Commonwealth Schools Commission's report for 1986 on 15 October 1985. The capital grants program will entail a greater emphasis on upgrading and refurbishment of facilities in existing schools, particularly those serving students characterised by low socio-economic circumstances, the construction of new facilities in accordance with overall educational planning, the provision of facilities to assist schools to encourage and cater for increased student participation at years 11 and 12, and the provision of facilities to encourage equal participation by girls and boys in all areas of the curriculum and to assist in widening career options for girls. The Bill reflects the Government's decision that in 1986 there will be a single general capital element in place of the five elements operating in 1985. There will also be two national elements: Continuation of the existing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander element and a new element for the provision of facilities for children with intellectual and/or physical disabilities. This follows from the transfer from the Department of Community Services of the administration of capital grants to non-government institutions providing for disabled children. Within the general capital element, the Government's decision to direct a higher proportion of Commonwealth capital funds to upgrading and refurbishment of existing schools will be a matter for administrative implementation and will take account of forward commitment obligations already entered into. The Bill appropriates an estimated $1,495m for schools programs in the States and the Northern Territory for calendar year 1986, and also appropriates a further $14m for 1985 programs in line with the Government's policy of providing retrospective cost supplementation for the Commonwealth's school programs. In this legislation, the Government is implementing its policy on the funding of new non-government schools which was announced in March this year following the Government's acceptance of the report by a panel of Commonwealth schools commissioners on `Planning and Funding Policies for New Non-Government Schools'. This policy was the result of extensive consultations with government and non-government education authorities and will benefit all Australian children, in government and non-government schools. The main features of the policy that have been incorporated in the legislation are: Changes to the definition of new non-government school to include existing schools undertaking a change in character only when it results in a significantly increased and/or different clientele; general recurrent grants for approved new non-government schools and those undertaking a change in character which does not involve a significantly increased and/or different clientele, to be based on the general enrolment plan put forward by schools at the time of their approval; modification of the existing criteria for determining eligibility for Commonwealth funding; decisions on eligibility for funding also to take account of plans, including the plans of the relevant government and non-government education authorities, for the provision of education in the States and in the locality, the past, current and projected characteristics of the locality so far as the provision of education is concerned, and the priority the school should, in the opinion of the Minister, be accorded for funding from the Commonwealth. This policy is an important element in the Commonwealth's overall approach to the provision of a firm basis for proper educational planning, and will promote the most effective and most equitable use of Commonwealth financial assistance. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Dawkins, and read a first time. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(4.46) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On 5 November 1985 Volume 3 of the report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the 1985-87 triennium was tabled in the Parliament. This volume of the report responded to the Government's supplementary guidelines announced on 20 August 1985, and made recommendations on the distribution of additional funds for universities and colleges of advanced education for 1986 and 1987, and the Commonwealth's contribution to the technical and further education systems for 1986. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act l984 to complete the Government's 1986 tertiary education program in the States and Northern Territory, provide additional grants for higher education for 1987 for enrolment growth flowing from increased intakes in 1986 and to provide cost supplementation for existing legislated grants. The Government has decided to support a further increase in intakes for higher education in 1987. Funding for 1987 for this increase will be determined in the 1986-87 Budget context after consideration of a report from CTEC on efficiency and effectiveness in higher education, the terms of which were announced on 17 October 1985. At the same time the Government will determine the level of Commonwealth support for TAFE systems for 1987, following its consideration of another review being undertaken by CTEC of the supplementary role of the Commonwealth in the TAFE sector. The financial impact of this Bill will be the appropriation of an additional $509.6m. The Bill provides for an increase in higher education funding of $45.2m for 1986 and 1987, and a total of $280.5m for the TAFE sector for 1986. An amount of $183.9m will be provided as adjustments for cost increases to existing grants for all sectors. Grants for all years of the triennium will be further adjusted for cost increases from time to time in subsequent amending legislation in accordance with the Government's policy of retrospective cost supplementation for education grants. Under this policy, wage and salary increases occurring during the program year are met while increases in non-salary, equipment and capital costs are adjusted to the levels applying at the beginning of the program year. The distribution of the additional higher education grants for 1986 and 1987 is as recommended by the Commission. The key features of the revised triennial program for the States and Northern Territory for higher education are: Recurrent funds for 1987 will amount to $1,992.7m. This is 5.5 per cent higher in real terms than the 1984 level. Additional funds necessary to support a further increase in intakes of some 2,000 in 1987 will be determined in the 1986-87 Budget context. In total, an additional 20,500 higher education places will have been created over the triennium. Capital funding for 1985-87 will be $209.7m. This represents an increase on the corresponding figure for the 1982-84 triennium of $59.4m or 39 per cent in real terms. The supplementary program for 1986 and 1987 will enable the commencement of several new projects aimed largely at accommodating the extra students who will be provided for in higher education institutions as part of the Government's strategy for young people. Increased equipment funds will be provided to those institutions where enrolments are growing. In the TAFE program for 1986 increased funding will be provided for fees reimbursement grants while designated grants for special course provision and equipment grants will be maintained at the same real levels as in 1985. The States will also receive $130.2m in grants in 1986 for new and continuing capital works projects in TAFE colleges. The Commission's recommended distribution of these funds among specific projects was accepted by the Government and is reflected in Schedule 20 of the Bill. This Bill also gives effect to the Government's decision, announced earlier this year, to permit higher education institutions to charge full cost fees for courses for overseas students, in accordance with the Government's guidelines on full fee courses. Under the guidelines, universities and colleges of advanced education funded by the Commonwealth will be able to offer full fee courses for overseas students, either in Australia or overseas, over and above those subsidised overseas students who are subject to the overseas student charge. The Bill provides for the exclusion of such full fee courses from the condition generally applying to recurrent grants provided under the legislation that institutions are not to charge tuition fees. Consequential changes in respect of Commonwealth institutions are being made in other Bills being introduced today. The Bill also provides for the payment of grants to be made in other than the traditional context of university, advanced education or TAFE. In particular, provision is included for grants to be made in relation to approved `institutes of tertiary education'. The supplementary capital program for higher education for 1986 and 1987 includes a contribution to the planning phase of the Western Melbourne Institute of Post-Secondary Education, a new multi-sector institution which will serve an area of Melbourne which has been severely disadvantaged in terms of access to tertiary education, a point which has been made repeatedly by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) over years. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Peter Morris, and read a first time. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation)(4.53) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to establish the Federal Airports Corporation. For many years the Commonwealth-owned airports have been administered by a department of state-most recently the Department of Aviation. When the Government came to office in 1983 it had as part of its platform a policy for improved administration of major airports. We believed that placing this responsibility with a largely independent statutory authority would offer significant advantages to the travelling public, taxpayers, the aviation industry and airport administrators. Subsequent analysis has clearly confirmed that view. I hasten to say that this view is not a reflection upon the Department of Aviation and its predecessors, but a recognition that the commercial operation of airports would be better managed by a Commonwealth business enterprise. Departments of state are of necessity bound by the Government processes which inhibit commercial flexibility and responsiveness. The aviation industry has been critical of this fact and of the inability of the current administrative processes to make changes in a timely manner to meet the requirements of a dynamic market. Additionally, governments in the past have unduly influenced the priorities for aviation infrastructure development for reasons unrelated to economics or efficiency. Indeed many of the decisions taken in the past have inhibited economy and efficiency in the industry. This legislation will go a long way towards rectifying these problems and will enable the Corporation to act more readily to meet the changing needs of the travelling public and the aviation industry. The Federal Airports Corporation is an important part of the Government's overall strategy to improve the efficiency of the aviation industry and the levels of services to the consumer. This strategy includes the two reviews which have already been undertaken, that is, the Bosch Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery and the Butcher-Scully Review of International Air Freight. This Government has made substantial changes to Trans Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd to allow them to operate more commercially. Consequently both have achieved record profits in the past year. We have been steadily improving departmental efficiency and have moved to separate airport and airways charges so as to promote further efficiency in the aviation industry. Honourable members will be aware that we currently have a review under way of the Opposition's 1981 two-airline agreement. In framing the legislation the Government has had to face the task of balancing the need for autonomy and entrepreneurial management with the need for public accountability to maximise public benefit. This approach fits in with the Government's policy of public enterprise-efficiency, consumer responsiveness and successful management. I believe that we have achieved that balance. While the Corporation will be the sole provider of airport facilities in most areas where it will operate, it will provide an important part of the infrastructure for a competitive aviation industry. Within that context it will in all of its activities be subject to close scrutiny by aviation users and the aviation industry. This scrutiny will be enhanced through requirements in the legislation for consultation, disclosure of results and for the publication of indicators which year by year will show the performance of the Corporation across the range of its activities and on an airport by airport basis. The Government has set objectives for the Corporation covering social, financial, management and efficiency aspects. The Corporation will be required to take these objectives into account in its planning and operations. Additionally, the Corporation will be required to put forward to the Minister for Aviation each year a three-year forward program including its budget for the following year and details of its corporate plans. These requirements will be exercised at a strategic level, leaving the Corporation free in its day to day management and exercise of its commercial judgment. To enable the Corporation to operate as autonomously as possible, it will be freed from the requirements of staffing under Public Service conditions, the requirement that it utilise the Department of Housing and Construction for its capital works-although it will be expected to provide the opportunity for that Department to compete for such work on a commercial basis-and the need for its day to day land dealings to be administered through the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. This legislation will provide a framework for the operation of airports more efficiently, more commercially and in a manner in which the Corporation's performance will be able to be judged by its owners, the people of Australia. Given the potential for greater efficiency resulting from setting up the Corporation, the Government will require it, and the Department of Aviation, to ensure that there is no net increase in staff over the two organisations at the time of the establishment of the Corporation. The rights and interests of employees transferring from the Department of Aviation to the Corporation will be protected. To ensure that their employment is not jeopardised, the Government will require as a matter of policy that the Corporation offer positions to all staff whose functions are transferred. While the Corporation will have power to set conditions of employment for its staff, it will also be required to provide, at the time of the transfer, offers of conditions of employment to transferring staff at least equivalent to those which they currently enjoy in the Australian Public Service. I turn now to the more significant detail of the legislation. The functions prescribed for the Corporation will enable it to own, develop and operate its airports in an efficient and cost-effective way. It will, however, have overriding requirements to operate its airports safely and in a manner which accords with the public interest. The Department of Aviation will retain responsibility for the setting of safety and security standards for airports. The Corporation will be bound to abide by those standards. The Department will also retain responsibility for overall national airport planning issues. The legislation makes it clear that the Department of Aviation, through the existing integrated air traffic control system, will retain responsibility for the safe operation of aircraft. The Corporation will be constituted in much the same way as other Commonwealth transport business undertakings with seven members including a chairperson and a deputy chairperson appointed for periods not exceeding five years. The usual provisions for such matters as remuneration, leave of absence, termination of appointment and disclosure of interests will apply. The legislation provides for the specification of certain airports to be the responsibility of the Corporation, with ministerial approval being required for the Corporation to accept responsibility for others or for the Corporation to close an airport. The Corporation will, at the outset, take responsibility for all State capital city airports including the general aviation airports and will also be responsible for Coolangatta and Launceston airports. Although there has been some public debate about the inclusion of the general aviation airports in the Corporation, it is the Government's considered view that to exclude them would deny those airports the expertise and flexibility of management which will reside in the Corporation. This is of particular significance in Sydney where the operation of Bankstown is a matter of concern and sensitivity to the people in nearby areas. There is no question that Sydney will be the city in which the new Corporation will face its major challenges and will have its major responsibilities even before considering a second Sydney airport. The Government has therefore decided that the head office of the Corporation should be located in Sydney. An important aspect of the legislation is the requirement that the Corporation provide the Minister annually with an up-dated corporate plan including its budget and financial targets for the forthcoming year. It is largely through this mechanism and through its reporting procedures, including its annual report, that the Corporation will be kept aware of government requirements. Similarly, the responsible Minister will be able at the strategic level to monitor the Corporation. The successful use of this mechanism will be the major factor in enabling the Corporation to be freed from ministerial involvement in day to day management issues. The legislation provides for the capital structure for the Corporation to be determined ministerially before the Corporation takes over its airports. The appropriate gearing ratio obviously depends on such matters as the value of assets being vested in the Corporation, its future investment program, levels of working capital required and the level of financial flexibility necessary for proper management. I will be consulting with my colleague the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) before determining an initial capital structure for the Corporation. It will also be useful to have the views of the Corporation's board on this issue before a particular commencing debt-equity ratio is fixed. It must be recognised that airport operations are highly capital intensive, requiring long term investment planning decisions. In setting the capital structure for the Corporation, we will therefore need to give particular attention to the balance to be struck between the long term viability and needs for future investment of the Corporation, and the reasonable expectation of the Government for a proper return on the substantial public investment in airports. Provision is also made for a specific power of direction, which in particular circumstances would incur reimbursement where such a direction results in financial detriment to the Corporation. A general power of direction will also be utilised at the inception of the Corporation to enable the Minister to convey to the Chairman and members the Government's requirements on a variety of issues which will not be subject to recovery. Included amongst these will be, for example, the payment of ex gratia payments to local government in lieu of rates and the requirement that the Corporation offer employment to Department of Aviation employees whose functions transfer to the Corporation. The Government has decided that the Corporation should not be subject to Commonwealth, State and local government taxes. In this respect the Corporation will be in a similar position to other public transport enterprises. If, however, the Corporation engages in activities in competition with private enterprise it will be required to do so through a subsidiary and thereby in respect of those activities be liable to taxation. This decision will continue the existing arrangements for Commonwealth airports and will ensure that taxation does not impose a new and substantial cost on the users of airports. The Corporation will be required to operate in a manner which will enable it to produce a reasonable rate of return upon the assets which it employs. Provision is made for it to be able to levy charges for the use of its airports, to lease property on airports and to let business concessions. Arrangements existing at the time of transfer by way of lease or contract will, of course, transfer to the Corporation and will continue to bind the Corporation. Mr Deputy Speaker, the establishment of the Corporation is a significant step forward in ensuring that the provision and operation of costly airport infrastructure is based on efficiency and investment undertaken only when there is financial and economic justification. In moving to establish the Federal Airports Corporation to operate our airports we are bringing Australia into line with general practice internationally. For the first time in Australia the financial performance of airports will be measured and results made available to airport users. One of the objectives set by the Government is that the Corporation be a good neighbour to the communities it serves. Within this responsibility the Corporation will be responsive to the needs of the travelling public and to those living in close proximity to airports. Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that this Bill represents a major step forward in aviation in Australia. It will assist the airport user. It will provide the basis for rational development and operation of airports. And it will reduce the call on the taxpayer for airport infrastructure costs. I commend the Federal Airports Corporation Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is related to the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. It proposes several technical and formal amendments to the Customs Undertakings (Penalties) Act 1981 as a consequence of the changes made to the tender quota arrangements in the Customs Act by the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Act 1985 passed earlier this year. The Customs Undertakings (Penalties) Act 1981 provides for the imposition of penalties for breaches of undertakings required to be given for the purposes of the tender quota arrangements of Part 15 of the Customs Act 1901. Part 15 of the Customs Act was altered this year to- (1) enable the Minister administering the Customs Act to determine the periods of validity for which tender quota schemes are to run; (2) change the requirements of the tender quota undertaking so that tenderers need only undertake to enter the relevant goods for home consumption and not also undertake to import the goods; and, consequently, (3) change the importation requirement of quota instruments to a requirement that the goods be entered for home consumption. Financial Impact Statement The provisions of this Bill have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.08) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes amendments to customs and excise laws. The most important measures are the amendments required to facilitate the introduction of inwards duty free shopping and the amendments required to enable a full rebate of the excise on diesel fuel to be paid to eligible primary producers. The other provisions of the Bill are of a technical or administrative nature and I will provide brief details of these later. The amendments related to inwards duty free shopping are part of a legislative package necessary to introduce this duty free and sales tax free facility at international airports in Australia. My colleague the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will bring forward the complementary changes to the sales tax laws. The necessary changes to the customs and excise tariffs and regulations will be undertaken separately. In September 1984 the Government announced that it had approved the introduction of limited inwards duty free shopping at international airports. The shops are to be located in airports at a point somewhere between the disembarkation area and the Customs barrier so as to enable the goods that are sold to incoming overseas passengers to be taken direct to the Customs barrier for clearance. The only goods to be sold duty free at the shops will be spirituous liquor, tobacco products and perfume. Introduction of restricted inwards duty-free shopping will not, however, alter the duty-free concessions available to a passenger, which currently are limited to one litre of spirituous liquor and 250 grams of tobacco products. There is no specific limit on the amount of perfume which may be brought in duty-free by a passenger, providing that the amount does not represent a commercial quantity. It might be noted that the Industries Assistance Commission has reviewed the passenger concessions recently and its report is being studied. I should make it clear that the facility to purchase inwards duty-free goods will be confined to international airports. As is the case with outwards duty-free shops the on-airport inwards duty-free shops will be required to be licensed as warehouses for the purposes of the Customs Act. The inwards duty-free shop provisions in the Bill are to come into force by proclamation after the necessary regulations have been made. The second important measure in this Bill is the provision to enable a full rebate on diesel fuel to be paid to primary producers. This was one of the initiatives to assist the rural sector announced by the Treasurer in the 1985-86 Budget Speech. The full rebate on the fuel used by primary producers will operate from 1 November 1985. It will result in a reduction in the price of diesel used by farmers, fishermen and other primary producers of approximately 2.4c per litre. The Government also announced in the context of the taxation reform package that in the case of the rebate for fuel used in mining operations, that rebate will be increased to offset any further increases in excise resulting from excise indexation arrangements between now and the 1986-87 Budget. The rebate will be further reviewed in the context of that Budget. Because of the number of rates now required as a result of the changes made to the rebate in the last year it has now been decided to replace the automatic indexation provisions with a system of ministerial declarations. Consumer price index increases will, however, continue to be made. The provisions of clauses 9 and 19 of the Bill therefore provide for ministerial declarations to make immediate changes to the diesel fuel rebate whenever they occur for policy or other reasons, such as a change in the CPI index. The ministerial declarations are of course subject to the usual disallowance procedures. I now turn to the technical and administrative amendments contained in this Bill. I know that the House would be deeply disappointed if I did not deal with these measures in full. Clause 8 of the Bill introduces revised rules of origin for goods produced in South Pacific Forum island countries. These new rules stem from the July 1984 meeting of the Regional Committee on Trade held in Kiribati. At that meeting Forum island countries asked Australia and New Zealand to include either or both countries' inputs in the calculation of Forum island content of goods for the determination of eligibility for preferential tariff treatment. All parties have now agreed that the rules should be extended to provide for a minimum Forum island countries content of 25 per cent of the factory cost of goods where there is sufficient additional Australian or relevant New Zealand content to comply with the minimum 50 per cent factory cost rule for preferential tariff purposes. The amendments to the working days and hours provisions of the Customs Act, contained in clause 5 of the Bill, provide for the Comptroller-General of Customs to determine the fees for the services of officers during normal working hours but at places where such services are not normally provided free of charge. The Comptroller-General already has the power to determine the fees for officers' services outside normal working hours and the proposed amendment is designed to provide uniformity in the manner of determining fees for officers' services. Provision is made in clause 13 for the determinations of the Comptroller-General to be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The opportunity has been taken also to include a provision for the review of determinations made under the existing Act. Clause 11 of the Bill proposes several minor changes to the powers to search persons suspected of carrying prohibited imports or prohibited exports. The changes, which are proposed as a consequence of complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, will permit the Comptroller-General of Customs to limit the classes of Customs officers who are to be empowered to direct a body search. The changes will also remove the present impediment which requires that the same officer who established a reasonable cause for the search should also conduct the search. As honourable members would recall, the former member for Hunter was very much concerned with this matter. The first amendment is aimed at providing a legal basis for guidelines to prescribe only senior and experienced officers to establish the reasonable cause for a search. The second amendment is similar to an amendment made to section 196 of the Act by the Parliament in 1979 but it was not proclaimed pending further review of the search provisions. When proposing similar amendments to section 196 of the Customs Act the then Minister said: This amendment will allow a person to be detained and searched by an officer other than the officer who has established a reasonable cause for the search. It is clear that in certain instances it would not be practicable for the latter officer to be continuously available at the location at which the person was detained or apprehended. The Government proposes the amendment in this Bill for the same reasons. The Commonwealth Ombudsman concurs with the proposed changes designed to rectify deficiencies in the existing search procedures. The opportunity is also being taken to make a drafting correction to the provisions which relate to the sex of the persons who are to conduct a search. Financial Impact Statement The introduction of inwards duty-free shops is expected to benefit airport concessions revenues by about $5m in a full year. Other revenue effects of the shops are not quantifiable at this stage, nor are the administrative costs. The rebate of duty on diesel fuel at the full rate of the excise duty payable is expected to cost about $35.5m in a full year and $24m in 1985-86. Changes to the rebate for fuel used in mining operations is expected to cost approximately $350,000. The other provisions of the Bill have no direct financial implications. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Barry Jones, and read a first time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(5.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 which is now before the House covers a wide range of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1982. In summary, the Bill includes three clauses relating to sections of the principal Act and eight clauses which correspond to schedules which incorporate changes: Firstly, changes initially introduced by Commonwealth of Australia Gazette notice and subsequently proposed in this House as Customs tariff proposals; secondly, changes introduced directly by Customs tariff proposals; or, thirdly, changes which are being introduced in this Bill. