Wednesday, 20 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: (1) That standing order 48A (adjournment of House), as amended, and standing order 103 (11 o'clock rule) be suspended for this sitting, and (2) That, in relation to the proceedings on the following Bills, so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills: Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985; Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill 1985; States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985; Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985; Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Bill 1985; Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1985; Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill 1985; States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill 1985; States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985; States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985, and States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985. Mr Speaker, that will give the House a good idea of what is going to happen for the rest of the day. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.02) —The shearer's background of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) is beginning to emerge. He argued for years against the use of wide combs and he suddenly finds that they are commonly accepted practice. If he were in a garden, instead of using a pair of secateurs he would use a chainsaw. That is certainly what we are seeing today. Instead of dealing with the problem of trying to accommodate the business of the people of Australia in a fair and proper manner, we are to be subject to a guillotine that we have all just heard embracing a range of legislative proposals which not only have nothing in common but also have very significant implications for the Australian community. Mr Barry Jones —You have never done that, have you? Mr SINCLAIR —No, in fact, I did not. My basis of running this place was always predicated on goodwill between men on either side of the Parliament. It is a pity that in this day and age my successor has not taken unto himself some of those words of holy writ that we put into place in those days. While the gag might occasionally have been used, the guillotine was but rarely. It is worth while that the people of Australia know that we in this place will be called on to deliberate on a package of measures which without doubt will lead the Senate to sit until some time after Christmas Day. Whatever honourable gentlemen opposite may care to do, they should have in mind that nothing will in any way persuade their senatorial colleagues, or for that matter those of us on this side of the House, to give the same sort of inadequate consideration to matters of such fundamental concern. I am surprised that the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), who has been interjecting, should share in trying to seek a guillotine. He normally likes to make some rational contribution in debate before the Parliament, but even he is to be denied that opportunity on this occasion. It is not a laughing matter. There are within the embrace of these education Bills and the companies and securities legislation a number of matters which are of very real concern to the Australian electorate. Needless to say, we on this side of the House do not support the proposition. I do not intend to canvass the issue at length, but it is important that the people who are listening to this broadcast and who subsequently might be looking at the proceedings of today should understand that some 10 or 11 Bills are included in this package. They are dissimilar Bills, although some cover related educational matters. Above all, they affect the young of Australia; they affect the unemployed of Australia; they affect those for whom the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made his first and only public announcement on television, at very considerable expense to the Australian taxpayer. They include measures which, used properly, would allow the young in this country to have better training and better job prospects. Instead of there being an adequate opportunity to debate them we are to have the whole process steamrolled through here. As I said, the shearer from South Australia is using his chainsaw rather than trying gently to use a pair of secateurs. I put it to him that neither rhyme nor reason justifies the harsh measure which he now intends to take. I explain to the honourable gentleman, lest he thinks otherwise, that in no way will we on this side of the House accept the motion he has just now put to us. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 53 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Child, J. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P.Darling, E. E. Mayer, H.Dawkins, J. S. Mildren, J. B.Dubois, S. G. Milton, P.Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. C.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cobb, P. R. Nehl, G. B.Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. T.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D.Hunt, R. J. D. Wilson, I. B. C.Jull, D. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority. Declaration of Urgency Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —I declare the following Bills are urgent Bills: Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985; Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill 1985; States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985; Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985; Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Bill 1985; Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1985; Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill 1985; States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill 1985; States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985; States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985; and States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985. Mr Hodgman —On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is going so fast that we cannot hear what he is saying, and he is doing it deliberately. Mr SPEAKER —I take it that there is some difficulty in hearing. The matter raised by the honourable member for Denison is not really a point of order. It is a request to the Minister with which, I think, the Minister would concur. Mr YOUNG —For the benefit of the honourable member, Mr Speaker, I will read more slowly. I will start again: Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985; Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill 1985; States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985; Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985; Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Bill 1985; Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1985; Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill 1985; States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill 1985; States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985; States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985; and States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985. Question put: That the Bills be considered urgent Bills. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J.Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J.Bowen, Lionel Kent, L.Brown, John Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lamb, A. H.Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V.Child, J. Lee, M.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P.