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill contain amendments to sections 15 and 21 of the principal Act that are complementary to the insertion of new sub-section 151(5A) in the Customs Act, which is contained in the Customs and Excise Legislation Bill (No. 2) 1985. The Customs Tariff Act amendments keep the complementary provisions determining the duty rates applicable to goods from preferential sources in line with the relevant rules of origin provisions in the Customs Act. These amendments will come into effect at the same time as the relevant amendment to the Customs Act. Clause 5 of the Bill will repeal section 30 of the principal Act on and from 18 October 1984. That date coincides with the operative date of changes made to the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 which, among other matters, abolished the Temporary Assistance Authority and changed other provisions relating to temporary assistance. This action has removed the need to retain section 30 of the Customs Tariff Act, which deals with temporary rates of duty. Schedule 1 to the Bill is operative on and from 1 January 1985 and provides for the duty-free entry under quota of new woven polypropylene bags of South Pacific Forum island origin. This concession follows the Government's agreement to a request by the Forum island countries for increased access for these goods under the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement. Schedule 2 to the Bill, operative on and from 9 February 1985, reduces the rate of duty applying to certain engine-powered lawnmowers of New Zealand origin from 7 per cent to 5 per cent. This reduction follows a review of a compensating charge applied to certain New Zealand lawnmowers which had been in place since the Australia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement came into effect. The charge resulted from the different duty treatment accorded lawnmower engines when imported into New Zealand or Australia. Following the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on lawnmowers, certain engines and parts, the general tariff rate on certain lawnmower engines was lowered to 25 per cent and a bounty of $6 per engine introduced. These arrangements led to a review of the compensating charge applied to New Zealand lawnmowers. A further review of the New Zealand rate will be undertaken before 31 December 1986. The change contained in Schedule 3 is operative on and from 23 May 1985 and amends the Customs tariff description of imported rum. This change is complementary to an excise tariff change and is done to reflect the revised standard for rum in accordance with the Government's decision on the National Health and Medical Research Council review of wines and spirits legislation. Duty rates are not altered by this change. Schedule 4 to the Bill is operative on and from 1 July 1985 and contains changes which- (I) correctly reflect the official titles of countries and places specified in Schedule 1 to the principal Act. Duty rates are not affected by these amendments; (II) amend various provisions of the principal Act by removing redundant phasing rates of duty and amalgamating certain tariff classifications where removal of phasing rates has made this action possible; (III) implement new arrangements to increase access for certain furniture and furniture components of New Zealand origin following consultations and agreement under the ANZCERTA to provide liberalised arrangements for these goods; (IV) amend item 56 in Part I of Schedule 4 to the principal Act. This change extends to prescribed shipbuilders concessional entry of goods used in the construction or modification of bountiable vessels following an amendment to the Bounty (Ships) Act 1980 which enabled these shipbuilders to be registered for bounty purposes. Schedule 4 to this Bill also includes a number of changes which continue implementation of the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission report on the commercial by-law system. That decision provided for the introduction of a commercial tariff concession system which came into operation on 1 July 1983 but provided a two-year transitional period during which concessions under the commercial by-law system were to be phased out. Accordingly, those items or parts of items in Part I of Schedule 4 to the principal Act, which included a reference to commercial by-law system criteria, are omitted from 1 July 1985. The decision to implement the commercial tariff concession system and subsequent decisions made by the Government in respect of particular goods do, however, require the continuation of certain concessional arrangements that would have otherwise lapsed on 1 July 1985. Accordingly, changes to Customs Tariff Act are being made to maintain concessional entry of certain goods, as follows: (1) Goods entered under end-use under security provisions; (2) goods imported to meet shortfall and fall- short situations; (3) goods imported to enable the testing and evaluation of motor vehicles or motor vehicle components under the plan known as the passenger motor vehicle manufacturing plan; (4) goods imported for use as prototypes for the manufacture of similar goods in Australia; and (5) goods imported for use in petroleum exploration and development. Concessional treatement for these goods is being maintained by providing new items 57 to 62 in Part I of Schedule 4 to the principal Act. The concession in respect of goods entered under end-use under security provisions is, however, of an interim nature as these goods are currently the subject of inquiries by the IAC. Similarly, the long term future of the concession for goods imported to meet shortfall or fallshort situations is to be determined by the Government following reviews by the IAC. In this respect some of these goods are already under reference to the Commission. Finally, Schedule 4 to the Bill contains changes which introduce part of the new assistance arrangements for metal working machine tools and robots. The Government's decision on these arrangements was publicly announced by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) on 30 May 1985. Measures related to the bountry aspects of the arrangements were included in the Bounty (Metal Working Machines and Robots) Bill 1985 which was introduced earlier in this sitting. That Bill proposes that the basis on which bounty is calculated be changed from Australian content to a value added principle. The new bounty scheme incorporates different rates of bounty for high and low technology machines and extends coverage of the scheme to include robots and machines such as flame and laser cutting machines and flexible manufacturing cells and systems. The bounty also extends to parts and accessories for these goods and parts and accessories for use as original equipment in the production of all bountiable metal working machine tools. To complement the bounty arrangements, this Schedule contains those Customs tariff changes where duties are being lowered, as follows: The insertion of new provisions at minimum rates for gas-operated appliances and laser or electric-operated metal working machines or apparatus when incorporating a computer control. These amendments have also resulted in new legal notes to define the term `computer control'; and A new item in Part I of Schedule 4 to the principal Act to enable concessional entry of certain robots, and parts and accessories of a kind used solely or principally therewith. Schedule 5 to the Bill is operative from 8 p.m. on Budget night, 20 August 1985. This Schedule contains certain tariff changes which increase the customs duty on imported manufactured tobacco by $5 per kilogram. These changes are complementary to changes proposed to the Excise Tariff Act which increase excise duty on locally produced manufactured tobacco by the same amount. Schedule 6 of the Bill is operative on and from a date seven days after the date of royal assent. This Schedule incorporates further changes arising from the Government's decision on assistance arrangements for metal working machine tools and robots. Some of the goods covered by that decision are not subject to the bounty assistance arrangements to which I have already referred. As these changes involve an increase in the rate of duty applying to certain metal working machine tools and parts and accessories, the increased rates are not being brought into effect until seven days after the date of royal assent. Schedule 6 also contains a minor change in the demarcation point between dutiable and duty free tractors following a Government decision on assistance arrangements to apply to agricultural wheeled tractors and certain parts. Other amendments contained in Schedule 6 ensure that the Customs Tariff Act uses correct spelling, grammatical and drafting forms. The need for these changes was identified during the ongoing review of the principal Act and they are not directed towards questions of industries assistance. A further change relates to the rate of duty applying to chenille fabrics. These goods were under reference in the IAC's 1981 report on miscellaneous textile products. At that time the IAC recommended that chenille fabrics continue to be dutiable at minimum rates but drew attention to the possibility that imports of fabrics containing chenille yarn might erode the assistance provided to other fabrics. Accordingly, the IAC suggested that imports of chenille fabrics be monitored. The Government agreed with this approach. As a result of this monitoring, evidence of increasing imports of chenille fabrics was considered by the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee. The Committee concluded, in its May 1985 report, that imports of fabrics containing chenille yarn were, in fact, eroding, and had the potential to further erode, assistance to woven man-made fibre fabrics. The Committee, therefore, recommended that imports of man-made fibre fabrics containing 20 per cent or less, by weight of chenille yarn be dutiable at 40 per cent the base quota rate for the equivalent man-made fibre fabrics. The government has accepted that recommendation. Schedule 6 also introduces, first, two amendments to restore levels of assistance considered to have been removed by judgments of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; and secondly, three amendments to maintain the technical accuracy, remove a potential ambiguity and restore the intended coverage of certain provisions of the principal Act. Advice received from the Attorney-General's Department states that it is in order for such changes to be introduced directly by a Bill to amend the Customs Tariff Act. This procedure is being followed for goods known as polypropylene grass yarns and certain photographic chemicals which, as a result of Administrative Appeals Tribunal judgments, have had their intended levels of assistance substantially reduced. The level of assistance for polypropylene grass yarns, which are principally used for the production of outdoor carpet, was last considered by the IAC in its 1981 Miscellaneous Textile Products report. Two major local manufacturers gave evidence to the IAC which recommended that the existing general tariff rate of 30 per cent be maintained. The Government accepted the IAC's recommendation. An importer of polypropylene grass yarns subsequently challenged the tariff classification of these yarns and obtained a ruling that such yarns were classified in a different tariff item from the one in which the 30 per cent rate of duty applied. Mr Beale —That is a good yarn. Mr BARRY JONES —Yes, and it is a clean one. As a result, the importer was able to enter goods which competed directly with the Australian product at minimum rates. Local manufacturers have made representations to the Government concerning their loss of assistance and requested that assistant levels be restored to that recommended by the IAC. After consideration of this matter, the Government accepts that intended assistance levels should be restored and, accordingly, an appropriate amendment to the Customs Tariff Act is being made by this Bill. In respect of certain photographic chemicals, the wording of the relevant provision was amended as a result of the Government's decision on the IAC report on customs tariff simplification but a general rate of duty of 15 per cent was maintained. An importer challenged the tariff classification applied to certain imported photographic chemicals before the AAT and the tribunal ruled that the wording contained in the simplified customs tariff enabled entry of the goods at minimum rates of duty. The terms of reference for the tariff simplification inquiry required that levels of assistance not be substantially altered. The revised wording applying to the photographic chemicals in question has, however, had the effect of substantially altering the intended level of assistance for such goods. Accordingly, the Government proposes in this Bill to restore the assistance level for the photographic chemicals involved. The other changes in Schedule 6 which are being introduced directly by Bill relate to: the correct definition of goods known as ethylene oxide derivatives. The Government has accepted the need for these changes after considering technical advice received from officers of the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories; the removal of a potential ambiguity in the tariff description applying to certain plastic coated man-made fibre fabrics. As presently worded, the description might be interpreted as applying to a different range of plastic coated fabrics than intended; and a change in the tariff description of certain wrapping paper following research which confirms that the relevant provision should not apply to papers produced by a coating process. Schedule 7 to the Bill introduces new assistance arrangements for the production of heavy commercial motor vehicles, parts and accessories, effective from 1 January 1986. In deciding upon these changes, the Government recognised that the level of activity and employment in the industry is related to the level of activity in the assembly sector. In recent years, the asssitance afforded assembly acitivy has been high, the industry has become more fragmented and local content and market share have declined. Accordingly, the Government has decided that a modest reduction in assistance levels is warranted and could lead to an improvement in the structure of the industry whilst restraining costs and maintaining significant employment levels. The new arrangements are reflected in the introduction of a uniform 20 per cent general rate of duty for general purpose heavy commercial vehicles, most special purpose vehicles and fire-engines. This represents an increase in duties in respect of certain small fire-engines but a reduction in respect of the other vehicles to which I have referred. Split rates of duty on crane lorries are replaced by a single 30 per cent general rate of duty. The current bounty arrangements on selected components will be phased out over a period of three years and be progressively replaced by an equivalent customs tariff which, by 1 January 1989, will reach a general rate of duty of 25 per cent. The change from bounty to tariff assistance is not designed to alter the level of assistance accorded these components. Filters, which presently attract general rates of duty of 2 per cent, 25 per cent or 35 per cent, depending upon their tariff classification, will become dutiable at a uniform rate of 25 per cent. Filters of New Zealand origin will, however, remain dutiable at current rates. In addition, the Government has asked the Automotive Industry Council to advise on what additional local components would be competitive with imports at the 25 per cent general tariff rate. Schedule 7 also includes changes to the customs value criteria applying to certain footwear from 1 January 1986. These changes arise from the Government's acceptance of a recommendation by the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Advisory Committee, in its May 1985 report, that the value of certain footwear increase from $1.15 to $1.35 per pair to help maintain the basic character of footwear not subject to quota. The value criterion of certain non-leather foot-wear is also increased from $9.50 to $11 per pair to help maintain the basic character of the product mix covered by two footwear quota categories. These changes also include the developing country arrangements for footwear to apply during 1986 under the textiles, clothing and footwear sectoral policy. Among the developing country arrangements is an increase from $3 per pair to $3.50 per pair in the value criterion for hand-made leather footwear. Schedule 8 to the Bill is operative on and from the day on which certain sections of the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 come into operation. The change contained in Schedule 8 relates to an amendement to item 15 in Part I of Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act to enable the duty free entry of certain goods purchased at airports by passengers arriving from overseas. This change is complementary to the changes being proposed to other customs and excise legislation to implement the Government's decision in respect of inwards duty free shopping. Financial Impact Honourable members may recall that the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in his statement of 27 March 1985 on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure report on taxation expenditure, pointed out that the revenues raised by customs duties are incidental to their prime function of assistance to industry. With this proviso in mind, it has been possible to make estimates of the expected losses and gains in customs revenue in respect of the following new arrangements: A reveue gain of approximately $1m per annum could be expected in respect of metal working machine tools and robots; and a reduction of some $4m per annum in revenue is anticipated in relation to the heavy commercial motor vehicle changes. This reduction could be offset to some extent by increased imports of certain vehicles. In both cases there is also complementary bounty legislation. The bounty payments to be outlaid under the respective pieces of legislation also need to be taken into account to obtain the total impact of these assistance arrangements. For the financial year 1986-87 it is anticipated that a total of $16m will be outlaid under the two bounty schemes. In regard to the provision to enable the introduction of inwards duty free shopping, the second reading speech for the Customs and Excise Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 addresses the question of financial impact. The changes in respect of polypropylene grass yarns and photographic chemicals, which are designed to restore levels of assistance considered to have been removed by Administrative Appeals Tribunal judgments, have a financial impact when judged against the revenue which would otherwise have been collected under the tariff classifications applied by the Tribunal. For polypropylene grass yarns, the change will result in approximately a $0.3m gain in a full year. The change on photographic chemicals is expected to result in a gain of $0.7m in a financial year. The Government's decision to increase the duty on certain chenille fabrics may, by reducing the possibility of fabrics containing minimal chenille yarn being used in substitution for other fabrics, result in a $0.2m gain in a full financial year. All the other changes in the Bill are expected to have minimal financial impact. There are no significant administrative costs associated with the Bill. A summary of amendments for each Schedule to the Bill has been prepared. Copies are available from the Tables Office. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(5.41) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Augmentation of the taxiway system, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. The proposal is for the construction of new taxiways, reconstruction of an existing taxiway and provision of larger fillets at taxiway and runway intersections. The work is required to facilitate more efficient handling of aircraft and to reduce taxying delays and operating costs. The end result will be a reduction of present congestion and delay, together with reduced inconvenience to the travelling public. Honourable members may be aware that Sydney Airport is small in size by international standards. What is not well known is that it ranks about thirty-second in terms of annual passenger and aircraft movements, and that in terms of relative capacity it is as busy as airports of top ranking. The Public Works Committee has reported favourably on the proposal and has recommended its construction. The Committee recommended also that consideration be given to the use of larger radii for heavily used runway entry points and that a study be undertaken into the provision of a rapid exit taxiway located south of taxiway A on the main 16-34 runway. The Department of Aviation has examined the benefit, cost and practicality of further increasing the radius of runway entry points. The radius of existing entry points is 42 metres and an increase to 80 metres is proposed. This will raise the theoretical design entry speed from 14 knots to 20 knots. A further increase in the radius of entry points would raise the design entry speed, but at a substantial extra cost. For example, if the radius of the three entry points were increased to 250 metres, the entry speed at those locations would be raised to 35 knots at an estimated extra cost of $2m. An increase of the radius of the three entry points to 520 metres would raise the design entry speed to 50 knots at an extra cost of approximately $3m. The Department of Aviation has advised that the construction of entry points with larger radii could not be justified on economic grounds and that difficult operational problems are involved when aircraft enter runways from curved taxiways at higher speeds and powers. Accordingly, it is not intended to include radii larger than those currently proposed at heavily used runway entry points. As recommended by the Committee, a study also has been made of the proposal to provide a rapid exit taxiway south of taxiway A from the 16-34 runway. Construction of such a taxiway would involve the acquisition and reclamation of a part of Botany Bay, the lowering of part of General Holmes Drive, the provision of a taxiway bridge over General Holmes Drive and other associated works at a cost in the order of $16m. The Department of Aviation concluded that the benefit obtained from the construction of such a rapid exit taxiway would not at present justify expenditure of this magnitude. The estimated cost of the proposed work, when referred to the Public Works Committee, was $16.4m at January 1985 prices. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee with a view to commencement of construction in the latter part of the 1985-86 financial year. I commend this motion to the House. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.45) —The Opposition supports the proposal. It is well known that there are increasing delays and congestion at Sydney Airport. In fact, both of the recommendations we are talking about this afternoon relate to moves to reduce the congestion and costly delays at Sydney Airport. Planes which fly into Sydney Airport quite often are required to circle overhead for some time before getting clearance to land. This is not just costly; it is inconvenient for people and it is negative from the point of view of the image of Kingsford-Smith Airport. The taxiway proposals that have been put forward by the Public Works Committee, as referred to by the Minister for Housing and Constructon (Mr West), certainly will assist in a more efficient operation at Kingsford-Smith Airport, but other action also is needed. I understand that new radar will be installed by mid-1987 and that certainly is essential. I am advised that there is also a need for flow control computers to be able to plot earlier and more completely and accurately the flight paths of aircraft so that they arrive and take off in a more appropriate and efficient manner. I understand that the report of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, which is examining noise levels at airports around Australia, will be tabled shortly in this Parliament. Hopefully, that will be followed by an announcement by the Government on what I would call a more targeted and specific curfew arrangement at Mascot Airport, in relation to the types of aircraft, individual noise levels of those aircraft and use of runways. This will allow a more flexible curfew at Mascot Airport to allow for a more efficient utilisation of that airport. The Government also will be making an announcement shortly concerning which of the sites of Wilton or Badgerys Creek will be the site for the second Sydney airport. However, that airport will not be completed until perhaps the year 2000. When the coalition Government lost office, it was well advanced with a proposal for a close spaced north-south parallel runway at Mascot Airport, because of its recognition of the congestion problem to which I have referred. My understanding is that there is now also consideration-not by the Government, but by those people who are concerned that Mascot Airport should be an efficient airport for Sydney, New South Wales and Australia generally in the long term future-for a wide-spaced parallel runway. That would be at the general aviation end of the airport, would not intrude as much into Botany Bay and, therefore, would not have those complications. The point I make briefly is that I believe that whoever is in Government in the early 1990s will face a decision which will require the construction of a parallel runway at Mascot Airport because of the delays and congestion that will be then evident, irrespective of any improvements that will follow from the construction of these taxiways or other measures that may take place in the near future. What we are looking at today is an advance in that it is a recognition of this increasing delay situation at Mascot Airport, but by itself it will not in any way solve the problem. I have mentioned some of those other requirements, but in particular, sooner or later-probably by the early 1990s-I believe that the Government then in power will have to accept the inevitability of a parallel runway at Mascot Airport. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(5.50) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making available information to my colleague the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and me prior to his raising the matter in the House. As we all know, the Government is currently involved in what might cogently be described as a high risk economic strategy. Interest rates are currently at record levels in order to protect the value of the Australian dollar. The Government has repeatedly stated that it is its intention to keep interest rates at high levels because if they allow them to drift down, the Australian dollar will come down, the accord will collapse and we will have a new round of inflation and devaluation. This policy has had the effect of drying up liquidity in our community, specifically drying up housing loans- there are rationings in housing loans now-and interest rates, because of the cocktail method of lending, are now higher than they would otherwise have been. We are moving toward an area of slackening economic activity and toward an area that will lead to the failure of the Government's economic policies. In those circumstances, we believe that the Government should be giving more attention to both its wages and its fiscal policy. Its wages policy at the moment relies heavily on the accord, and the accord has led us to a situation in which we are uncompetitive in world markets, and there is a need for less rigidity in our wages system. We do not quite know where the Government is in its situation with the accord. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! Is the honourable member speaking to the motion? Mr BEALE —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am coming- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think that the honourable member is extending his remarks rather wide of the motion and I ask him to restrict them to the motion. Mr BEALE —I am coming to the question of fiscal policy, which is about Government spending, and this is a motion on Government spending. We do not quite know where the Government is on its wages policy. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) have been blustering- Mr Hurford —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This motion is not a matter of fiscal policy at all; it relates to the augmentation of taxiway systems at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to confine this new and inexperienced shadow Minister to the matter in hand and to ask him to resume his seat if he does not do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The point of order is sustained. I ask the honourable member once again to restrict his remarks to the motion. Mr BEALE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I point out to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), for his benefit, that fiscal policy involves Government spending and the motion before us is a motion on Government spending? It is to that area that we believe that the Minister for Housing and Construction should give some attention, because the question that he really has to ask himself is: In the current economic climate, is this fiscal policy proposal on Government spending really appropriate? Nowhere in his statement does the Minister refer to the new Federal Airports Corporation Bill which was put in front of us earlier this afternoon. On page 3 of the Bill, Clause 6 states: The functions of the Corporation are- (a) to operate Federal airports in Australia . . . It seems to me that if the function of the new Federal Airports Corporation is to operate Federal airports in Australia, surely the proposal that the Minister is putting to us today must come under its control. We suggest that the Minister should consult his colleague in order to ensure that we do not get another bureaucratic mess by this proposal falling between two departments. We certainly do not want to see $16m worth of taxpayers' money wasted. We would also be glad if the Minister would ensure that the maximum amount of work is given to the private sector in this project. Having cautioned the Government about the need for control of fiscal policy, I reiterate what my colleague the honourable member for Murray said, that the Opposition does not oppose this work. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr WEST —(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) (5.55)-I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Improvement of international terminal facilities, Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. This proposed public work is remodelling and expansion of a number of areas of the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) international terminal to cater more adequately for current levels of international passenger traffic. The terminal was designed to handle aircraft movements and passenger loadings generated by the narrow-bodied aircraft prevalent in the early 1970s when the facility was commissioned. Some limited allowance was made to accommodate the then emerging wide-bodied aircraft types. Since that time the aircraft apron has been extended to handle wide-bodies jets but no major works have been carried out in the terminal itself. The terminal is now regularly seriously overcrowded, notwithstanding limitations placed on utilisation of the building and its services and controls placed on passenger arrival and departure rates. While it would be inappropriate to commit the proposed Federal Airports Corporation to a redevelopment program by commencing construction of major new facilities, it is essential that something be done to alleviate conditions. It is proposed, therefore, that works be undertaken within the existing building complex and in its immediate vicinity including: Extensions to and upgrading of the arrivals and departures levels including check-in, passenger processing, concession and baggage reclaim areas provision of a new transit lounge; upgrading of baggage conveyor facilities; and provision of two additional aerobridges. Subject to Public Works Committee considerations, it is planned that work commence in the first half of 1986 with a view to completion about the end of 1988. During this time the terminal will continue to operate, so there will be some unavoidable inconvenience to users. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $20m at September 1985 prices. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(5.58) —This is the second of the two proposals to relieve some of the congestion and delays that have occurred at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport at Mascot over the years. Once again, the Opposition does not oppose these recommendations. However, I should like to make some comments about whether the proposal is adequate. It certainly is correct that no major upgrading of the international terminal has taken place since its construction, and the $20m is a significant amount of expenditure. But if one looks at where the congestion will be relieved-and anyone who travels through Sydney's international terminal will be very much aware of this congestion-one will see that it is basically in the check-in and processing of passengers. This ignores one of the other problem areas, and that is the need for additional standing space or parking space for aircraft. I note that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has said that there will be two additional aerobridges. One of the points that the Minister made was that it would be inappropriate for the Government to commit any greater expenditure on Sydney Airport or on the international terminal at Sydney Airport at this time because the Federal Airports Corporation is about to be put in place. In fact, as my colleague the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) mentioned, we have just had the introduction of the legislation for that Corporation. But I do not think that that is a particularly consistent argument when one considers that the second Sydney airport, at a cost of about $1,200m, is going on regardless of the Federal Airports Corporation. A new terminal is being built at Perth and at Brisbane a complete new airport is being built at a cost of about $500m. I hope that the Government will very shortly announce improvements to the Darwin Airport terminal, and hopefully that will be done well ahead of the Federal Airports Corporation being put in place because anybody who has been through the old aircraft hangar in Darwin will be well aware of the problem there. I am not on the Public Works Committee and so I ask whether Committee members were aware that a proposal was put to the Government for the actual construction of a separate arrivals terminal in the international area at Sydney. My understanding-I am quite happy to be corrected if it is wrong-is that that would also have been privately financed; there would not have been any requirement for government finance and it would have achieved several significant improvements to the congestion problem in the international area. Firstly, it would not have caused inconvenience to the passengers. The Minister rightly makes the point that while this reconstruction is going on people using the terminal will be inconvenienced. Secondly, it would provide the additional capacity which is needed. More importantly, part of that proposal was to double the standing or parking area for aircraft from 13 to 26 places. It makes me wonder whether or not that information was available to the Committee. I suppose that if it was the Committee could do nothing about it because it could only follows this particular reference. I want to make the point that, although acknowledging the need for improvements to the international terminal, I have doubts that the way the Government is proceeding with this is the most appropriate way, the most efficient way-and the most cost efficient way also, as I understand this counter-proposal to be-and one which will overcome congestion problems in the international area for many years to come. Irrespective of a second Sydney airport-once again we are talking about the year 2000-Sydney will remain and must remain the major international gateway for Australia and therefore anything that can be done now to overcome these problems for many years, and overcome them in a more cost efficient way, would appear to me to be a better way to go about solving this problem. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.03) —Again I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making the information available to my colleague the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and me. The Opposition has no objection to the referral of this project to the Public Works Committee. I just note that the Minister, in dealing with the improvement of the international terminal facilities, mentioned the new Federal Airports Corporation but in his previous submission on the augmentation of the taxiway system he did not. We commend the Minister for his foresight as far as this project is concerned in ensuring that the Federal Airports Corporation is properly involved in the necessary consultations. Again we ask the Minister to enjoin the Public Works Committee to ensure that the private sector is involved to the maximum extent. Finally, we ask him to give some consideration in terms of timing to the Government's need to address itself to appropriate fiscal policies. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(6.05) —When the debate on the home and community care legislation was adjourned before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was making the point that when we are considering the additional services to be provided under these Bills we have to be very careful to ensure that home care is not taken in isolation, because there has to be a widespread and adequate support structure to back up the elderly citizens among us who are going to stay in their own homes. There has to be adequate provision of meals on wheels, and of home maintenance because for really elderly persons enjoying the after hours of their working lives things like mending broken windows or even changing a light bulb can create an incredible problem. This sort of assistance has to be available. Community nursing is also of vast importance, as is the provision of home help for people who can no longer clean their bathrooms or do any of those basic things which are so important in maintaining the standard and quality of a home. Clearly the home and community care program is only one arm of the two parts necessary for aged services. Nursing homes will still be needed and adequate nursing home provision must still be made. In my electorate of Cowper, according to the 1981 Census, 14.1 per cent of the population was aged 65 years and over while those aged 70 years and over amounted to 7.94 per cent of the population. The formula for nursing home beds is considered to be one bed for every 12 1/2 people aged 70 years and over. Based on the current population estimates for the local government areas comprising the electorate of Cowper and assuming that the proportion of people aged 70 years and over has remained constant since the 1981 Census, the electorate of Cowper should have 825 nursing home beds. Instead it has only 590. That demonstrates quite clearly that in spite of the agreed need for more home and community care there is still a drastic need for nursing home beds in many parts of Australia. The home and community care program should not therefore be an alternative to the provision of funding for nursing homes. I know that this Government is committed to improving the facilities available in the community, and I commend it for that, but in the friendliest fashion, I warn it about neglecting the need for and the provision of nursing home beds because it is a problem that is not going to go away. It will not solve itself and there has to be adequate funding to cater for an increasing need which will continue to grow from year to year. The home and community care program seeks to provide a range of integrated home care and community based services for people who, in the absence of such support, would be at risk of either premature or inappropriate institutionalisation. I draw attention to one particular area of my electorate of Cowper-the Macleay Valley. To refresh the House's memory, the Macleay Valley runs through very fertile farmlands with marvellous beef cattle and dairy properties, great cheese production and a useful and very valuable tourist component in places like Hat Head, South West Rocks and Crescent Head. It also has in Kempsey a significant and useful industrial base with such companies as Clark Brick Ltd, Akubra hats and King Gee overalls. It is because of this very solid and productive area where people like to live that we have the present problem. In the Macleay Valley there is one nursing home, which is privately owned, and it applied earlier this year for additional beds. There is also a community group based on a number of senior citizens who have applied for funding to provide a community based nursing home. Both of these applications have been under consideration for most of this year. I have been in frequent contact with some officers of the Department of Community Services to try to speed up this process. There certainly is a demonstrated need. But the present situation is most unsatisfactory on two counts. The senior citizens group has been most active and diligent in raising money. It has been assisted by service clubs and it has already raised a limited amount of money. But it is still waiting in frustration, not knowing whether it is going to get funding or not. Equally, the privately owned nursing home, which is ready to expand, has had a substantial sum of money tied up-for which it is paying a holding fee-for some months awaiting a decision. I take this opportunity to say to the Government and to the Minister for Community Service (Senator Grimes) that it would be most appropriate if we could do the right thing and make a decision. We should say to the privately owned nursing home: `You are not going to get it; so save the money that you have tied up, or `You will get it; so go full speed ahead'. Alternatively we should say to the senior citizens group: `You will get it; go full steam ahead', or in fairness to it, if it is not going to get the capital funding, we should put it in the picture too. I hope the Minister will make some decision on this quickly. I would like to pay a tribute to the very large number of people associated with the care of the aged in my electorate. This applies right through the Hastings Valley, Macleay, Nambucca, Bellingen and Coffs Harbour areas. A number of bodies are doing an excellent job. I would like to mention in passing an assessment and rehabilitation team in Coffs Harbour headed by Dr Gordon Myall which has provided a report to the Commonwealth on the needs in that particular area. One of the problems is that there is a need to maximise the use of nursing home beds. We have to be quite certain that there are suitable beds for slow stream rehabilitation and for respite care. Patients should be encouraged to move on from a nursing home situation when they are well enough. It should not necessarily follow that any aged citizen who goes into a nursing home should be there to stay. I know this is the Government's policy in producing these other services. Again I do the right thing and commend the Government. One of the other problems that has to be addressed is that if people are going to be taken out of a nursing home because they have received some rehabilitation which enables them to leave, we have to look at the provision of hostel accommodation as well. We should look at the needs of aged people and assess how the system can best work. I think the best way is to have a collection of units where a husband and wife can live by themselves, sustain themselves and look after themselves. What generally happens is that one partner passes on and the remaining partner moves into a hostel, receives the support of the surrounding community and the people running the hostel and, if the need occurs, ultimately moves into a nursing home proper. I think it should be pointed out that the costs of respite care, whether in a nursing home or a hostel, for one partner is usually beyond the means of most married couples who must still maintain their home and meet all their expenses, particularly when they are dependent on the pension as their only income. There is a great need for hostel accommodation for the increasing number of single aged people who are finding that living alone is much more difficult but who are still too fit, too well and too able to be moved into a nursing home. One interesting idea that has recently emerged is the group home, where a number of aged people can live together in a small community. There are already a number of group homes operating in New South Wales. Some are based on the Abbyfield concept of supervised living and others in the Sydney metropolitan area have been instigated by local councils. However, there are some doubts about a group home situation. Some people could be concerned about security and, of course, there could be concern about the fitness or frailty of intending residents. Most importantly, the expectations of independence have to be catered for and there also has to be provision in the planning for future or incipient institutionalisation. While many towns and suburbs have a community centre or a senior citizens centre, a great many communities throughout Australia do not have what so many people regard as a basic provision. Elderly people, living as married couples or alone, can suffer greatly from loneliness. This is one of the greatest problems that can be faced by any person. I see this very frequently; I am concerned about it and I care about it. I believe we need to work together in this Parliament to create the attitude which will lead to funding to provide for very special services. Nothing is going to make an elderly person who is living alone break down and die faster than being left alone, having no stimulation-just sitting by himself. I strongly advocate the provision of either senior citizen centres or community centres because they can provide a range of activities which would be of use to elderly people. I refer to day centre activities-card games, basket weaving and all sorts of other craft activities. There could be more formal educational activities. Just because someone is old does not mean that his or her brain has stopped. The provision of some educational activities could be very valuable indeed. The right sort of centre could include some paramedical services or even Meals on Wheels. But above all, such a centre would be valuable as a social centre, a drop-in centre, where the aged could be real people again, not people excluded from society, not people on whom we are practising our own particular form of apartheid. I am totally against the segregation of people. One of the things we have lost in our society is what I enjoyed as a young boy-contact with oldies. My kids were fortunate that they had the same thing, but there are so many communities in Australia where old people have no contact with children and children have no contact with old people. This is a very sad criticism of the way our society has gone. Mr Braithwaite —It is a real problem. Mr NEHL —It is a very real problem. I have spoken about the need for care of the aged in community centres and so on, but even those in nursing homes are in need of more stimulation. The provision of occupational therapists and occupational therapy aids can make a tremendous difference to the people in nursing homes. More effort needs to be made to stimulate the residents with a variety of activities organised from within or outside the homes. Experience has found that the relatives of the residents may initially be antagonistic towards such changes but usually they work out and are in the best interests of our old people. I support the Government's home and community care program, but I stress that there is a great need for more nursing home beds and we should not ignore that need. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(6.20) —in reply-I thank honourable members from both sides of the House who have made a contribution to the debate on this legislation. On the whole the contributions made by everyone who has contributed to the debate have been constructive. In general terms, they supported the Government's purpose in this legislation to create a program that will enable a much wider range of choices not only for people within the aged community but also for people with various disabilities who would be assisted by community support. One of the things that characterise the contributions of Opposition members to debate from time to time is the goodies and baddies syndrome that we saw reflected at Question Time today. It seems that, while they welcome the program, they have suggested, on the one hand-this came from the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt)-that the Government has done some terrible things and introduced some measures which restrict expenditure on the aged and, on the other hand, that the Government is not doing enough in the home and community care program. A number of references were made to the expenditure of $300m over three years to which the Government has made a commitment. The suggestion was that somehow this program is being underfunded, the implication being that there ought to be more money for the home and community care program because it falls in the area of goodies, and that more things ought to be done under this program, particularly in individual members' electorates. The reality is that this program is a developmental program. In the first three years it is designed in a sense to carve the way towards a more comprehensive home and community care program. While the additional Commonwealth funding is substantial over the first three years of the program, it nevertheless takes us towards something like a 20 per cent real increase in funding for the programs relevant to the home and community care program. That is a very substantial rate of growth in new money. But, of course, it is recognised by the Government that there will need to be very substantial funding if the basic philosophical thrust of the Government is to be realised. It is not true, as members of the Opposition have suggested, that somehow the Government is developing an anti-nursing home stance. That is not true. The Government recognises that we need a balance of services, that there has been a very severe imbalance in Commonwealth funding in recent years and that much more money has been provided for accommodation. As one speaker pointed out-I think it was the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay)-as funding for accommodation has been very largely Commonwealth funding, it suited the States to encourage the Commonwealth to spend more and more money on accommodation. It has not suited them to put in the kind of investment that is necessary in the local community to ensure that the very high proportion of people who remain at home have the kind of support that enables them to live useful and happy lives. About 75 per cent of people over 65 years of age with moderate or severe handicaps and needing daily assistance require that assistance at the moment to come from their immediate family or friends. Under the programs which existed prior to the introduction of the HACC program, the vast majority of people in the community who perhaps required some support were left to carry on without that broader community support that is necessary. We do not see this support as in any sense a desire to replace institutional accommodation which, of course, will be required for people with particular needs. I noted that the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) complimented the Government on the fact that we will put much greater emphasis on assessment. He made the extremely important point that many people who go into institutional accommodation often are encouraged to remain there for the rest of their lives. Very often that is not a good thing for those people. Very often the people who go into institutional accommodation could, with some support, remain in the community. The measures that the Government-and indeed the Opposition, in its support of them-is endorsing will not be cheap. It is very easy to say that we need to move away from institutional care towards community-based care as a matter of principle. But, of course, we will still need to sustain very heavy spending on nursing homes, hostels and that kind of accommodation. At the same time very substantial spending will need to be sustained to provide better community support. That is why the Government has sought to achieve a negotiated situation in which the Commonwealth, the States-with increased assistance from the Commonwealth-and local government and community organisations can together work to provide a much more adequate program of support. That is ambitious and will be costly over a period. But in the long run it will have some savings built into it. I guess the question that one asks oneself, given the bipartisan support for these measures, is whether the funding will in the long run also receive bipartisan support. As the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) suggested, the rhetoric of the Opposition has been that public expenditure needs to be severely cut back. We hear a great deal about areas in which it can be cut back. One hopes that the support that has been given to these measures by the Opposition indicates that in the future we will see projected the kind of growth that the Government has in mind so that in the long term-this is a program with a long term dimension there will be support from both sides of the House to ensure that the objectives of the program are achieved. I conclude at that point. As I said, honourable members have made a very constructive contribution. The Bills are extremely important in laying the foundations for maximising the choices for aged people, not simply so that they can live longer but so that they can live much fuller and more satisfying lives. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Howe) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Howe. That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Howe) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(8.00) —I move: (1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on all aspects of the government's proposals for an Australia Card, including- (a) the costs of introducing and operating the system; (b) the likely effectiveness of the proposed system in combating evasion of, and fraud against, the taxation and welfare systems, and in fulfilling the other purposes for which the system has been proposed; (c) the most appropriate means of identification which should appear on Australia Cards to ensure the effectiveness of the system; (d) the most appropriate method of establishing positive identification of individuals for the purpose of issuing Australia Cards; (e) the experience of other countries in utilising identification systems; (f) the inclusion of adequate protection against abuses of civil liberties and invasion of privacy; (g) the comparable cost-effectiveness of alternative proposals to combat evasion of, and fraud against, the taxation and welfare system and the other purposes for which the system has been proposed; (h) whether use of the Australia Card should be universal and/or compulsory and, if so, for what purposes and by whom; (i) limits which should be placed on the requirement for individuals to produce an Australia Card; (j) the extent to which the Australia Card may facilitate data linkage by Commonwealth departments and authorities, and the most appropriate means whereby such data linkage should be subjected to adequate supervision and safeguards, and (k) other related matters which the committee may deem appropriate. (2) That the committee consist of 8 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, 1 Member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats. (3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time. (5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chairman. (6) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall perform the duties of the chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chairman and the deputy chairman are not present at a meeting of the committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the chairman at that meeting. (7) That 4 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee. (8) That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records. (9) That the committee have power to move from place to place. (10) That the committee have power to adjourn from time to time. (11) That the committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it. (12) That the committee report by 31 March 1986. (13) That the committee have leave to report from time to time. (14) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. (15) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Honourable members will recall that on 17 October 1985 I assured the House that I would, at an appropriate time, move on behalf of the Government for the establishment of a joint select committee to investigate and report to the Parliament on the Australia Card proposal. This motion fulfils that assurance. As I then said, the Government has from the outset encouraged and welcomed public debate on the proposal. We recognise that any major change such as this needs the widest possible community understanding. It is for this reason that the Government has agreed to the establishment of this joint select committee with terms of reference which encompass the broadest possible range of issues associated with the proposal. The terms of reference of the committee indicate quite clearly just how determined the Government is to ensure that this matter is subjected to the widest possible scrutiny. For the information of the House let me reiterate those terms of reference, which require the committee to inquire into and report on all aspects of the Government's proposals for an Australia Card, including: (a) the costs of introducing and operating the system; (b) the likely effectiveness of the proposed system in combating evasion of and fraud against the taxation and welfare systems, and in fulfilling the other purposes for which the system has been proposed; (c) the most appropriate means of identification which should appear on Australia Cards to ensure the effectiveness of the system; (d) the most appropriate method of establishing positive identification of individuals for the purpose of issuing cards; (e) the experience of other countries in utilising identification systems; (f) the inclusion of adequate protection against abuses of civil liberties and invasion of privacy; (g) the comparable cost-effectiveness of alternative proposals to combat evasion of and fraud against the taxation and welfare system and the other purposes for which the system has been proposed; (h) whether use of the Australia Card should be universal and/or compulsory and, if so, for what purposes and by whom; (i) limits which should be placed on the requirement for individuals to produce an Australia Card; (j) the extent to which the Australia Card may facilitate data linkage by Commonwealth departments and authorities, and the most appropriate means whereby such data linkage be subject to adequate supervision and safeguards; and (k) other related matters which the committee may deem appropriate. The terms of reference have been designed to enable the Parliament thoroughly to investigate the main aspects of the proposal and to satisfy itself as to the advantages which will accrue from its early introduction. Some honourable members have raised with me a concern as to whether the resolution enables the committee to attend to the issue of the Australia Card and illegal immigration. I believe that there is no reason for such disquiet. The phrase `the other purposes for which the system has been proposed', twice used in the resolution, clearly includes action against illegal immigration which was explicitly referred to in my speech to the Tax Summit. It would therefore be my expectation that the committee will examine the Australia Card and illegal immigration. Through the committee, the Parliament will be able to satisfy itself that the benefits of the proposal will far outweigh its costs, that the civil liberties and privacy of our citizens will be adequately protected, and that the Australia Card proposal will be sufficiently effective in combating fraud against this nation's tax and welfare systems. Members of the House will also note that the committee is to be required to report to the Parliament by 31 March 1986. Again, as I informed the House on 17 October last, in order to facilitate both the committee's deliberations and the proper planning for the Australia Card proposal, the committee will be requested to limit its activities prior to February 1986 to the soliciting and consideration of public submissions. Government departments and agencies will, where required, present submissions and evidence to the committee in February 1986. The Health Insurance Commission will present its final planning report to the committee immediately upon completion of that report late in February 1986. Further, as previously agreed, I will arrange for release to the committee of the report of the Interdepartmental Committee on the National Identity System of 29 August 1985 and the interim planning report of the Health Insurance Commission of August 1985. My introduction of this motion today will, I trust, be indicative of the Government's desire to subject this proposal to the closest possible public and parliamentary scrutiny. It is our belief that the committee will provide to honourable members the answers to the many questions that have been raised, both inside the Parliament and in the community, and will satisfy the various public concerns that have been expressed. I commend the motion to the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(8.07) —As I have stated on a number of occasions, both in this House and outside, the Opposition is deeply concerned about tax evasion and social security fraud. We, of course, want to ensure that everybody in the community contributes their fair and equitable share to the cost of providing government services. It is true that we believe overall government expenditure should be reduced. Nevertheless, there will be a continuing need for a fair and equitable system of raising revenue. Therefore, we have no hesitation in making the commitment to review positively any proposals which will overcome the problems of social security fraud and tax evasion. The Government originally proposed an identification card during the Tax Summit. No convincing case was put to the Tax Summit regarding the effectiveness of the proposal or its likely cost-benefit outcome. There was then some discussion within the Government ranks particularly about the privacy implications of the proposal. No further information was given to the public and in general we, the Australian citizenry, were left in the dark. Then out of the blue, on 19 September, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that we were going to have an Australia Card. In the same 20 lines that he gave to the Australia Card proposal in his statement he said that it was going to be effective in combating tax evasion and ending social security fraud. The only additional information provided was by way of an attachment to the Treasurer's statement. Some sketchy details of the proposal were provided in that three-and-a-half page attachment. At no stage has any detailed information been provided to justify the Government's claims for the Australia Card. The fact that no such information has been provided makes me wonder whether the Government has such information. I have grave doubts that the Government can actually substantiate the claims that it has made. Therefore, when the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), the same Minister who has been responsible for introducing the most expensive, cruel and now totally discredited health system, came into this chamber-- Mr Cleeland —It is better than yours. Mr PORTER —Listen to the false horse laughs. This Government is the only government that has provided a two-tiered system of health care, one for the rich and one for the poor. The wealthy can pay to get into a hospital bed when they require one, while the poor pensioners get in a queue. They do not even have access-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Barker return to the motion before the House. Mr PORTER —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I express genuine concern for the pensioners of this country-the 26,500, for example, in Victoria who are waiting for hospital beds under this Government's health system. In any event, the same Minister came into the House three or four weeks ago with legislation seeking $3.5m to fund the issue of the Australia Card. Naturally enough the Opposition called a halt to this runaway fiasco. At that time we suggested a committee of inquiry to see whether, in fact, a case could be made out and whether the Government could establish a case to support the identification card proposal. We want to know whether the card will actually be effective in combating tax evasion and social security fraud; we want to know whether the cost involved in introducing and operating ID cards will, in fact, be less than the expected increase in tax revenue and the reduction in welfare payments; and we want to know whether adequate protection of the privacy of the individual can be provided under the Government's proposal. Further, we made it clear that we would oppose any further expenditure on the card until the Government had provided evidence to substantiate the case it was making out and then we will consider the issue. Faced with our opposition and with the fact that the legislation would not get through the Senate, the Government finally backed down and agreed to a committee of inquiry. When forced into this position to accept an inquiry and to prove its case, the Minister for Health comes along and says: `We have always welcomed public discussion and we have always wanted to provide a full public debate'. If the Government wanted to have a full public debate, why did it not provide us with some information? Mr Cleeland —You blokes don't have enough brains to understand. Mr PORTER —Well, neither does the honourable member, quite clearly, and that is more the pity because it appears that the Government's State party organisations are not happy with the Government's decision. We have made no decision for or against an ID card. We want to see the facts that the Government supposedly has. If the facts are available, why is the Government hiding them? The case which the Government has put to date in favour of the Australia Card is not only lacking in detail and fails to substantiate the claims made, but it is also internally inconsistent. In addition, subsequent relevations by the Minister for Health have undermined both the projected revenue forecasts and have added to the doubts about the integrity of the proposed card. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), when he announced that we were going to have an Australia Card, stated: In order to combat tax evasion and reduce health and welfare fraud, the government has decided to implement a national identification system involving the issue to individuals of a card to be known as the Australia Card. There is no doubt that we would all like to combat tax evasion and health and welfare fraud, but the question is: Will the Australia Card, as proposed by the Government, do that? The Government believes that an effective ID card system would raise an extra $800m in revenue, but it has opted for a system which will raise only $500m. Why the shortfall? That is because the Government will not include a photograph on the card. When the Treasurer said that the Australia Card would combat tax evasion, he actually meant that he was proposing a half-hearted approach which would, in fact, raise only five-eighths of the revenue which could be picked up by an Australia Card. No explanation has been given for the deletion of the photograph at a cost of between $300m and $350m of taxpayers funds. Maybe there is some good reason for deleting the photograph and failing to collect $350m of tax evasion. If there is a good reason, perhaps the Government will let members of the Opposition and the Australian public know. If the Government pretends to be so strong on tax equity and fairness and on stamping out the tax rorts-- Government members-Hear, hear! Mr PORTER —Government members say: `Hear, hear!' If the Government pretends to be strong on these matters, why is it giving away $350m? There is a sudden, deathly silence from Government members. Why on earth will the Government not provide us with the justification for the decision it made to delete the photograph? There has been no substantiation of the original $800m revenue figure and, in addition, there has been no substantiation of the $540m revenue figure quoted in the annexure to the Treasurer's statement. Will that money actually be raised? No evidence has been provided to justify those claims. Presumably the justification for the Government's claimed revenue gains is based on catching those who have second jobs, are working under false names, are not lodging income tax returns and so on. No evidence has been provided to indicate that this should be the highest priority. For example, conventional wisdom is that the cash economy is the great area of evasion. If that is true, how much will be caught by this proposal? Clearly it will not catch those who merely understate their income by not declaring some of their cash income. They will not be picked up by this proposal, which of course raises the question as to whether the proposal is, properly targeted. The Government has not enlightened us in respect of those issues. In the statement made by the Treasurer on 19 September it was suggested that in seven years time, that is, in 1992-93, the revenue gain following the introduction of the card would be $540m. Only one month later the Minister for Health said in a speech in Adelaide that the revenue gain was going to be of the order of $500m. If this rate of revision of the revenue estimate is to continue-if we drop $40m a month in the revenue estimates-in a year's time the revenue estimates will be nil. I just wonder what thought has been given within the Government to this proposal. The Government estimates we have been given-we have been given a whole three and a half lines in an annexure to the Treasurer's statement-supposedly established that the cost of the card would be $127m and the annual administration cost would be $87m for the first seven years and $100m thereafter. The Government's proposal is that it will spend $729m over seven years to get an annual maximum additional revenue saving of $500m in seven year's time. There is real doubt about the cost effectiveness of the card and the Government's lack of detailed supporting evidence for its proposal has done nothing to allay the fears that the card may, in fact, not be cost effective. Already Health Minister Blewett has acknowledged that the integrity of the card is subject to and reliant on the assistance of the States in providing information from their births, deaths and marriages register. He has indicated that the month old cost estimates-that is, those given by the Treasurer to establish the card system-are on the low side. He has had a go at the revenue estimates as they may be a bit high. On the cost side he said: `There are actually going to be some extra costs over and above those that we have outlined'. He now plans to `bribe' the States to get hold of the required information from the births, deaths and marriages register. In light of Queensland's and Victoria's opposition to the ID card, I imagine that the Minister envisages offering a substantial bribe, especially after the Victorian ALP's decision to do everything it can to sabotage the Federal ALP's ID card proposal. The Government has been forced to join with us in agreeing to our suggestion that a joint select committee be set up to look at the ID card proposal. We welcome the proposal. We look forward to participating on the committee. We are certainly keen to investigate ways of overcoming tax evasion and social security fraud. We will consider the ID card proposal when the committee report is tabled in this House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.21) —I thank the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for indicating his commitment this afternoon to the question of illegal immigration being considered as part of the terms of reference of the committee that will be set up to inquire into and report on the Australia Card. The Minister raised a significant matter in that regard in a statement he made in this place when last we sat. The significance of the ID card ran through that speech and in the policy that the Minister laid down. Although illegal immigration is not a specific part of the terms of reference for the proposed committee, the Minister has indicated in discussions that it should be considered by the committee. In my view it is as signficant as the other matters that are specifically mentioned by the Minister. I hope that the committee will give proper attention to that question and to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure that was presented to the House today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 18 September, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.22) —The Judiciary Amendment Bill is apparently an innocuous proposal. On listening to what the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) had to say in his second reading speech one would think that it was no more than a housekeeping measure. It was a very bland second reading speech on its face, if one did not listen carefully to the implications in it. One would therefore think that there was no sound reason for saying anything other than expressing agreement on the Bill. Yet if one looks at it more carefully, some important questions arise. By this Bill, the Government seeks to exclude the supervisory powers of the courts in criminal trials for offences against the Commonwealth law to certify that legal aid should be granted to an accused person who is on trial. The provision to be repealed in section 69 (3) of the Judiciary Act. Under that provision when a person committed for trial for an offence against a Commonwealth law applies to a justice of the High Court or to a judge of the Supreme Court for counsel for his defence, and it is found to the court's satisfaction that the applicant is without adequate means to provide defence for himself and that it is desirable in the interests of justice that such an appointment be made, the court shall certify that to the Attorney-General who may, if he thinks fit, thereupon cause arrangements to be made for the defence of the accused person. Why is this provision to be removed? The Attorney-General has given a number of reasons. Briefly stated reasons appear in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. I quote one sentence from the explanatory memorandum circulated with this Bill which states: The provision predates the present comprehensive nationwide system of legal aid delivery, which is the appropriate source of legal aid in all cases. Is it the appropriate source in all cases? Are there to be no other sources of legal aid? Is everything to be transferred beyond the powers of the courts? Do the courts not have a role? Apparently not. The purpose of the provision to be repealed is obvious and it was stated by Mr Justice Spender in the case of Maher v. the Attorney-General in May of 1985 as being: . . . to ensure that injustice is not caused by the absence of proper provision for the defence of a person charged with serious offences against laws of the Commonwealth. The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, referred to the costs to the Commonwealth of applications granted under this provision. One does not have to say that the courts are always right; clearly they are not always right. One would think it possible to attribute fallibility to our legal aid systems and to the personnel who administer legal aid. The very fact that applications are being made to the court and are being granted does suggest that there is a hole in the provision of legal aid when persons are charged with offences against Commonwealth laws. The essentials of an efficient and equitable legal aid system-I should think that we are all interested in having such a system-are these: In a very real sense, there must be equality of access to the courts and to legal representation. This requires a general equality in the quality, experience and expertise of legal representation. The plain fact is that broad expertise, high quality and wide experience are to be found in the private legal professions-experience, expertise and quality which could not be duplicated in legal aid agencies without unacceptable and unnecessary expenditure. The reason for this is very simple. Mr Cleeland —There are unlimited fees for barristers. Mr SPENDER —I hear an interjection that implies that this is an attempt to assist the legal profession. I say to the honourable member that it is an attempt to examine the issues and to look at how legal aid should be provided, not simply to mouth cliches put in one's mouth by the Department. The private legal professions attract the best for the very good reason that that is where one can prosper. That is where the good and the big cases are to be found. That is where the most interesting work is to be found. I do not for a moment decry the important work done by the various legal aid agencies or the personnel of those agencies. Let us remember, as every honourable member knows, what happens when senior and well-known people in this country, or, indeed, in this Parliament, get into trouble with the law. They go to the best in the business. Do they go for legal aid? Essentially, they go for quality, and quality in the administration of justice on both sides of the bar table is essential. I raise these points because the proposed removal of this provision from the Act is directly concerned with the provision of legal aid. I ask: What is the present state of the Government's legal aid proposals? What is the state of development of those proposals? We know that the previous Attorney-General was interested in high matters of constitutional amendment. Those are glamorous and interesting matters, but they do not get down to what really matters for most people who have anything to do with the law, who are in need of help and who do not have a great deal of money. I refer to the efficient and fair provision of legal aid. When the present Attorney-General took over, he decided in June of this year that the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council, which was established by the previous Government, should be allowed to go out of existence, and so it did. It is known that shortly before the Council went out of existence its members put some terms to the Commonwealth Attorney-General as to the form a national legal aid body should take which would be able to give independent advice to him on legal aid matters. Indeed, the Attorney- General, in a news release of 13 June 1985, said this of the Council: The Council has done useful work and I congratulate it on what it has been able to achieve. However the Council has neither the resources nor the statutory backing to carry out the task of monitoring and co-ordinating legal aid across Australia which clearly needs to be done. The Attorney-General was expressing a very positive view which, quite clearly, required quick action so that the problem which he addressed could be overcome. What has been the response? So far as one can determine, nothing. We have no Commonwealth legal aid council. We have no substitute for that council. We have no mechanism for an independent advisory role for the professions. In short, we have no national legal aid advisory council. We have a Government reaction which is equal parts of inactivity, indecision and indolence. As I have said, it is unfortunate that the previous Attorney-General was apparently too interested in other matters to concentrate his attention on how the system of justice works for the ordinary person who needs help. The present Attorney-General has now allowed some five months or so to go by since he made his decision. I am sure that we would all like to know what the present state of his thinking is, when we can expect some action and what it will be. There is good reason, therefore, to approach this apparently innocuous proposal with caution as one suspects that it is inspired by the Department. The consequence is that if it is passed there will be no supervisory role for the courts. This caution is reinforced by the recent report of the Legal Aid Task Force of August this year. When I say recent, it is now not so recent. The thrust of that report is away from the private legal profession and towards a concentration on in-house services. So far as I am aware, the Attorney-General still has to make a decision as to what is to happen, which of the recommendations are to be accepted and which are to be rejected. We would like to know as soon as possible what is to happen, whether the report is to be accepted and the implications of acceptance of the report for the ordinary person who needs legal aid. The legal aid system is not about rich people who can afford to go to the courts. It is not about those who are backed by unions or other powerful organisations. It is about those who cannot afford to go to the courts and, because they cannot afford to, are effectively excluded from justice. So we have the present position. After nearly three years we have a Government which appears to lack a clear view as to how legal aid should be provided and as to the role of the private profession in providing legal aid, although the suspicion must be that the departmental plan is to exclude the private profession as much as possible, to the detriment of those granted legal aid. I very much hope that the Attorney-General will make sure that the private profession's role in the provision of legal aid services and its advice as to how legal aid services should be maintained is kept because it would be very bad for the people of this country if everything-lock, stock and barrel-were to be pushed away from the involvement of the private practitioners, just as it would be very sad if the proposal now before the House, to which I have an amendment which has been circulated in my name and which I will move in the Committee stage, were to be passed. Let me turn to the background of this Bill and the reasons for it which have been given by the Attorney-General. The first reason he gives is that the courts are incompetent. Those are not his words, but that is clearly what he is saying, because, among other things, he says that section 69 (3) is `out of step with modern developments in the provision of legal aid' and is `ripe for exploitation'-and this from a Government that is without any apparent policy towards the provision of legal aid. When one speaks of `ripe for exploitation', one has to ask: Who is being exploited? The answer must be that the courts are being exploited because it is to the courts that the application has to be made. So when one refers to exploitation one is saying that the courts are not competent to do this and it would be much better if it were to be handed over to others wiser in the ways of trials. Let us look at the next thing the Attorney-General said. I do not intend to quote the whole of his remarks, but I will put the substance of his argument. He said that applications under section 69 (3) circumvent the legal aid system-circumvent it! One would think that he was talking about a tax avoidance scheme. He also said that the question of entitlement to legal aid is not suited to be determined by the courts. Really, it is not suited to be determined by the courts. This is a classic departmental view. Those who are not at the heart of things know better, grounded in ignorance of how the courts work, of how cases are fought. Of all the people to determine whether the interests of justice require that legal aid be given, judges are in the best position. They are there because, appointed by governments of different political persuasion, they are thought to be the most competent people around. They invariably have a great deal of experience of courtroom work as advocates. Frequently they have 30, 40 or more years experience in the business of law and of the courts. The issues are before them and, if they wish, they can interrogate very closely those who apply and say that they are without means. I have said before that I do not suggest that courts do not make mistakes, but we should not think that others outside the courts are in a better position to make decisions of this kind. It is absolute nonsense to think that the judges are not the best qualified. I do not for a moment say that we should hand over the legal aid system to them and I do not say that we should hand over the day to day burden of administering the legal aid system to the courts, but I do say that the interests of justice require that there be in cases under Commonwealth laws, because that is what we are concerned with, a supervisory role for the courts. Let me go to another reason put by the Attorney-General. He said that we now have `a very comprehensive and integrated system of legal aid', to which has been allocated, I might add, some $70m in 1985-86 and which provides for `legal aid in relation to indictable Commonwealth criminal offences with slight variations amongst jurisdictions as to means and merits tests'. The Attorney-General is talking about a comprehensive system, and I read with great interest the report of the Legal Aid Task Force of August 1985. Let me quote from that report, and in doing so let me express the immediate caution that it is speaking of the system as a whole and is not directing its attention to applications under section 69 (3), nor is it concerned exclusively with cases falling within Commonwealth criminal provisions. It says this in paragraph 3.20: It is not reasonable or practicable to expect that legal aid commissions, who so jealously guard their independence, would agree either between themselves or with the Commonwealth on such fundamental issues as those listed in paragraph 3.18. Those issues were the role of legal aid bodies, financial eligibility criteria, matters in which legal aid should be granted, contributions policy and methods of delivery. Here we have the Legal Aid Task Force saying that we cannot expect agreement on those fundamental matters. Where, tell me, is the comprehensive and integrated system of legal aid of which the Attorney-General boasts? Let me continue with the quote from paragraph 3.20. It says: The experience to date tells the story, as evidenced by the disparate results that are achieved as a consequence of the variation in operation from one legal aid body to the next. Where again is that comprehensive and integrated system of legal aid? In paragraph 4.1 the report says: In short, depending on where persons live in Australia, their chances of obtaining legal aid, the nature of the service to be provided, or the contribution that they will be required to pay for that service, will differ. As I have made clear, I do not suggest that that report is directed to matters falling exclusively within the province of offences against Commonwealth laws, but it seems to say very clearly that the Attorney-General is quite mistaken when he speaks in support of his argument for the abolition of section 69 (3) of a comprehensive and integrated system. As I have said, the courts are overall the best qualified. It would be a great pity if their supervisory role was to be gotten rid of in this offhand manner. I think the Bill could be improved and during the Committee stage I shall propose an amendment to that effect which has already been circulated in my name. While the courts are not always right, I stress that their experience places them in a position better than that of anyone else to determine the two critical issues-the needs of justice and financial need. This is too important a matter to turn over entirely to a process administered entirely outside the courts. Therefore, I ask the Attorney-General, when he replies, to consider ceding to the amendment which I have proposed as an improvement, perhaps, or a half-way house between total abolition on the one hand and the existing clause on the other. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(8.43) —I would have thought that on a matter of this nature the Opposition would have done some research on and made an intellectual examination of the background and history of section 69 (3) of the Judiciary Act 1903. Opposition members should have tried to understand where it came from, why it exists and why it is no longer necessary. We have not had that content from them at all and I am rather disappointed with the nature of the debate on the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1985 at present. Under section 69 (3) a person charged with an offence against the laws of the Commonwealth may apply to a judge of the High Court or of a Supreme Court of a State for the appointment of counsel for his or her defence. If a judge certifies to the Attorney-General that the person is without adequate means to provide for his or her own defence, and that it is desirable in the interests of justice that an appointment of counsel be made, the Attorney-General may make arrangements for the defence. These arrangements would normally be the provision of financial assistance to enable the person to retain solicitor and counsel. The provision pre-dates the present comprehensive nationwide system of legal aid delivery, which is the appropriate source of legal aid in all cases. The procedure under section 69 (3), whereunder an applicant for legal aid can involve the courts in deciding the appropriateness or otherwise of a grant of legal aid, is cumbersome, expensive and a duplication of functions now better performed by properly constituted legal aid bodies in all States and Territories. Accordingly repeal of section 69 (3) would rationalise the delivery of legal aid in Federal criminal matters. This section has a long and very interesting history. Its genesis can be found in what was once called the poor prisoners defence Act. I am indebted to a very detailed research undertaken by His Honour Mr Justice Sholl of the Victorian Supreme Court which is cited in Borradale v. Davenport, 1958, at page 470 of Victorian reports. Before the judicature Acts the better opinion was that because of the operation of statutes giving rights to costs the common law courts had, at any rate in civil actions, no residual common law jurisdiction to admit persons as pauper litigants. They were restricted to cases in which such admission was authorised by, or under, statute. On the other hand, in criminal and quasi-criminal matters the common law courts appeared to have authorised a discretionary common law jurisdiction to admit litigants as paupers in certain cases. Courts of equity created their own practice, although in general they proceeded in relation to such litigants by the analogy of the common law practice. They did not restrict themselves thereto; in some cases they departed from it. The reasons for the existence of the situation just described are historical. According to Serjeant Hullock, whose work was first published in 1792, a plaintiff's right to costs in common law actions was established by a series of statutes of which the first and most important was in 1278 in the reign of Edward I. Costs of appeals, including criminal appeals, to general or quarter sessions were dealt with by various statutes, mainly dating from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Costs of proceedings by way of certiorari to remove into the King's Bench proceedings before justices or sessions were dealt with in a number of cases by statutes which provided for their being secured by recognisances to prosecute the proceedings. In that case I refer to Hullock, volume II page 561. It may do Opposition members some good to do some research and read Serjeant Hullock's excellent book. The equity jurisdiction as to costs is said by Mr Beames, whose work was first published in 1822, to have originated in 1393. It is a very old section, is it not? The admission of persons as litigants in forma pauperis appears to have begun at common law at least as early as 1475-76. However, the practice was recognised and regulated in 1494 and that is referred to in Beames and also Daniell's Chancery Practice Sixth Edition 1882, volume I, at pages 85 and 165. The statutes passed in subsequent centuries will be referred to in these authorities. By the Act of Henry VII, a pauper plaintiff had counsel and attorney assigned to him to act without reward. I can guarantee that the modern Bar will not have a bar of that. Under the Act he was not to pay costs if he lost but was to suffer such other punishment as the court thought reasonable. Under this statute the curious practice arose of giving such a plaintiff, by order, the option of paying costs or of being whipped. I am sure there are honourable members opposite who would support such a proposal today if a person did not pay his bills. It appears from Drennan v. Andrew, 1866 1 Chancery law reports at page 301 that in Elizabeth's day a female plaintiff was so whipped. However, by Lord Holt's time the practice had fallen into disuse, for that learned chief justice refused a motion to have a pauper whipped for the non-payment of costs. He observed that `there was no officer for the purpose, and he had never known it done'. At common law it was ultimately held that there was no power to admit a defendant in a civil case in forma pauperis, though apparently there were some differences of opinion on this point. That case is reported in Hullock, volume 1 at page 228 and 229 where early authorities are clearly cited and discussed. The learned author observed: A defendant in a civil action cannot be admitted to defend in forma pauperus; because no person can be admitted either to sue or defend as a pauper, but under some Act of Parliament, and the statutes . . . contain no provisions on behalf of defendants, but merely enable plaintiffs to sue in that form. And if the courts had a discretionary power, without the direction of a statute, to admit persons in civil suits to proceed in forma pauperis, they would in effect possess a power of dispensing, in many instances, with the operation of the statutes relative to costs. The question we are looking at now was discussed in 1828. It sometimes takes the Opposition a long while to catch up. Though Equity claimed to proceed in the matter of pauper litigants by analogy, it in fact varied its practice widely from that of the common law courts. Indeed, in the time of Lord Bacon defendants were admitted in a proper case as paupers, but plaintiffs in most cases were referred to the Court of Requests. Thereafter, both plaintiffs and defendants were so admitted. Even at common law, however, the courts considered that they had a discretionary jurisdiction to admit a person as a pauper party, either as defendant or as prosecutor, in proceedings on the Crown side, where no right of the opposite party to costs was thereby defeated. Some of the older precedents cited in Wright's case were cases in which defendants had been admitted in forma pauperis to reverse outlaw- ries. One was a case in which the defendant was admitted in forma pauperis to prosecute a writ of error upon an indictment. Several cases of defendants admitted to defend indictments as paupers are referred to in the authorities I have cited. As Mr Justice Maule observed in Brunt v. Wardle, this could have been done only by virtue of the common law authority of the courts. On the other hand, where a defendant removed an indictment, without good cause, into the King's Bench, he was refused leave to defend as a pauper. As the history of this particular section shows, it came from this very ancient jurisdiction. It was incorporated into our country with the establishment of the early colonies. With the eventual federation of Australia there followed a number of Acts known as Judicature Acts. Those early sections of English law, inherited through the colonial system, were in effect brought into Australia through the Judicature Acts and that is where section 69 (3) comes from. For Opposition members today to talk about the importance of this section in the provision of legal aid is for them to show that they have not bothered to have a look at it. They have ignored the first premise of research; to ask what the section is for, where it comes from and what it does. It does not do anything, except enable people like Mr Maher to set up companies and stack away their wealth in corporate structures, so that they do not have a penny in their name. They use this anachronism-that is all it is-to go to court and get the taxpayers- Mr Hodgman —I raise a point of order. I interrupt my learned friend to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that this matter is the subject of an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia. In those circumstances my honourable friend should not be referring to the matter of that particular case; it is sub judice. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The honourable member will not refer to the case. Mr CLEELAND —Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not referring to the facts of the case, but to the facts of legal aid, which are different. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will avoid the case. Mr CLEELAND —It is interesting to see members of the legal profession on the other side take the course of action they have, because it is not supported by judges. That is one of the weird things about this. In an unreported decision of R. v. Harris on 4 July this year Mr Justice Ormiston said exactly what I have said; that it is an historical anachronism. That is exactly what it is, as I think I have detailed adequately today. No one will lose legal aid on this matter. The suggestion that it has any relevance to the legal aid system in this country ignores its history. It is another example of the Opposition's tawdry approach in this House of coming along on anything the Government does and trying to find some reason to stand up and talk and find an amendment. It is irrelevant. The Bill is a valuable Bill which will remove from our statutes an Act which goes back to 1827 and which no longer applies in this country. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.54) —I am sorry about the concluding remarks of the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) because I think, with respect, he did not give credit to the very fundamental issues which are involved in a proper consideration of the Judiciary Amendment Bill. I say from the outset that I count it an honour as one of Her Majesty's younger counsel, to follow the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), the current shadow Attorney-General and the next Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, in leading for the Opposition in this debate. Unlike both the honourable member for North Sydney and the honourable member for McEwen who preceded me, I want to trace the history of the development of this area of the law since 1962 and I appeal to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) who is also the Deputy Prime Minister of this country to accept and recognise the wisdom, justice and humanity which is contained in the proposed amendment to be moved by the honourable member for North Sydney, and to do that notwithstanding Caucus and Cabinet decisions. I ask the Attorney-General, as the senior law officer of the Commonwealth, to exercise his discretion and to accept this amendment when we consider this Bill in Committee. As the honourable member for North Sydney has said, the Opposition will vote against this Bill because we believe the Government is taking away something which is basic and fundamental. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know when I speak of these matters that you, because of your electoral work will recognise the truth of what I am saying. The tragedy in Australia today is that the courts are only accessible to very poor Australians and to very rich Australians. The ordinary Australians today cannot get into the courts of this land in civil matters and cannot afford the costs of defence in criminal matters. I regret to say on the basis of my professional record-I say it non-politically-that notwithstanding the best endeavours of Attorneys-General, both Liberal and Labor over the last 20 years, in 1962 there was more justice in relation to legal aid and there was more justice in relation to assisting persons before the courts than there is in 1985. I am going to shock a few people by some of the comments that I am going to make, including some of my colleagues from the Australian Labor Party in Victoria. Let me get this one off my chest here and now. I think it is scandalous that Norm Gallagher, whatever he did or did not do had to endure a trial which extended for some 56 days without being granted legal aid. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I point out that there is also an appeal in that case. Mr HODGMAN —Indeed, but not on the question of legal aid. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member avoids- Mr HODGMAN —I make the point, with respect-- Mr Hand —Double standards. Mr HODGMAN —I am sorry that there is levity in the ranks of the Hawke socialist Government. I note with some pleasure that the Deputy Prime Minister does not join in the raucous behaviour that is coming from the Government back benches. I believe it is wrong that a person in this country stands trial-a trial which extends for 56 days-and is denied legal aid. I put that on the record. If one wants proof of what I am saying, one can look at a copy of the Melbourne Age of just a few weeks ago because quite fortuitously I met the gentleman concerned at the Bendigo Hotel, which is run by a Mr Peter Jones, and I was staggered to find that at that stage, with his trial drawing to a close, Norm Gallagher had not received one cent of legal aid. I say nothing about the merits of the conviction, the question of the appeal or any issue. However, what I do say is that it would not have happened in 1962. Why not? Next to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia I put it to this House that the Judiciary Act 1903 is the most important statute on the books of the Commonwealth. It is the statute which sets up the entire structure for the exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. As the honourable member for North Sydney said, and he is far more experienced in these matters, the question of a fair trial and the question of the right to legal representation is fundamental to the exercise of the basic human rights of each and every Australian, whether born in this country or having come to this country from another place. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me take your memory back and the memories of other honourable members, and particularly the memory of the Attorney-General, because he will know what I am saying is true, to what was the situation in 1962. There was no Commonwealth legal aid scheme in 1962. There were State legal aid schemes. I was admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court of Tasmania on 19 February 1962, and I will tell the House what the rules were there about legal aid. There was a roster. If one was allocated a trial, whether it was for two days, two weeks or two months, one took that trial at one-third of the normal counsel's fees; the two-thirds was a contribution which one made as a member of the profession to the benefit of the community. One received one-third of normal counsel's fees, and one paid tax on that. A few years later it became 50 per cent of counsel's fees. But when the Australian legal aid scheme came on to the arena, in the term of the Whitlam Government, I was staggered-and I think a lot of Australians were staggered-at what, with the very best intentions in the world, occurred. Let me give a classic example. The first thing said was that the Australian legal aid scale for remuneration would be that applying in Canberra. Let me say without any shame, because I have no wealth at all, that the counsel's fees payable in Canberra were a mile above the fees that were payable in Hobart, and a mile above the fees that were paid in Townsville, or in Perth, or in Bathurst. What happened was that instead of making a personal financial sacrifice-which I and many other young barristers of my day did, because we believed it was right, as did the present Attorney-General-we found that we were embarrassed to be told that we would be paid at a higher rate than we would have been paid if we had been entitled to full counsel's fees. I just want to make the point that when a few of us raised this matter in the Tasmanian Bar Association, of which I had the honour to be Vice-President in 1974, we were laughed at. I know that my friend the honour- able member for Leichardt (Mr Gayler) would know exactly what I am saying. We were told, `Don't be stupid'. Mr Cowan —Would he really? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, I think he does on this matter. We were told, `Don't be stupid, that is the counsel's fees.' I might tell the House that I did a trial for Aboriginal Legal Aid in 1975, in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, that went for some 11 days. It ended in an acquittal, the most gratifying acquittal of my Bar career, involving over 300 criminal trials, including 13 murder trials. Why was it gratifying to me? It was because it involved an Aboriginal prisoner in this country who had been assaulted and persecuted by warders who then turned around and charged him with assaulting them. Had he been convicted, he would have received a very long custodial sentence. What I found there was that when I rendered my reduced counsel's fee memorandum-because in our State at that stage we had not properly developed a separate Bar-I was told that it was embarrassing because I had not charged sufficient to reach the minimum to which I was entitled under Aboriginal Legal aid. With the best will in the world, I have to suggest that the Attorney-General of the day in 1974 made a fundamental error when he said on the occasion of the official opening of an Australian Legal Aid office: `You are not to regard yourselves as lawyers but more as social scientists'. I have to say that, with the best intentions in the world, I think that is where the rot set in. Mr McGauran —Social engineering. Mr HODGMAN —Social engineering-my honourable and learned colleague makes the point. What was wrong with a system in which the Chief Magistrate, Mr R. F. Turner, said at lock-up court on a Monday morning, with about 70 defendants coming up: `Mr Hodgman, would you mind talking to this defendant and advising him as to how he should plead'? And we did that. There was no question of rendering a fee. I have heard Mr Justice Gibson, Sir Marcus Gibson, who is still alive-the Attorney-General would know of his judgments; he is one of the greatest judges ever of the Supreme Court of Tasmania-say, effectively: `Mr So-and-so, this man clearly needs legal assistance. Will you take the matter on?' I saw it happen. The dock brief of the Old Bailey was the dock brief of Darlinghurst and the dock brief of Hobart Town. I have seen counsel 25 years ago take on a dock brief and see it right through, the question of costs and fees never having entered their minds. That was the spirit of the tradition of the father of the honourable member for North Sydney, of my father, and of others who believed that the law was a profession and not a licence to make money. What do we have today? One cannot throw a brief at a young barrister today. I can remember-I should not digress, Madam Deputy Speaker, but this is worth recalling-arriving at the robing room of the Supreme Court of Tasmania on a cold Monday morning in the middle of a Tasmanian winter and meeting Mr Christopher Wright. He had been literally thrown a brief by his father, now Sir Reginald Wright, and I had also been given a brief by my father. I said `Are you for the plaintiff?' and he said `Yes'. I said: `Thank heaven for that; I can at least have a look at my brief while you are opening for the plaintiff'. That sort of thing does not happen very often, but the plain fact is that this was part of the tradition. Today counsel wants 28 days notice. I do not know whether the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) will speak, but he is one of the few, as is my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran), who could pick up a brief on a couple of minutes notice and argue it very well. I come back to the fundamental point. Section 69 (3) of the Judiciary Act, as the honourable member for North Sydney pointed out, gave an additional discretion to the judiciary in appropriate cases in order to ensure that the interests of justice were served and that a person would have legal aid in that arrangements would be made for the defence of that accused person. Why does the Attorney-General, with all his broad comments about the comprehensive nature of Australian legal aid-the system is still operating in the States-have so little confidence in the judiciary that he takes away this provision which has remained almost unaltered as part of the law of the Commonwealth of Australia for the last 82 years? Why does he do it? I say to my honourable and learned friends opposite that members of the judiciary might say that they do not think it is relevant. A learned judge might describe it as an historical anachronism, but let me put it to honourable members that if this saves a miscarriage of justice in just one trial in Australia in one year, I believe this Parliament should uphold that right. I put it to honourable members that it is for the trial judge to decide. Let us take a case-I have seen this and I am sure that the Attorney-General has seen it too-where somebody comes in bold as brass and says: `Your Honour, I intend to defend myself'. So far so good. The case starts; it then becomes painfully obvious to everybody that the man in the dock who thinks he is going to defend himself is, frankly, an idiot who does not understand the law and has no idea of cross-examination. Has the Attorney-General not seen an accused, in person, trying to cross-examine when he cannot even form a question? He puts a statement of fact. If the Attorney has not read the High Court decision in Dawson's case he should look at that because, as the honourable member for North Sydney has pointed out as a fundamental plank of the Opposition's approach in this matter, the Government is displaying in this amendment a vote of no confidence in the judiciary of Australia. The Government is saying: `We will not even let the judiciary exercise the powers given under section 69 (3)'. The Attorney and Deputy Prime Minister, on any fair basis, is a reasonable man and recognised as such on both sides of this House and in the other place. I appeal to him to look carefully at the amendment drawn by the honourable member for North Sydney. The Attorney will effect the purpose he seeks-I am sad that he will do so-that of taking out section 69 (3) which, I draw to his attention, was last amended just 12 months after Robert Gordon Menzies became Prime Minister of this country. It has not been amended by any government since 1950. The Whitlam Government did not see fit to meddle with it and I am surprised, with respect, and disappointed that the Hawke socialist Government has seen fit to meddle with it. The Government can have its cake and eat it because if it gets the Bill into the Committee stage-as it tragically in my view will-it can achieve its fundamental purpose but it can accept the amendment on a totally non-partisan and non-political basis because it has nothing to do with politics, as the honourable member for North Sydney has pointed out. He makes a plea for a proviso-a proviso which will retain a fundamental right of every Australian man and woman who comes before the courts of this land in respect of matters falling within the judicial powers of the Commonwealth of Australia. I ask whether the honourable members opposite, with all their altruism and idealism, are prepared to say that they do not have confidence in the judges of this country to exercise this power fairly and properly. I do not believe that they will be heard to say that. In conclusion, with all due respect to the honourable member for McEwen, I would not dare to contradict let alone criticise the honourable member for North Sydney even if I thought I was right and he was wrong, because our legal system is based on seniority and I happen to have a healthy respect for those whose experience, standing and capacity are superior to my own. I ask honourable members opposite, many of whom I have an enormous regard for despite our political differences, to give the Attorney-General the strength and support to accept the amendment which the Opposition proposes. Better still, join with the Opposition in defeating this Bill at the second reading stage on the voices without the necessity of taking the matter to a division, and uphold the rights of Australian judges to determine in appropriate cases that legal aid will be provided to Australian men and women when the justice of the case does not just require it but emphatically demands it. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(9.13) —We must say of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) that he is obviously a man of charity, a man of generosity and a man of compassion. He has told the chamber tonight that for most of the time that he has practised in the law he has done so either for a third of the fee or for nothing at all. Is it any wonder that he has no funds? It is a shame that we should have such a light-hearted approach to the Judiciary Amendment Bill. Notwithstanding that the honourable member for Denison was well wide of the mark as far as section 69 (3) of the Judiciary Act is concerned, he was much closer to it than the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who knew nothing about it. We heard a plea from the honourable member for Denison, but if this legal aid provision is such a hallmark in our society, if it is required by the citizens of this country, why did he not tell the House and the people of Australia that since 1970 it has been used on only eight occasions? He did not mention that. It is interesting also to note that of those eight occasions more than half have occurred this year. The people involved in bottom of the harbour schemes and conspiracies to import drugs into Australia are the people applying now under this shield under this anachronistic piece of legislation brought down in 1903. This Bill, introduced to repeal sub-section (3) of section 69 of the Judiciary Act, is most fitting, notwithstanding that its introduction has been, unfortunately, delayed too long. The sub-section is one of the original provisions of the Act and it has until now remained substantially unaltered. At the time of its introduction, legal aid in criminal proceedings was most uncommon. If one cares to look at the Hansard record of when this Bill was introduced one can see that it was introduced solely as a method of legally aiding those who did not have the means-the funds-to defend themselves. There can be no doubt about that. The inclusion of sub-section (3) of section 69 of the Judiciary Act was solely for that purpose. What has changed that would make the purport of that sub-section any different now from what it was 82 years ago? Of course, many things have changed. Since the early 1970s we have had a legal aid system in Australia that more than adequately looks after those people who are in need of legal assistance. Now that the honourable member for North Sydney has returned to the chamber, I ask him whether he told the House that since 1970 there have been a mere eight applications under this provision of the Judiciary Act. I will explain and outline to honourable members later what the judiciary in 1985, not 1903, thinks of this sub-section. With all due respect to the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland), I am talking of 1985 and not 1678. In 1985 the judiciary looks upon it as a superfluous piece of legislation that has been used quite underhandedly. Under the existing provisions of the Act a person charged with an offence against the laws of the Commonwealth may apply to a judge of the High Court of Australia or of a Supreme Court of a State for the appointment of counsel for his or her defence. If the judge certifies to the Attorney-General that the person is without adequate means to provide for his or her own defence and that it is desirable in the interests of justice that an appointment of counsel be made, the Attorney-General may make arrangements for the defence. Of course, in more recent times the statement `may make arrangements' has been shown to be more mandatory than one might expect, having regard to the language of the Act. As has been seen in recent trials, those arrangements would clearly mean the provision of financial assistance to enable the person to retain a solicitor and counsel. It is important to note that the provision to be repealed predates the present comprehensive, nation-wide system of legal aid which is, and should be, available to those without adequate means to provide for their own defence. In fact, the introduction by the Whitlam Administration during the 1970s of legislation providing for the Australian Legal Aid Office and the subsequent integration of that system of legal aid with State and Territory commissions has made the provisions of section 69 (3) of the Judiciary Act 1903 outmoded. Apart from the fact that adequate legal aid is now available in our society, a factor that also should be taken into consideration as to whether section 69 (3) now plays any realistic or valid role in proceedings in our legal system is that of judicial responsibility. In that regard, I refer to a recent decision in the matter of the Queen v. Maher. In an application made under this legislation the presiding judge, Mr Justice Carter, stated, in his judgment I wish to make it crystal clear that the course I propose has been decided upon, not because I have been asked specifically to order in terms of section 69 but is taken because I believe it is a matter of judicial responsibility and is taken irrespective of the fact that an application has been made to me under section 69 of the Judiciary Act. In one word, he said that the section is superfluous. He continued: The responsibility remains with the court to the extent which I have indicated whether or not an application is made under that section. Once again, that is judicial responsibility. In accordance with the practice of presiding judges, there is little doubt that the court has the inherent power to ensure that the interests of justice are met, including in the circumstances of an accused not having adequate means to provide for himself. Of course, there are other quite pertinent and valid reasons which illustrate that through the effluxion of time this provision has now become outmoded. Not least of these is the difficulty faced by a presiding judge in dealing with an application brought under this particular section of the of the Act. Once again I refer to the dictum of Mr Justice Carter in the case I mentioned previously. He stated: Last Friday an application was made to me that I certify in terms of section 69 (3) of the Judiciary Act. I referred then to the fact that the application was made substantially after the time at which the section envisaged the matters contained in the section would arise for consideration. He continued: I also indicated my concern on that occasion that any certification by me in terms of the section which touches the question of the accused Maher's resources might be seen to involve a finding of fact which has wider implications . . . I am certain that the honourable member for North Sydney as a practising QC would know what Mr Justice Carter was talking about. The judge continued: . . . and at the same time I expressed my concern that I was not satisfied nor could I be on the material before me that I knew the whole truth of the matter. It is obvious that the judge was referring to difficulties which were incumbent on his having to consider an application under the relevant section after the trial had commenced. Mr Justice Carter was also critical that the role which a judge had to carry out was essentially a matter for the executive arm of government to be decided by executive process. He indicated that matters that had been pursued before him ought to have been pursued elsewhere in the first place. He went on to say that he had been asked to exercise powers given to the court in this area in a way in which it was never intended that those powers should be used. (Quorum formed) I congratulate the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) for one of his more positive contributions in this House in calling that quorum. I am surprised that he is able to count that far. I agree with the criticism of the Act. It has been very long and very loud by the judiciary in more recent times. I also agree with the comments made by the learned trial judge. It is interesting to note that other members of the judiciary have also been critical of this legislation. I do not have to go into that, but earlier this evening the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) mentioned the comments of Mr Justice Ormiston in a Victorian case. Of course if, as is suggested by those opposite, the section under discussion is retained, the judiciary will be in the untenable situation of having to conduct what could be in some circumstances prolonged inquiries into such areas as the means of an accused in order to make certain administrative decisions, a role which was quite properly pointed out by Mr Justice Carter to be more properly exercised in the executive processes of government, whether State or Federal. Having given my full support to the Bill, it goes without saying that I am opposed to the amendment to be moved by the honourable member for North Sydney. If his amendment were to be passed it would retain the anachronistic provision which has been criticised by judges throughout this land. To add to the clause the provision `or refer the matter to such legal authorities as he considers appropriate' does nothing to overcome the difficulties that exist with the present legislation which was introduced initially over 80 years ago. To pose the simple situation of an accused making application under the relevant section being referred to a legal aid authority by the judge, I simply ask: What would preclude an accused from making subsequent application in the terms of such amended legislation? There is nothing. I might add that the honourable member for North Sydney did not address himself to that. Leaving aside that criticism, one must return to the inherent powers of a justice of which I have previously spoken; that is, to ensure in the interests of justice that an accused without adequate means is provided with adequate representation for his defence. This, together with all the other avenues of legal aid available in this country, makes, in my respectful submission, section 69 (3) of the Judiciary Act superfluous. In conclusion I might say that the proposed amendment by the Opposition is nothing short of ridiculous. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(9.27) —It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in this House to support the amendment to be moved so ably by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) and to oppose the position taken by the temporary Government of this country. It is indeed a very sad day for the people of Australia when a representative of a party which professes to look after the poor and the underprivileged seeks the repeal of part of the Act which provides for legal aid for our citizens. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in his explanatory memorandum, pointed out that the purpose of the Judiciary Amendment Bill was to repeal section 69 (3) of the Judiciary Act 1903 Government members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The Chair invites the accused to maintain the decorum consistent with their circumstances. Mr SLIPPER —The sub-section in question permits a person committed for trial against Commonwealth law to apply to a justice of the High Court of Australia or a justice of a supreme court for the appointment of counsel for his defence. In this event, if it is found to the court's satisfaction that the applicant is without adequate means to provide defence for himself and that it is desirable in the interests of justice that such an appointment be made, the judge shall certify this to the Attorney-General, who may, if he thinks fit, thereupon cause arrangements to be made for the defence of the accused person. One can wonder about the sensitivity of the Attorney and the Government in relation to this matter. By the admission of the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler), the previous speaker, only eight applications have been made under this sub-section in the last 13 years. If that is the case, why has the Government, in this busy legislative time, brought forward this Bill to try to deprive the citizens of Australia of legal aid rights? Mr Peter Fisher —A waste of time. Mr SLIPPER —It is a waste of time. It is a shocking negation of the Government's responsibility as a government. The honourable member for Leichhardt outlined the situation which faced a certain person, Mr Maher, in recent times. While we in this country do not in any way, shape or form seek to protect anyone who might breach the law, we believe that it is the right of every citizen to have a fair trial. We believe that every citizen has the right to put forward his case before the courts of this land so that they are able to determine, in accordance with the laws, whether or not an accused is in fact guilty. As the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) said, justice is not yet dead, but if this Government had its way that would be the case. The person referred to by the honourable member for Leichhardt sought approval from the trial judge for aid under the sub-section proposed to be repealed by this Bill. Mr Justice Carter certified, in terms of the sub-section, that Mr Maher was without adequate means with which to defend himself and, further, that it was in the best interests of justice that he be defended. The judgment was sent to the Federal Attorney-General who, because he is an honourable man, rather surprisingly responded that he would not give aid to Mr Maher on the basis that he was not satisfied that there was no other source from which he could receive payment for his defence. Inquiries were then made of the Attorney-General as to the identity of the other sources suggested by him, but he could not give it. Approaches were made to the Federal Court. Detailed argument ensued with the Attorney-General being very well represented by eminent counsel. The Federal Court ordered that the decision of the Attorney-General refusing aid be quashed and that the matter be sent back to him to be dealt with according to law and Mr Maher was awarded costs. I certainly do not-and I am certain that members on both sides of the House do not-presume to comment on the actual substance of the charges against Mr Maher. That would be entirely inappropriate. But it is a fundamental right of every citizen to have access to our courts. Earlier one honourable member-I think it was the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), one of the most effective members of this chamber-said that the people of this country who have access to the courts are the very poor and the very rich; the middle class in this country, the ordinary average person, has great difficulty because of the cost of litigation. I mentioned earlier that there have been only eight applications under this sub-section in the last 13 years. Of course it is appropriate for people seeking aid normally to approach the legal aid authorities. The Opposition believes that that is the procedure to be followed in most cases. However, there are instances in which the ordinary legal aid system may not cater for some Australians. In the case of Mr Maher, he had had extreme difficulties in that his assets had been frozen and he did not have access to funds or aid. He was faced with having to conduct his own defence. He was pitted against some of the best legal brains in the country. Regardless of anything a man may or may not have done, it is only right that in this democratic country he should be able to obtain legal advice and be represented before the courts. Those honourable members opposite who call out in a very raucous way and claim that that particular defendant was not entitled to a defence should stand condemned. We on this side of the House will not under any circumstances countenance the approach of those honourable members opposite. I am pleased that the Attorney has not joined them in those noisy cries. He knows, and I understand that he fundamentally believes, that Australians are entitled to legal aid and to be legally represented. It is with a great deal of disappointment that I note his attitude in this case. It seems to be entirely out of character for a man who in the past has shown so much compassion and understanding and such a great degree of reason to succumb to Labor sensitivities, to bring this Bill into this House. It is important that we support the amendment to be moved by my colleague the honourable member for North Sydney, an excellent person who will be the Attorney-General of this country in a very short time-in fact a much shorter time than honourable members opposite realise. He has thoughtfully gone into the various issues confronting this House at this time. We in the Opposition would welcome any honourable members opposite who wished to walk across to join us to vote with us to ensure that there is fairness and equity in the legal aid system of Australia. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(9.35) —I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I say at the outset that I found it very interesting to be given such an historical background to the section of the Judiciary Act that we are debating. I recognise that in Australia the provision was enacted in 1903. But I was not aware of some of the factors which have been brought into the debate by my colleague the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland). As a matter of interest, I noted that in the famous case of Donogue v. Stevenson, which happens to be the snail in the bottle case, the lady was a pauper. The question is: How did she get her case before the House of Lords? Possibly it came about because of the attitude of the profession in those days, which the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) so eloquently expressed. The profession was able to do the work for nothing. Those days appear to have passed. I say in reply that I am unable to accept the proposed amendment because it states that I will continue my role of endeavouring to find legal aid, if that is what is deemed to be appropriate. Let me make the point that this legislation was introduced in 1903. It was certainly amended in 1950 by removing the word `indictable'. But apart from that it was always there on the basis that when people were facing trial, particularly before a jury, something could be done to give them assistance. I think that the honourable member for Denison spoke very well about the attitude of the profession as it has been in the past and as it still is. It does a lot of work for nothing or for reduced fees. Nevertheless, a lot of work is now being done for substantial fees. Therefore, one has the inevitable problem as to the amount of financial resources that are available. Let me assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have looked at some statistics that I have here. This year we are spending $72m on legal aid. In 1977-78 we spent $19m. So one can see the rapid escalation in the amount spent on legal aid. Of course, if we look at the report of the Legal Aid Task Force which the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) referred to, we will notice that legal aid is not provided for pleas of guilty or committal proceedings. There can be a capacity within the profession-I am sure it is done at times-whereby it can service people at a substantially reduced fee or for no fee. I am not here to argue that case, except to say that members of the profession have always done that. I admire them for it. They will continue to do it. We are dealing with the issue of whether the section is now appropriate, because there are alternative methods of providing legal aid. The honourable member for North Sydney did not really address his mind to the alternative mechanisms. In every sense there are State commissions which were set up, I might say, by a previous Liberal Attorney-General. I think it was Mr Ellicott. I do not propose to dismantle them. They are there to assess the merits of each applicant. They are composed of members of the private profession, which I would have thought the honourable gentleman would have been able to identify. They make the decisions. Further, an appeal against their decisions can be heard by an appropriate review committee, which again comprises members of the profession. Mr Spender —Not to courts. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Not to courts, no, but to the profession itself. The issue is that we are dealing with matters to which the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) addressed his mind when he referred to the judgment of the judge in that particular case. He said it was inappropriate for him to try to assess the situation. I make no comment as to that particular situation, execept to say that it became a matter of some notoriety that the person who was seeking legal aid was being driven to the court in a Rolls Royce. That seemed to be a little unusual. If we look at the factors that the appropriate legal aid committee in that State-it happened to be Queensland-was able to deal with, it spoke about the lifestyle of applicants. That is one of the criteria it used for assessment. I have no doubt that if that committee felt that the lifestyle was so flamboyant and that the person had what appeared to be substantial family support, it made that decision on a bona fide basis. Nevertheless, that decision was taken virtually by an appeal to the court. The judge said in the first instance: `I would not give legal aid in the case'. There was a further appeal to the judicial review. That review directed that there would need to be legal aid. Let us look at the question of the judge himself. He said: `The fact that I have so certified is not binding in any respect'. But as a result of deliberations it now appears that the Attorney-General has no discretion in the matter and, in fact, it could be binding. So we have this extraordinary situation because of this case. I was rather surprised to find that the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) was so concerned about this matter because the Party of which he is a member, which is in power in Queensland, was very concerned about the fact that legal aid had to be granted in this case. It felt it was outrageous. Right throughout Queensland members of that Party said that it made a laughing stock of the fact that legal aid-in other words, taxpayers' money-was directed to be given when the circumstances of the applicant appeared to be so affluent to all and sundry. So we have to look at public opinion in this situation. I invite the honourable member for Fisher to discuss the matter with his own Attorney-General in Queensland. In that case I asked whether the Queensland Legal Aid Commission could not assist this person. It said no, for reasons that it regarded as bona fide. I think we have to look at this matter and get it right into perspective. We are talking here about the profession being directly involved in being able to assess the situation of legal aid. In no case will it become a question of the bureaucracy of my Department making that decision. Mr Spender —Not your Department. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member made reference to the fact that perhaps I was taking too much notice of my Department. My Department was not involved in this matter. The commissions were set up under the previous Government. I think a bona fide set up is a fair approach. These commissions were not able to be as successful as we would have liked them to be for the reasons that I will mention now. If we are obliged to spend $72m this year and we look at the escalating figures we come to the point where a line has to be drawn as to how much more money will be given to enable us to make grants to every applicant. We do not have those financial resources. But $72m is a pretty fair amount considering the fact that the former Government gave $19m in 1978. The interesting thing is that only 14 applications have been made pursuant to this section of the Act since 1978 but 10 of those 14 applications have been made this year. Honourable members will notice the difference. There has been a sudden escalation. These people are saying: `We will go off to the court and we will seek an order from the judge on the basis that the Attorney-General will have to provide it'. Mr Spender —Had they previously applied for legal aid? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, they had; the honourable gentleman is entitled to ask that question. They had previously applied for legal aid and had been refused by the respective commissioners. I have no doubt that, in many cases, the commission felt that it could not give the sort of money that had been demanded. The interesting thing about a number of these applicants is that they also want to determine who their counsel and solicitors will be and they want to determine the rates which are well above what we would call normal rates. So we have an additional factor here. I can understand the private profession assessing the situation for example, in the Victorian case, where I will be giving legal aid by direction and where the cost will be almost $1m. The applicants in that case were seeking further legal aid on the basis that they wanted to be able to listen to 609 hours of recorded telephone conversations. The commission said to them: `You ought to listen to the 609 hours of conversation yourselves'. Of course, they said: `No. We want our learned counsel, both senior and junior and our solicitors to be there'. So these people have had to be provided to listen to 609 hours of their own conversations. Mr Hodgman —Are they getting party and party or solicitor-client costs now? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think they are getting solicitor-client costs. I make the point that, if I have a budgetary allocation of $72m on the basis of a reasonable assessment of the number of applications which the commissions are dealing with fairly and in a bona fide way, I cannot afford to be caught in the other issues where so many more people will come on and say: `Never mind. If the legal profession knocks you back through the commission we will go to the court and get an order'. The judge himself could say: `I do not have time to go through all the merits of this. I will suggest that it be done this way under the Act'. His Honour Mr Justice Carter said that it was not really a matter for him. He said that it was inappropriate for him to be trying to determine matters of legal aid; it was a matter for the Executive, and the Executive has given this back to the professions through the commissions. I assure honourable members that I value the work done by the commissions. The problem we have is in trying to get the States to continue to make their contribution. On that note let me explain what the honourable member for North Sydney was saying about what is happening in legal aid. The advisory council was given notice by my predecessor that it would expire, and of course it has expired in accordance with the notice. The advisory committee saw me, although not in relation to whether it would be retained. It accepted that there might need to be a better mechanism. I said that I thought we could do something about getting a better understanding of what we could do with our resources and guaranteeing that we got work done in accordance with what the profession wants. I would dearly like to see young members of the profession on panels in the courts and being able to perform. I think that is important. We are not here to alter the structure in any way; we are trying to get the best use of the financial resources we have. I said to the people concerned: `I still want you to be involved. We have to think of a better mechanism and you can advise me how best to achieve it'. I would dearly like to see the profession advising me on how panels can be created, whether in the courts of petty sessions or in the various other jurisdictions, so that impecunious applicants can be dealt with immediately. Perhaps we can get rid of some of the administrative costs involved in assessing forms because the profession has always been able to do that. I think it would not be beyond the wit of the responsible registrars or people in the courts to assess readily whether an applicant is needy or otherwise. In other words, we could get a very quick method, but it would require a lot of sacrifice by the profession. I know it is prepared to do that, but it cannot be done at the fees that are now being set as appropriate. That sort of rate cannot be kept up. I am not suggesting that the rate has to be dropped, but in cases where no legal aid has been given it would be appropriate to consider methods such as that. I want to reconstitute an advisory council to see how best we can do this together. That is the point. I have had the line drawn for me-$72m is about it; it cannot go to $80m or $90m. To divert for a minute, when $38m is going on family law cases, we can see that there is a lack of balance in priorities. When we consider that only 7 per cent of those family law cases are contested, we must ask ourselves how in the name of fortune we are spending so much legal aid money on so few cases in that jurisdiction. The most progressive aspect of this is that judges are looking at better methods of dispute resolution. It will be the most progressive method the judiciary and the legal system can achieve. In other words, there might be better methods for pre-trial conferences and for assembling evidence. It will be faster and less expensive if we can agree on procedures such as those. That reform can come from within, and I am sure it will. It will help the administration of justice. I want to thank all those honourable members who participated in this debate. I do not agree with some of the suggestions that have been made about the Government abandoning the concept of legal aid. We are not doing that. We are more involved with legal aid than ever; we are more financially committed than ever. We are offering the service to more people than ever, but decisions are made on an impartial basis by the profession itself, really. In other words, legal aid commissions are the appropriate bodies to deal with these matters, and appeal arrangements are already in place. I want to make the point too that, in some cases, legal aid is looked at with a lifestyle criterion in mind, and there is nothing wrong with that. In other words, just because a person appears not to have any money, if his lifestyle is such that he arrives in a Rolls Royce and lives in a mansion the commissions are entitled to think that the person is not impecunious. That is one of the criteria they are applying. I make the point also that in some cases we are having difficulty because aid has been refused by the Australian Legal Aid Office and the Aboriginal Legal Service. In those cases an assessment is made by ourselves and others and the applications are refused, yet we are still being asked to pick up the obligation because of this section. The figures I have mentioned do not include Commonwealth expenditure in connection with Aboriginal legal services and community legal services, so the total is well above the figure I have mentioned. In summary, we have had to bring up to date an old Act that is anachronistic and inappropriate. It was all right in 1903 when there were virtually no legal aid services available. At that time there was some suggestion of appropriation discretion being given to a judge. Things have improved rapidly since then, particularly in the 1970s and in the 1980s. We now have very worthwhile and effective legal aid commissions that can assess the merits of all applicants. In fact, I would be very surprised if anybody appearing in front of a jury were not represented because of difficulties with legal aid. I do not think any judge, as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) would say, would want a trial to go on if the accused was saying: `I cannot get any support'. That sort of thing really does not happen. Everybody can make an application to a legal aid commission if that is where he feels he ought to go. So what we are dealing with here are exceptional circumstances which appear to have come into fashion this year. Ten applications have been made this year pursuant to the Act because the applicants were all rejected under the normal procedure. In other words, it is virtually the intelligent thing for some people to say: `I can do better. I can still get my own lawyer at his price but get it paid for pursuant to an order made under section 69 (3)'. That was not the intention of the legislation. The intention of section 69 (3) was to provide a basis for legal representation when no other alternative was available. An alternative is available and is well used. I inform the honourable member for Fisher that the Queensland Legal Aid Commission makes the decisions in Queensland and I do not disagree with what it decides. The honourable member complained about a decision of his own Queensland Legal Aid Commission. He wants to remember that I do not make those decisions. I am very satisfied with what His Honour Mr Justice Carter said. The responsibility of the court is onerous enough without having to work out whether legal aid should be granted. In fact, by the court so doing, an accused may well be prejudiced. We should leave it to the profession and the Commission to act in this matter, and they are doing just that. Where a request is refused a person has the right of appeal. I think that the procedures are adequate enough. However, to have me then involved on the basis that it is deemed to be mandatory that I make a decision and that therefore I have no discretion is really counterproductive and contrary to the intention of setting up the commissions to assess the situation on merit. It is obvious that not everybody can get legal aid. It is clear that the taxpayer cannot afford to give everybody legal aid. Litigation is much more extensive than that would permit. So there has to be priority. Basically it is applied in cases where people who are very poor come before the courts. But I welcome the fact that the profession has always been prepared to co-operate and is very much involved. I intend to keep it that way. The only solution that I need now is how we can spread the $72m a little further than it might otherwise go. If I have to spend $1m a case under certain directions, that amount will not go very far. That is the reason why we have had to say: `Let us get some common sense into this situation. This is an Act which is outdated. The alternative is there'. While ever the alternative is there, and I am sure it will remain irrespective of what government is about, we have no intention of affecting the rights of citizens in any way. However, we have an obligation to guarantee that the taxpayers' money is effectively used. On that basis, the alternative suggested by way of an amendment cannot be accepted because it would leave me in the position of still having to make such other legal aid arrangements as I considered appropriate. It is not for me to use a discretion when in fact the discretion is being effectively, intelligently and equitably used by legal aid commissions on which the private profession is adequately represented. I would be very surprised if I did not hear about an application that was refused by a legal aid commission. However, I would be very surprised if I were prone to rescind a decision that was made by a commission to refuse an application, because the commissions are made up by very balanced people who would assess these matters in accordance with criteria. I have never had any complaint about the decisions of those commissions. In every case they deal with applications fairly and effectively. Members of the commissions do the work virtually on a voluntarily basis; I must say that. Mr Tuckey —It is called privatisation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member may call it what he likes. However, it is called justice. From my point of view, I think they are doing an admirable job. Certainly we have to talk about whether we can improve the situation and this is the other point that I mentioned earlier. I think that we can do better, but it would require greater sacrifice from the profession. It would also require reformation and innovation of the procedures of the court in order to reduce costs. It is very clear to me that what we are about here is just removing an old provision that is no longer appropriate, and the amendment foreshadowed by the honourable member for North Sydney would leave me in the situation of having to- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The Minister's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.57) —I move: Clause 3, page 1, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Indictments ``3. Section 69 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in sub-section (3) `or refer the matter to such legal aid authorities as he considers appropriate' after `the accused person'.''. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has already said that he does not agree to this amendment. I wish to explain it, although I have faint hopes of changing his mind, because I think that he has rather misunderstood it. If my amendment were accepted, it would be added to the end of the relevant part of section 69 (3) of the Act, which states: If it be found to the satisfaction of the Justice or Judge that such person is without adequate means to provide defence for himself, and that it is desirable in the interests of justice that such an appointment should be made, the Justice or Judge shall certify this to the Attorney-General, who may if he thinks fit thereupon cause arrangements to be made for the defence of the accused person . . . To this sentence would be added my amendment, which states: Or refer the matter to such legal aid authorities as he considers appropriate. That would overcome the kind of problem, one would think, that the Attorney-General was so concerned about. After all, it would give him a discretion to refer the matter to legal aid authorities. Some complaints have been made by some honourable members on the other side of the chamber about the fact that this provision goes back a very long time. So it does. So does trial by jury. So does habeas corpus and so do a lot of the rights on which we exist and for which we depend. Let us put to one side all this talk about Daniell's Chancery Practice. Let us put to one side the fact that some judges may not be terribly happy with having the onerous job of deciding whether or not these applications should be granted. Let us look at the facts which have been put so candidly by the Attorney-General and which have demonstrated the reason for this provision. In the first place, the Attorney-General referred to the Maher case. That is an example, one would think, of hard cases making bad law. It appears that there is some feeling of resentment in the Attorney-General's Department. I do not say that applies to the Attorney-General-I do not think that he is a man given very greatly to resentment-but certainly the Department feels that things were badly done. This may be the reason why we are discussing this Bill today and not for any other reason. It does not matter whether this case was right or wrong; the question is whether or not the discretion and the power should remain in the court. Where necessary and regardless of how infrequently it may be necessary to have recourse to the court, it should have the power to make orders in the interests of justice. The Attorney-General, in his disarming and frank manner, let the cat out of the bag. As he said, 10 applications have been refused this year. Those 10 applications are being heard. I do not know whether they have been successful. I presume that some of them may have been successful. But at all events these applications are pending or have been successfully heard or unsuccessfully dealt with under section 69 (3). The Attorney-General cited a particular case. I have read that case, along with other unreported decisions upon this provision. It is worth while understanding what it was all about. The Attorney cited the case where an accused person wanted to get his legal advisers to listen to tapes for 609 hours. One would think to oneself: `That is rather odd'. But these tapes were 609 hours of intercepted telephone conversations. Let me quote from the judgment of Mr Justice Ormiston: On 3rd June this year I ruled that the accused and their legal representatives should have access to material produced on subpoena duces tecum consisting of 609 hours of tape-recorded intercepted telephone conversations of the accused and alleged co-conspirators . . . We all know why the judge made that order. It is perfectly futile to say that the accused may listen to the tapes, but not his legal representatives. If his legal representatives are going to listen for 609 hours, one would expect them to be paid, would one not? It would be astonishing if they were not. Six hundred and nine hours out of a 50-hour or 60-hour week is a long time out of one's working life. I go on with the judgment. What happened? Mr Justice Ormiston referred to the conditions that had been imposed by the Legal Aid Commission, the first being that the Commission had determined an agreed reading fee. Apparently, it was not willing to increase it. The judge said: Council for each accused informed me that, because of the terms of the confirmed decision of 6th June, they had returned their briefs for the trial. They had accepted instructions, however, to pursue the application under s. 69 (3) . . . One can understand why one would return one's brief, even though it is a very major thing to do in a criminal trial. Who here would want to sit down and spend 609 hours of his time unpaid preparing for a trial? The judge considered the arguments and went on to say: There remains the question of whether it is desirable in the interests of justice that an appointment of counsel be made. I have no difficulty in reaching that conclusion. I accept that the condition is not satisfied merely because the accused wishes to contest a criminal trial, but, as I have already stated, the charge bears the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The material and the evidentiary issues are highly complicated, at least to my view at the present time. The Crown cannot be fairly asked to look after the accused's interests in this case. That is a fairly elementary proposition, is it not? The judge went on to say: I therefore propose to certify that I am satisfied that each of the accused is without adequate means to provide a defence for himself or herself, and that it is desirable in the interests of justice that counsel be appointed for his or her defence. Of course, I can say nothing as to the manner in which the Attorney-General will provide that assistance. If the Attorney-General is under the impression that somehow the courts direct what the assistance is and how much counsel are to be paid, he is quite wrong. In that event he has been mistakenly advised. The fees are not set by the courts. We know that applications have been made because legal aid has been refused. We know that in a murder case, where the accused were facing life imprisonment, the judge decided that the interests of justice required him to come to a different conclusion from that of the Legal Aid Commission. That establishes the reason why the discretion should remain. Regardless of how well intentioned judges are, regardless, indeed, of how expert they are and regardless of the time they may be able to give to these applications, they still remain the most experienced people in the business of administering justice. What the courts are about is administering justice to the consumers of justice, and the consumers of justice are those who appear, whether as defendants in criminal cases or as litigants in civil cases. Therefore, I ask of the Attorney-General, though not with high hopes of his accepting the proposition, that since his arguments are not well based, that since the case he referred to provides the most vivid illustration of the reason why the discretion should remain in the court, he reconsider and support the amendment, which would leave him pretty much in control of events, or at least as far in control of events as he needs to be, and would leave a supervisory power in the courts to be used in cases where it merits being used. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.07) —I support with pleasure the amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), and I again appeal to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to consider carefully what the honourable member for North Sydney said and, even at this stage, to review the Government's decision not to accept the amendment. What this amendment does is almost exactly what the Attorney-General was appealing for in his concluding remarks in the second reading debate. The Attorney-General then asked that the question of granting legal aid be dealt with by the legal aid commissions. He asked for the bodies who are entrusted with administering legal aid to have the right to determine those matters rather than to retain what the Attorney-General described, I suggest erroneously, as an anachronistic provision. The amendment facilitates exactly what the Attorney-General said. It means that when a learned judge refers the case to the Attorney-General he has two choices: He can either make the appropriate arrangements for the provision of counsel for the defence of that person, or refer it to such legal aid authority as he considers appropriate for that authority to make the decision. I submit that this debate has been outstanding because it has been non-partisan and non-political. I put it to the Attorney-General that what the honourable member for North Sydney proposes gives the Attorney-General the best of both worlds. It means that the Attorney-General, as the principal crown law officer of the Commonwealth, can either decide himself or refer the matter to the commission. The Attorney-General indicated, I think properly, that in his view these matters should be dealt with by the commission. If that is so, the Attorney-General exercises his discretion in each case by referring it to the commission. To take it at its highest, what does this mean? It means that a person can make an application to the commission and then be refused legal aid. It means that when he comes up for trial his counsel can make application under section 69 (3) of the Judiciary Act to the learned trial judge. The learned trial judge will then make a determination as to whether, I respectfully submit, there is a prima facie case for legal aid to be granted. He makes the order under section 69 (3) and it lands on the Attorney's desk. The Attorney then has the alternative either to make the arrangements which the learned trial judge has directed-and I quote verbatim `. . . that it is desirable in the interests of justice that counsel be appointed'-or, if the Attorney so desires, to hand the matter over to the commission. I appeal to the Attorney, as did the honourable member for North Sydney, to accept this amendment because it will give the Attorney the best of both worlds. He can either deal with it himself or send it to the commission. Contrary to the second reading speech and accepting, as I have, the Attorney's obvious sincerity and fairness in this matter, I now put it to the Committee that, if the Attorney rejects the amendment, unwittingly this Government will be breaching, indeed repudiating, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Australia is a party. Let me quote it verbatim before the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner), who has joined us in the dying hours of the debate, laughs. It says: Everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees- . . . to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it. What do we find? We find by an extraordinary coincidence of history that the founding fathers, who were working on the Judiciary Act 1903 at the same time as they were working on the Constitution, came up with the identical words in section 69 (3) as we find in Article 14.3 (d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I note the presence in the chamber of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). He and I will remember a case many years ago involving a man named Tait. That man was prejudged by the media because of the circumstances of a crime which were horrific. If one had put the question to everyone in the street at the time `Should this man be given legal aid?' the answer would have been negative. He was a man whom a government endeavoured to hang. I can remember seeing the now senior puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria, Mr Justice Starke, arguing before the High Court of Australia presided over by that great jurist, Sir Owen Dixon, 23 hours before Tait was to be executed. I remember with pride the role played by the Minister for Science and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). I also remember the role of others from all sides of politics who came out in relation to that matter. I suggest that we put the clock back to 1962, the year of the case of Robert Peter Tait. What would the Attorney-General do in that situation? What would he do if a judge said: `You, Tait, in my opinion will not have a fair trial unless counsel is assigned to you.'? On what the Attorney-General has said tonight, he would say: `I am sorry, I wash my hands of this matter; it goes to the commission'. I submit that that is an abrogation and an abdication of his function as the principal Crown Law Officer of the Commonwealth which he, in his heart, does not intend. In the minute remaining to me I plead with the Attorney because I believe the honourable member for North Sydney has put forward an unanswerable case. Rather than vote against our amendment tonight, the Attorney should defer this matter and take advice. That would not add to the cost for the simple reason that if the amendment is defeated and what he has said is to be the order of the day, there will be a commission making the decision. I do not accept that commissions, including those comprising members of my own profession, are infallible. I must say-and I think the honourable member for North Sydney adverted to this-I do not think there is any right of appeal in my State of Tasmania. I must put it to the Attorney-General, because I was surprised to hear him say that there was a right of appeal. I am not aware of it. There is certainly no judicial appeal. Mr Lionel Bowen —Not to the courts, but to the profession. Mr HODGMAN —Please, you are a fundamental lawyer. What you are doing here is substituting an administrative or quasi-administrative decision-making process for a judicial one. Mr Lionel Bowen —What is your amendment doing? Mr HODGMAN —The amendment gives you the option of both. Mr Lionel Bowen —No it does not. Mr HODGMAN —With respect, the Attorney-General does not seem to understand what the amendment says. The amendment says that the learned judge should refer the matter to the Attorney-General for him to arrange legal aid and, as the honourable member for North Sydney has moved, the Attorney-General then has the option-the Attorney-General not the judge-to refer the matter to such legal aid authority as he considers appropriate. I know that I am not the most eloquent or intelligent member of this chamber, but I would have thought that the Attorney would have seized this as a very fair and commendable amendment. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Lionel Bowen-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I have nearly finished. I appeal to the Attorney-General. The honourable member for North Sydney spelt out the position eloquently and, I believe, persuasively. I appeal to the Attorney to take the time to check what he said. The amendment gives an alternative under the present section 69 (3) so that the Attorney may arrange these matters. He is not happy about that because he has said that this section over the last 12 months has been used 10 times. He said that it is not right for an Attorney-General, or a judge for that matter, to make such an order. He said that it should be done by the legal aid authority namely, the Legal Aid Commission. That is exactly what the amendment of the honourable member for North Sydney gives him the right to do. Rather than scrapping section 69 (3) from the Judiciary Act, which is the second most important legal enactment of the Commonwealth of Australia, I appeal to the Attorney to accept the amendment. It will not cost him any more because I guarantee the odds are that those matters which the Attorney passes to the Commission, having come via the judicial process, are likely to be approved for legal aid in any event. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.17) —The amendment is not agreed to for the reasons that have been mentioned. There is an alternative and that happens to be the legal aid commissions in addition to what already exists under the old Act of 1903 when they did not exist. There was a provision under which the Attorney-General, if he thought fit, could make arrangements. All of those matters have been arranged in terms of the legal aid commissions. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) moved an amendment which gets me back to the position that I might refer the matter to such legal aid authorities as I consider appropriate, and these would be the commissions. It is usually the case that the matters have already been referred to them. The judges say: `We cannot be making detailed examination of the facts because a judgment has to be made on whether or not people have the means'. It is no good the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) shaking his head. It is not a question of whether people need legal aid. It is agreed that they need legal aid. The question is: Have they the means to provide their own legal representation? We are talking about these cases on that basis. The Family Court of Australia can do it, as can all courts. I do not know of any accused who has gone without legal aid. The profession is always able to provide assistance except in areas which the task force identified. This has been withdrawn in pleas of guilty and in committal cases. The point at issue and the one which the honourable member for North Sydney was anxious to talk about was a case which I do not want to name. However, it was made very clear that the Victorian Legal Aid Commission decided that it was not going to extend its legal aid to defend the accused. It objected to the fact that it was necessary to listen to 609 hours of tapes. That was the decision and that is where there was some argument. The cost of that was $500,000. I can understand the Commission making a decision that it wanted people to listen to the tapes and make the appropriate notes. In other words, it was merely going over a known factor of what was said by whom to whom. It was just a question of fact and I think that that was a valid assessment. Instead of having to spend half a million dollars for legal fees, it could get it done by another method. That is the basis of that argument. The other matter became a laughing stock. When the Queensland Legal Aid Commission refused an applicant, it did so on the basis that the applicant was well known and appeared to have access to substantial resources. That is a fact. It is not much good the honourable gentleman and me arguing that issue. Mr Spender —Like preparing a case. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney has had his go and it is now the Attorney-General's turn. Mr Spender —It is just a friendly back and forth chat. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I appreciate your assistance, Madam Chairman, because what we are trying to do here is look at the specific cases. Where have the legal aid commissions been in error? I do not think they have been. They have judged the issues on the merits as they see them, and the members of those commissions are from the private legal profession. Why should I say now that I will send this matter back? That is about the best I could do under the amendment; refer it back. I could do that now or at any time. In fact the accused, or those who were seeking aid, would do it many times. There is an appeal system in the profession; it is not a judicial appeal; I accept that. The honourable member gets worried about the fact that when I say `appeal' I must mean a judicial one, but I do not. I mean the fact that the commissions have their own methods of appeal for reviewing their own decisions. What are we arguing about here? We are not arguing about the fact that anybody has been denied legal representation; we are arguing about the fact of the monetary equivalent that might be given to an applicant. That is the position. In some cases the applicant-- Mr Spender —We are not arguing about principles; we are arguing about cash. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are arguing about principles, because we say we do not want to see anybody without legal representation. The principle has always existed that if a person has adequate resources he or she does not get legal aid. That is the position. The honourable gentleman opposite says that means that once the applicant asks for legal aid the commission must accept the applicant's view and give him or her legal aid. Mr Spender —I have never said that, and you know it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, but we get to that position because there has to be a group which will judge the situation. That is the point. The honourable member's amendment merely says that this matter should be referred back to that group. I do not know what for. The group has already dealt with it. What other appropriate legal authority would be there? Mr Spender —They have been found in error. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If there is an error, I am sure that it will be identified by the person making the application. Certainly I would think that when a person comes before a court and is standing there unrepresented it is normal for the judge to make further inquiries. I do not know of any court that is prevented from doing that. A judge would not look at an accused and say: `I do not have to worry whether he is represented or not. I will just assume that he does not want any representation'. The accused themselves are always the first to speak up as to their position. Cases are adjourned on the basis that the accused might get legal aid. Let me make it clear that legal aid is a very effective business at present which is using up $72m. It is not a small business or an ad hoc charity handout arrangement. The legal profession has established a clear-cut set of guidelines as to what is a reasonable fee in the appropriate States. In some cases applicants have said: `We do not want the legal aid offered to us; we want to engage our own counsel and solicitors at a higher fee'. That is the other factor. So it is not appropriate for me to say to the honourable gentlemen opposite that there is nothing wrong with his amendment. All it would do is send the matter back to where it came from. The fact that he has moved the amendment seems to recognise that there is some defect in the present situation, which there is. In other words, the alternative mechanism is there and it can be and is being used effectively. If the Opposition wants a review of legal aid decisions because it is not satisfied with them, it would not be doing it this way. It would be doing it in some other way; perhaps on the basis that the legal aid commissions will be the subject of review, as they are. The point is that the decisions are reviewed. I make the point that it has become a fashion this year to suggest that if legal aid commissions have not given the right decision people can go to court on an application under section 69 (3) and ask the Attorney-General to do better. That is the point. The honourable member for North Sydney says: `The best thing the Attorney-General can do under the amendment is to refer it to an appropriate legal aid authority'. That is all this amendment would do. It gets me no further. It does not solve the problem. He and I both agree that the appropriate authority is the legal aid commission. We might disagree as to its decisions, but I am convinced that the decisions the commission makes are bona fide decisions. It makes decisions on a judgment of the circumstances of the case or what it calls the lifestyle. On that basis there is no merit in accepting an amendment which merely puts me in the position of doing something that has already been done. In every case there has been a question before the legal aid commissions, and in every case those commissions have made a decision. In some cases there have been appeals from those decisions. It is as simple as that. The honourable gentleman's amendment would mean that I should refer it back to the commission. I do not see any merit in it. I can understand the concern that people might not be represented but I am not aware that that has ever happened. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.27) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I will take but one minute- Mr Mountford —Sit down, you clown. Mr HODGMAN —I am very surprised that honourable members opposite, some of whom I know are acquainted with a recent case which I believe to have been a travesty, are treating with levity the right of an honourable member on a third reading to appeal to the Government to look again at a Bill before it is passed into law. Mr Mountford —Sit down, you have had three goes. Mr HODGMAN —I might have 23 goes if it is in the interests of the people of Australia. The attitude of honourable members opposite shows that they just do not appreciate what this matter is about. I think that is very unfortunate. I say to the honourable members from Moscow corner that Mr Norm Gallagher will find more comfort in my remarks than in their attitudes displayed in this House tonight. Each citizen of this country is entitled to precisely what the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) pleaded for. It is a tragedy that the Government has not accepted the amendment. The Government still has time to think again and accept the honourable member's proposal before it is too late and the citizens of this country lose a fundamental basic right which is their birthright. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Mr Speaker has received the following message from the Senate: The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following Resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day: That paragraph (1) of the Resolution agreed to by the Senate and the House of Representatives on 28 February 1985 and 27 February 1985, respectively, relating to the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, be amended to read as follows- ``(1) That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon- (a) all aspects of the conduct of elections for the Parliament of the Commonwealth and matters related thereto, including: (i) legislation governing, and the operation of, the Australian Electoral Commission, (ii) the provision of `free' radio time for political messages during election periods, (iii) the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 concerning the defamation of candidates for election, (iv) tax deductibility of political donations, and (v) the establishment of fixed formulae for determining the number of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives to which the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and other territories are entitled; and (b) such other matters relating to Australian electoral laws and practices as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament.''. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in this Resolution. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) agreed to: That the message be taken into consideration at the next sitting. Message received from the Senate agreeing to the amendment made by the House of Representatives at the request of the Senate to the Interstate Road Transport Charge Bill 1985. Debate resumed from 11 September, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.32) —The stated purpose of the Customs Tariff (Stand-by Duty) Bill 1985 is to impose a 3c per litre-that is about $5 per barrel-special customs duty on imports of light crude oils and petroleum products by local oil refiners who do not pick up their allocation of Australian crude oil. No duty wil be payable on imports that are used to meet the demand for heavy oil products such a bitumen. For Bass Strait oil, action to impose the duty will commence when a refiner has had a shortfall in liftings for each of three consecutive months occurring after June 1985. In relation to smaller oil producing areas, action will commence after a shortfall has occurred in each of six consecutive months occurring after March 1985. This Bill is an attempt by the Government to further increase its control over oil production in Australia. Mr Slipper —Shame! Mr BRAITHWAITE —Absolutely. In effect, the Bill allows the Government to dictate the source and the amount of crude oil refiners must use and to penalise those who step out of line. This Bill therefore gives the Government the power to maintain its revenue from the crude oil levy. The coalition is opposed to increased regulation of the oil industry and will vote against the Bill. Oil industry representatives are also opposed to the proposal. They are well aware that any short-sighted motivation could well lead to further government control and taxes which would absolutely destroy this industry. The Government's legislation and proposals for legislation in the oil industry are aimed at control and extra revenue for the Government. These are the primary motivations of this Hawke Labor Government. The Government initially introduced similar legislation in May 1984. However, following overwhelming industry opposition to the measures proposed, the Bill was left to lapse. While the Government has apparently made some concession to meet the criticisms of industry, the general and vital principle of the legislation remains unchanged. The legislation is contrary to the spirit of the voluntary allocation arrangements and to other measures to deregulate the crude oil market. Longer term exports were permitted in the 1985-86 Budget. The proposal is also inequitable in that there are no other controls over imports. The duty would not apply to independent retailers. The Opposition believes that there should be a move towards further deregulation of the oil industry to allow the operation of free market forces which would permit crude oil production and prices to reflect true world market conditions. Australian fuel users have seen increases in the price of fuel this year at a time of world oil surpluses. Analysis of fuel prices shows that 60 per cent of those prices, or about 32c per litre of fuel, goes back to the Federal Government. The economy has a fragile dependency on oil taxes, as shown by the Budget figures for recent years set out in a table which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. I have shown it to the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). Leave granted. The table read as follows- COMPARISON OF OIL RECEIPTS 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $m $m $m $m Crude Oil Levy... 3,486 3,651 4,202 4,368 Petroleum Excise... 1,293 1,973 2,207 2,343 Royalties... 68 85 97 187 4,847 5,709 6,506 6,898 Total Revenue... 44,509 48,610 56,993 64,149 % of Revenue... 10.9% 11.8% 11.4% 10.8% Mr BRAITHWAITE —I thank the House. This schedule shows the reliance of the Federal Government on levies, excises and royalties on fuel to the extent of 10.9 per cent of revenue in 1982-83, 11.8 per cent in 1983-84 and 11.4 per cent in 1984-85. The figure for the coming year is contemplated to be 10.8 per cent. In that four-year period the revenue to government has increased from $4.8 billion to nearly $6.9 billion. It makes up a large part of Federal revenue, and that is being reflected in prices. Refiners have had an incentive not to pick up locally produced oil during the world oil market downturn in 1984 and following the depreciation of the Australian dollar during 1985. Both of those occurrences led to lower priced crude oil import alternatives. In regard to the devaluation and the increase in the price into Australia, I draw the attention of the House to the devaluation of the Australian dollar against world currencies since 31 December 1984. The currency that we usually use for comparison purposes is the United States dollar, and against that the Australian dollar has experienced a 19 per cent devaluation in that 10-month period. Against the Japanese yen it has depreciated by 32.8 per cent, against the pound sterling by 34.6 per cent, against the German mark by 33.1 per cent and, most surprisingly of all, against the New Zealand dollar by 32.9 per cent. So it is not only in cricket that we are doing badly against New Zealand; we are doing badly with our dollar as well. When we look at that comparison we must realise that this currency devaluation impacts on costs to the Australian community. I have mentioned fuel as one of those costs to industry but we have also the cost of the greater interest being paid to shore up the flagging dollar, as well as the increased cost of imports. All of these things are costs to the Australian community. The Government now seeks to impose restrictions on refiners obtaining cheaper crude oil from overseas as a result of deficiencies in its own economic policies. The Government is concerned to gain as much revenue from crude oil as it can before it runs out. After all, it is a finite resource. What happens when the taxation exploitation of this product puts the Australian industry out of production altogether? The Government is not concerned with Australian consumers possibly benefiting from cheaper oil supplies but rather with grabbing as much revenue as possible for its own benefit. This is despite the fact that Government revenue has increased substantially following the unanticipated increase in production and the depreciation induced price increases. This increased revenue for 1985 over the Budget estimates by $507m in the crude oil levy and $56m in excises. In other words, the Government has profited from devaluation at a cost to the consumer. As I have mentioned before, all of this has resulted in more expensive fuel at the bowser. In fact the Government will have had windfall gains in the order of some $800m by the end of the financial year resulting solely from a discredited currency. Still this greedy Government is not satisfied and now it seeks to introduce further controls in an attempt to maintain and increase its revenue from petroleum. It is conceivable that the Government could stand to raise about $25m per month through this draconian proposal in the unlikely event that all six refiners remain in a shortfall situation for an extended period. As I have already mentioned, Government taxes and charges already account for more than 60 per cent of the price of fuel to Australians. The Government should be moving to decrease its dependence on fuel for revenue, not attempting to bolster it. At a time of severely depressed returns, Australia's primary producers are being further hampered by high input costs. Government taxes and charges can significantly affect these costs. This Government should be moving to ease this burden, not casting about for ways to add to it. Australian fuel users should be allowed to benefit from cheaper world oil prices. This Bill seeks to prevent that. The Bill is contrary to the general deregulatory stance of the coalition and the coalition's commitment to introduce a free oil market. The coalition will reverse the trend to greater government ownership and control at the expense of private enterprise, initiative and reward. The Opposition has no option but to oppose this measure. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(10.40) —The Customs Tariff (Stand-By Duty) Bill 1985 forms part of the Government's policy on domestic crude oil marketing arrangements. It is a policy which was announced by a former Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, on 9 October 1984. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the imposition of a special Customs duty of 3c a litre on the importation of certain petroleum oils, only in the circumstances of that proving necessary in the event of a shortfall or underlifting of indigenous crude oils by local refiners. As has been noted, I think in the explanatory memorandum, the commencement date of this Bill will be the day on which it receives the royal assent. The Bill enables refiners' performance prior to the commencement date of the Bill, but after June 1985 in respect of Bass Strait oil and after March 1985 in respect of minor oil, to be taken into account in determining whether the provisions for the imposition of the special duty need to be invoked. The provisions of the Bill however do not enable the imposition of any duty in less than two months after the date of royal assent. Before touching on some of the points made by the Opposition, I emphasise that before the imposition of any duty under this legislation a series of steps would have to be taken. As I said, those steps are outlined in the explanatory memorandum. Very briefly, a number of steps would have to be followed. They provide that a refiner would have had to have had, during each of the three consecutive annual months that occurred after June 1985, a shortfall of Bass Strait oil or an underlift of minor oil from a particular oil source during a period of six consecutive annual months that occurred after March 1985. The Minister for Resources and Energy also has to be satisfied that the shortfall of Bass Strait oil or the underlift of minor oil from a particular oil source was principally within the control of the refiner. The Bill further provides that, if the refiner does not respond within the calendar month or the information supplied does not satisfy the Minister, the Minister is required to take a number of steps. Firstly, the Minister is required to notify the refiner that he or she is satisfied that the shortfall or underlift was within the control of the refiner and, secondly, unless precluded by a further provision of the legislation, that he or she proposes to issue a certificate to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce stating that it is appropriate that duty be payable. The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who spoke before me in this debate, when indicating that he did not support the legislation, made some comments about the prices of petroleum products in Australia, particularly their impact on certain sectors of the community-those sectors such as our primary industries which are price and cost sensitive. He suggested that obviously the larger part of the price of petroleum in Australia was in effect the result of government taxes and charges and that a responsible government ought to be reducing those taxes and charges in order to reduce burdens on certain industries. I think it is appropriate to say in the context of those remarks that indeed in industries in which cost pressures are placed on producers as a result of the prices of petroleum products the Government in fact has taken steps to reduce the impact of those prices on such producers. In fact, only two months ago, in the August Budget, the Government announced the excising and rebating of off-road diesel for primary producers, which in effect reduces the price of diesel to primary producers by approximately 2c a litre. That was a decision taken in a budgetary context and in the context of duties, taxes and charges by this Government at an annual Budget cost of about $35m. That is something we did to reduce the cost impact on primary producers in terms of their petroleum product usage. The general assertion made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dawson, that Australians are paying far too much for their petrol and diesel and that they are not getting the benefit of reduced prices in the international market is something I would not accept or support. The fact is that on an international basis petrol prices in Australia are amongst the lowest of any of our trading partners or any of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Indeed if we look at the prices paid even very recently by the 20 or so nations with whom we trade we will find that Australia ranked amongst the lowest two or three in terms of petrol pricing per litre. I know it is something there is concern about, particularly in the country areas of Australia. I repeat that we do have a policy of import parity pricing. It is a policy that was introduced by the previous Government and it is a policy which is soundly based. It is necessary for all sorts of reasons, not the least being that if we do not price our petrol and our petroleum products at an international price, if we price them lower, there will be greater incentives for local production to be exported to get the international price. Also there will be increased consumption of locally derived petroleum products because of the lower price, which would more quickly deplete the available stocks. Of course petroleum is a precious resource and, I suppose, one of the key elements of import parity pricing is that we do conserve this very vital resource. Even at present pricing levels and the returns that are provided to producers discovering new oil in Australia, there is every likelihood that by the year 2000 we will be considerably less self-sufficient in oil and petroleum products than we currently are. Even with the increases in the price of petrol in the last year or so, it is a fact that consumption has continued to increase in real terms. It is interesting to note that last year the sales of V8 motor cars of over 4.2 litres increased, if my memory serves me correctly, by about 12 1/2 per cent. So while the high price of petrol may be hurting some people on low incomes, on a general measure of its price-demand and so on throughout the community it is not at such a price as to be prohibitive; in fact all the indications are that it is still very competitively priced and consumption continues to rise. The simple fact is that if we want local exploration to continue we need to establish a price that gives a reasonable return on that exploration. The last point I want to touch on, since it was raised by the previous speaker, is the overall question of whether import parity pricing does reflect accurately the true level of world prices. A number of points can be made about that. IPP is a system which is based on a formula that values indigenous crudes, as I said previously, at the cost of replacing them with imports. It is an appropriate basis of policy for Australia because Australia does not produce enough oil to meet our needs, and probably never will. As I said, the likely outcome is that we will become less self-sufficient over time in terms of oil production. The price of crude oil is a critical determinant of the way in which resources are used within the economy. It is therefore desirable that the price of Australian crude oil should reflect its true value. Import parity pricing helps ensure that consumers are encouraged to adopt the most economic pattern of energy use through conservation measures and, of course, in substitution away from oil. As I indicated before, IPP encourages investment in exploration and development for oil and substitute fuels. The current IPP formula uses Arab light to reflect world prices. This crude is taken as the marker crude because it is the pivot of the Organisation for Petroleum Exporting Countries price structure. It is traded widely and in large volumes and it would have been a major import into Australia if local crudes had not been found. Recently the Government amended the formula to include spot price elements, which it has to be said now more accurately reflect world prices. The formula also takes account of the costs of importing the crude into Australia: The formula also includes a component to account for the different values of different crudes. That element is currently under review by a joint government-industry committee to make sure that it accurately reflects these differences. Finally, on that point, it needs to be said that as all world oil business is done in United States dollars the formula has to be converted to Australian dollars and the Reserve Bank of Australia exchange rate is used. The financial impact of the measure is such that refiners who purchase the quantities or percentages allocated to them will not be required to pay any additional penalty customs duty. However, if a refiner does not purchase the amounts allocated the penalty duty may be imposed. In the event that a medium sized refiner is required to pay the duty, it is expected that approximately $4m would be paid to the Government each month. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.52) —The Customs Tariff (Stand-By Duty) Bill, a seemingly minor Bill which is before the House tonight, is another example of the burden that the Federal Labor Government is placing on small business and rural people, the wealth creators of our community, and I join with the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) in expressing my opposition to the Bill. As other members of the House have already pointed out, the purpose of the Bill is to impose a 3c a litre or $5 a barrel customs duty on crude oil imports by local refiners who do not pick up the full allocation of Australian crude. A similar proposal was introduced in 1984 and was very strongly rejected at that time by the oil industry. This new proposal which has come before the House is very similar, with extremely minor amendments on the basis of discussions with the oil industry. The Opposition opposes the Bill for a large number of reasons but, in particular, the Bill will impose higher fuel prices yet again on the Australian community. It is another example of a greater degree of trade protection provided for a particular part of Australian industry. I think that all honourable members would realise by now-if they do not realise this they must be fairly unaware of feeling in the community-that Australians are sick and tired of these things. It is a seemingly minor piece of legislation and this is a debate which has been conducted with relatively little passion, but it does reveal a fundamental approach of the Australian Labor Party towards the oil industry. Despite the rhetoric which sometimes comes from the other side of the House, the Labor Party, as far as the oil industry is concerned, is clearly committed to regulation, controls, higher prices and higher taxation. That is not surprising coming from a political party which is committed to the nationalisation of the oil industry through a hydrocarbons corporation. That commitment is in its policy and has often been spoken of by the Minister responsible for this portfolio. It is not surprising coming from a party which is committed to a resources rent tax, and it is not surprising coming from a party which is also committed, unfortunately now successfully thanks to the perfidy of the Australian Democrats, to the cash bonus bidding proposals. All of these measures push up taxes, costs and prices. The losers from these measures ultimately are ordinary individual Australian people who are trying to make a living and who have to buy fuel for the various functions that they conduct. Until this legislation was introduced into the House, there was a voluntary agreement between the six oil refiners and the Federal Government on the proportion of locally produced oil to be used by the refiners. All the oil companies have agreed that that voluntary agreement has worked well, at least in the medium term. Sometimes there have been cases of what is described in the industry as under lifting, of the refiners not meeting their full requirements of use of locally produced oil. But the fact is that over the longer term they have been able to compensate for those shortfalls in the use of locally produced oil and I understand that everybody has been reasonably satisfied with the way the system has worked until now; there is no question about that. As a result of this legislation, the nature of that voluntary agreement is quite obviously fundamentally changed. That is extremely regrettable. This Labor Government claims to be a government that operates on the principle of consensus. But it is only reasonable that I draw the attention of the House to the simple fact that the change involved in this legislation was not made with the agreement of the oil industry. It was not made with the agreement of anybody in that industry. In other words, it was not a consensus decision, just as the decision to impose on the community a capital gains tax was not a consensus decision. Indeed, I point out that the oil industry was not even consulted about this piece of legislation. The Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, which is the principal body responsible for the industry, was not consulted on the drafting of this latest piece of legislation. Coming back to the principle of consensus, it is a little odd that a government which argues consensus has not even bothered to consult the industry. The Bill has been opposed by all six of the Australian domestic refiners. The Bill has been opposed by the oil producers themselves. We need to ask why they have expressed such opposition, albeit not terribly public opposition, to this Bill. There are three reasons why that opposition has been expressed. The first is a philosophical reason-that all those involved in the oil industry favour a much greater degree of deregulation in the industry. This Bill is seen as a retrograde step, as a step which is in a sense against the best interests of the industry. To make a concession to the Government, the industry and, indeed, the Opposition have welcomed the move to allow the industry long term export contracts. That was a very positive measure and it was an example of the Government's taking a couple of steps down the road to Damascus, but suddenly veering off into the bushes, with this particular regulatory imposition on the community. It is certainly my view and the view of the Opposition that the oil producers should be able to sell the oil that they produce at the best possible price and under the best possible arrangements, whether the market be at home or abroad. What the Government is doing in this legislation is compelling the producers to sell a certain quantity of the oil they produce at home regardless of whether they can get a better price abroad and regardless of whether they can do a better deal abroad. I find it quite extraordinary that a government would impose that sort of regulation on the industry when what we should be trying to do is to encourage oil exploration, not discourage it, to encourage the producers to be able to get the best deal they can, not discourage them with the sort of anachronistic legislation and anachronistic regulation of which this Bill consists. The second reason why the industry and the Opposition oppose this piece of legislation is that it is completely inconsistent. While it applies to the six oil refiners in Australia, it does not apply to the independent retailers. They can import as much oil as they like with impunity. Of course, under this legislation that does not apply to the local refiners. They end up paying this anachronistic duty on the oil that they import should they import more than a certain quantity. The truth of this piece of legislation-and this is the third reason why I oppose it-is that in effect it is little more than a tax measure. It is little more than a revenue raising measure designed to boost government revenue through the crude oil levy, that levy which applies to locally produced crude. This is just another example, the second example in the last two days, of the Government using the oil industry as the milk cow for the Government's coffers. The same thing was done through the cash bonus bidding scheme, which again is just another piece of legislation introduced to raise revenue for the Commonwealth Government. This piece of legislation, which is less severe than the cash bonus bidding scheme, will raise $4m for each month that one of the medium sized refiners remains below quota. So there is clearly a very major potential for the Government to raise revenue in the event of a particular refiner falling below quota, for whatever reason that may be. There are a large number of reasons why refiners do fall below quota. Of course, what is ultimately important about legislation is not the effect that it has on refiners or producers; what is ultimately important is the effect that legislation has on ordinary individuals in the community, and the fact is that in the longer term this legislation has the potential to be just another price impost on Australians who consume fuel and that, of course, is just about every single Australian. I speak from the heart when I say that because, as a member who represents a rural electorate, it is the rural users of fuel who pay a disproportionate price compared with metropolitan users. Already the wholesale price of petrol in South Australia, which is admittedly incumbered by the policies of the Bannon Labor Government, is almost 53 1/2c a litre. The Federal Government takes 31.18c a litre. In South Australia the State Government takes 2.51c, the producers get 7.87c and the refiners get 12c. So a little over 31c goes to the Federal Government and the producers get 7.8c. That is what companies such as Santos, that have invested so much in the South Australian economy, so much in the Australian economy, get out of every litre of fuel that is sold in my State. Since March 1983 when the Fraser Government was evicted from office there has been a 56.5 per cent increase in excise on fuel. That amounts to about 10c a litre for super grade petrol, or 45c a gallon, for those who have yet to catch up with the change to litres. In addition to these increases in excise, there has been a reduction in the fuel freight subsidy, and that affects one particular part of my electorate, that part which was very ably represented by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) before me, and that is Kangaroo Island. The people of Kangaroo Island suffer a distinct disadvantage in terms of their cost structure because they live on an island. They did at one stage benefit from the fuel freight subsidy. But as a result of the Government's changes, a further impost in fuel prices has been placed on them. The Government also at one stage took away the full diesel fuel rebate. That has been restored as a result of strong opposition from the Federal Opposition and strong complaints from the rural community. But it has been restored without any compensation for the period during which that diesel fuel rebate did not cover the full value of the excise. On top of that, the import parity price system has obviously led to a very substantial increase in the price of oil as a result of the collapse of the Australian dollar, a collapse for which the Labor Government holds total responsibility. Now, on top of these things, a further impost has been added to the fuel bills of the consumers of Australia. I do not need to remind honourable members that it is the rural communities above all which will be most disadvantaged by this legislation and by the whole ambit of legislation which is forcing up the price of fuel in this country. I believe that the House would do the Australian community justice by rejecting this Bill and taking additional measures to deregulate the oil industry in Australia and free up the oil market as much as it possibly can. That is the way, in the longer term, we will keep fuel costs to their bare minimum in this country. It is the way we will be able to help small business and it is the way we will be able to help primary producers during very difficult circumstances. The Labor Party's alternative, which is spelt out so clearly in this piece of legislation, brings with it high prices for fuel and, in this instance, a rather curious increase in the level of trade protection-an increase in tariffs on fuel imports. The Labour Party alternative also includes a commitment in its policy to nationalise the oil industry. It is well known throughout the industry that the Federal Department of Resources and Energy is already considering the various functions that could be handed over to a hydrocarbon corporation. These are the things to which the Labor Party is committed. Although this piece of legislation is regarded by so many people as a minor piece of legislation, it is symbolic of the commitment of this Government to the regulation of the oil industry, the pressure it has been placing on oil and fuel prices throughout the community, and the clear effect that that is having on the competitiveness of the Australian economy and the livelihoods of so many of our small business and rural wealth creators. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(11.07) —In the Australian Labor Party's policy platform are words stating that that Party supports the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. As was pointed out so eloquently by my colleague and friend the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), who has just spoken, the Customs Tariff (Stand-By Duty) Bill does nothing to promote the deregulation of the fuel industry. What the people of Australia demand are lower fuel prices. We all remember that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in 1983 claimed that the price of fuel would be reduced by 3c a litre. He was prepared to promise anything to crawl into office. His policy speech was ignored in this respect immediately upon the Government's election. This Government originally introduced similar legislation in the 1984 autumn sitting. That Bill was to impose, under certain circumstances, a special stand-by duty on imports of certain light oils. For various reasons, that legislation was allowed to lapse and the Bill before the House tonight is supposedly a result of the Government's reconsideration of the crude oil marketing review. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) has claimed that this Bill reflects the Government's determination that crude oil produced in Australia will, where possible, be refined in Australia. My colleague the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) has pointed out in very clear and unequivocal terms that this Bill is an attempt by the Government to increase further its control over oil production in Australia. It will allow the Government to dictate the source and the amount of crude oil refiners must use. This Bill will impose a special duty of 3c per litre, or approximately $5 per barrel, on imports of light crude oils and petroleum products by local oil refineries which do not pick up their allocation of Australian crude oil. In other words, there will be more government control over the fuel industry. The Bill will give the Government the power to maintain its revenue from the crude oil levy. It is the position of the National Party of Australia and of so many people who reside in my electorate of Fisher that it is totally wrong for a government to balance its budget by the use of a fuel tax. Governments, like others, must live within their means. It is totally unacceptable that the Government is prepared to slug the people of Australia an ever-increasing amount of money for the purpose of trying to offset the over-spending we have seen this Government since it was elected on that fateful day in March 1983. As I stated previously, the National Party and, indeed, our coalition partners, the Liberal Party of Australia, are totally opposed to increased regulation of the oil industry. The National Party will vote against this Bill and makes no apology to the Government and no apology to the Parliament for doing so. We are prepared to say to the people of Australia, the citizens of this country, that we will not tolerate the continuing actions of this Government to charge ever increasing prices for fuel. Our dollar has collapsed under the policies of this Government. Mr Braithwaite —A disaster. Mr SLIPPER —As the honourable member for Dawson has quite correctly pointed out, it is a disaster. But it is more than a disaster. It is a reflection of the international community's decision on the economic performance of the socialist Government presently operating in this capital of Canberra. It is in fact a recognition that we as a country have not performed well under Labor. It is a total international condemnation of the policies of this Government. Mr Conquest —Quite correct. Mr SLIPPER —Quite correct, as the honourable member for Hinkler has said in his usual perceptive manner. I know that the people in his electorate are very appreciative of his very many excellent contributions to this House. However, as the honourable member for Dawson has stated, the legislation is contrary to the spirit of the voluntary association arrangements and contrary to other measures to deregulate the crude oil market. As we know, longer term imports were permitted in the 1985-86 Budget brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). We in the National Party and the Opposition will move towards deregulation of the oil industry. We will allow the operation of free market forces to permit crude oil production and prices to reflect true world market conditions. We do not believe that the Government should impose ever higher duties on fuel. We believe that people ought to be entitled to receive a product at the cost of production plus reasonable profit. We do not apologise for this. We in fact make no apology whatsoever for opposing the Labor Government's approach. It is incredible that this year fuel prices are rising at a time of world oil surpluses. Countries cannot get rid of their fuel. Prices have been tumbling and yet we in Australia are paying more and more for fuel. The consumers have simply had enough. What has happened to the Prime Minister's promises of fuel price reductions? What would have happened if he had said in 1983 that he would simply stabilise the price of fuel? He claimed he was going to drop the price by 3c a litre. It has gone up by 10c a litre or more than 45c a gallon over 30 months. Mr Porter —A bit like interst rates. Mr SLIPPER —Yes. We know the baseless promises made by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister in that area. The home owners of Australia know how they were defrauded by the Treasurer and the Prime Minister and those incorrect statements relating to interest rates. Mr Downer —Particularly in South Australia. Mr SLIPPER —Particularly in South Australia, but also in Queensland. The people of South Australia will have the opportunity to elect a National-Liberal Party government after the State elections to be held very shortly when Mr Bannon will be thrown onto the political scrap-heap. I am pleased that the proceedings of the House are being broadcast because the people of South Australia and, indeed, the people of the whole of the country must know what this Government has done to the fuel prices and the economy. They must know what the South Australian Government has done and they should be given the opportunity to vote both the South Australian and Federal Labor governments out of office as soon as possible. In the electorate of Fisher I have received deputations and inquiries from numerous constituents from varied backgrounds in connection with fuel prices. There is a great concern abroad in the community. People from all walks of life are worried. Every time they drive past a service station they find that the price of fuel has gone up. Of course, in Queensland, which is the only State not to have a State fuel tax, the prices are not so high as in other places. That is because we have a very good National Party Government in Queensland. But across Australia people are worried over the way in which prices continually increase. Our citizens do not require special treatment. What they want is simply a fair go. This Government, Mr Speaker-and I welcome you back to the chair-is not concerned about high fuel prices. This Government has failed to reduce the price of fuel in line with the recent drop in the value of the United States dollar compared with the Australian dollar. When the comparative value is unfavourable, the consumer faces an increase; yet when the reverse occurs, the consumer is simply ignored and the reduction the consumer is entitled to simply does not come through. The Labor Government of this country is simply happy to pocket the increased revenue. It is important for people to realise that this Government is in effect acting like a robber and a thief. It is depriving them of money. It is continuing to do so and it will not do what it should in connection with fuel prices. The Government has admitted through the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, that it is prepared to grab the increased revenue. Senator Evans, in referring to the consequences for Australia of a major oil price drop, said: There are a number of negatives. First, in the short term, there would be a major decline in government revenue which would either blow out the deficit or force new or increased taxation elsewhere. What about restraint? What about cutting the size of government? What about a reduction in spending? The Government is not interested in that. All it wants to do is to take more and more from the taxpayers of Australia. In a Press release of 23 October, I stated: I believe it is high time for the Government to stop its dependence on fuel tax as a source of revenue. If Labor wished to reduce the fuel cost burden it should bite the fuel tax bullet and slash prices. Under this Bill the Government is seeking to impose restrictions on refiners obtaining crude oil from overseas. It is concerned with gaining as much income from crude oil as it can. That is yet another revenue grabbing venture. Despite the fact that revenue has increased due to an increase in production and depreciation induced price increases, the Government is continuing with that course of action. Government taxes comprise 60 per cent of the price of fuel. Honourable members may have seen and no doubt will continue to see signs pointing out that petrol costs 20c a litre plus a fuel tax of 30c a litre or more. Mr Cowan —Ten thousand million dollars a year. Mr SLIPPER —The sum of $10,000m is apparently what the Government is taking from the people of Australia, as the honourable member for Lyne has pointed out to this House. Primary producers and rural and urban dwellers depending on private transport are being hampered by this cost burden. Australian fuel users should be allowed to gain the benefit from cheaper oil prices. We must allow a free market to exist. It is important to deregulate. It is essential to oppose the continual money grabbing approach of this Government. This Bill prevents lower fuel prices. This Bill ignores the demands of the taxpayers of Australia. This Bill continues to slug our citizens, and the Opposition will not under any circumstances support it. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(11.19) —in reply-I want to reply to the contribution made by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). Mr Cowan —A good contribution. Mr BARRY JONES —That may appear so. I shall refer also to the contributions of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper). The honourable member for Dawson commented that the aim of the Customs tariff legislation was to generate extra revenue. The main point about this measure is that it is an integral part of the crude oil allocation scheme. That scheme has the prime aim of encouraging exploration and the development of indigenous crude oil. The honourable member for Dawson commented that there was industry opposition to the partial allocation scheme. That issue was considered in May-June this year as part of the review of crude oil marketing arrangements. Some producers and refiners opposed and others supported a continuation of the scheme. As the honourable member for Mayo conceded later in his speech, whatever opposition there was was not very passionate. At that time the concept of a stand-by duty was well understood by all in the industry. The honourable member for Dawson also said that independents were not included. It is not practicable to make them subject to the duty when they are not participants in the scheme. However, the Government has said that it will keep their position under review and that they will be included if the level of imports becomes significant. The honourable member for Mayo said that the legislation really constituted only minor amendments. That is not correct. The Bill has been totally redrafted to change its basis from applicability across the whole industry to applicability to individual companies. The honourable member commented that the industry was not able to get its best price. That is wrong. The combination of import parity pricing and the allocation scheme has been to guarantee a market for indigenous production at a world-related price. The honourable member said that there was industry opposition, although he conceded that it was not all that passionate. It is true that there was strong opposition to the earlier Bill. However, those views have been taken into account and there has been very little opposition- Mr Downer —You do not know whether there has been opposition because you did not consult them. Mr BARRY JONES —Of course there is a constant process of consultation, as there was a constant process of review. We take the business of consultation almost, one would think, to the point of obsession at times. That is one accusation that cannot be properly levelled against this Government. The honourable member for Fisher made his customary passionate defence of the free market, but he is lamentably ill-informed. Let me say something about his constant appeal to the need to reduce price. Its needs to be pointed out that in Australia we still have one of the cheapest fuel prices of member countries of the Organsiation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I have repeated again and again-but honourable members opposite will not learn the lesson-that in April, of all the OECD countries, we had the lowest fuel price at the petrol pump, although in metropolitan areas, I concede. Our price was below that of the United States and Canada. It is true that the Australian price now is higher than that of the United States and Canada, but only a relatively few cents. The price of Bass Strait crude has fallen five times since this Government came to office. When we came to government in 1983 the Bass Strait price for crude oil per barrel was $36.90. It decreased in July to $36.53, in January 1984 to $34.68 and in July 1984 there was a small increase. Considering the degree of inflation and considered on an index basis, we have maintained the price extremely well. I make the following contribution for the benefit of the honourable member for Fisher. When we had the Secretary-General of the OECD, Mr Jean-Claude Paye, with us a month or two ago he expressed great concern-I think all who heard him were impressed by what he said-that there would be a collapse of fuel prices in the Western world. He commended all efforts to maintain price stability, even if in the short term they were unpopular domestically. Mr Slipper —What about the taxpayers? Mr BARRY JONES —Listen to what I am saying and to what Mr Paye is saying, someone with a somewhat broader grasp of world economics than even the honourable member for Fisher. Monsieur Paye's concern was that a fuel price collapse generally would lead to a dramatic fall in oil exploration because, as is recognised, there is something like a glut situation now, but that glut might very well turn into a dearth if there is a significant fall in oil exploration. If there is then a collapse in supply the next swing of the pendulum might bring about a very sharp increase in fuel pricing along the lines of the celebrated oil shock of 1973-74, resulting in a period of profound instability, not just in the world fuel price but in the world economy generally. No-one would ever accuse the honourable member for Fisher of taking the long view. He appeals constantly to the parish pump-in this case the petrol pump. What the Government has done has been completely responsible and deserves the strong support not only of the House but of the community as a whole. Opposition members should go back and tell this to their constituents. They should ask themselves whether when they are discussing fuel prices in Australia they point out where we stand in world terms, or whether they just take the line: `There you are, Canberra is slugging you again'. But if they have a responsible attitude towards their constituents, they should be given both sides of the story. Mr Porter —Ha, ha! Mr BARRY JONES —I know that it is a refreshing novelty for the honourable member for Barker, but it is about time that we did it. If one is to bring about the situation of which Monsieur Paye was talking, where there would be a drying up-- Mr Porter —Pie in the sky. Mr BARRY JONES —That is an assinine comment even from the honourable member. Of course, it is a significant amount. We are saying that it is an attempt to maintain price stability, and in world terms we have stood up extremely well. The Opposition is conscious of the reason why it was brought in. Of course it is a source of revenue, but it is also a method of maintaining the price at a rational and reasonable level-a price that in world terms, taken throughout the OECD, stands up extremely well. I think the record of the Government in this matter is excellent, and I ask the House to give strong support to this Bill. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Child, J. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Duncan, P. O'Neil, L. R. T. Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F. Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W. Gear, G. Snow, J. H. Gorman, R. N. J. Staples, P. R. Grace, E. L. Theophanous, A. C. Griffith, A. G. Tickner, R. E. Hand, G. L. Uren, T. Hayden, W. G. West, S. J. Holding, A. C. Willis, R. Hollis, C. Wright, K. W. Howe, B. L. Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Aderman, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J. Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R. Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Burr, M. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Millar, P. C. Cameron, Donald Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ewen Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Connolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Drummond, P. H. Sincliar, I. McC. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHalverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Hodgman, W. M. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J. Price, L. R. S. Katter, R. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones) read a third time. Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Hodgman-Mr Speaker- Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.37 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 13 November 1985: Quarantine Act-Determinations fixing fees pursuant to section 86E, dated 29 October 1985 (2). States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Statements of particulars of directions dated 12 November 1985 given under- Sub-sections 37 (1) and 41 (2). Sub-section 41 (3A). Sub-section 41 (1).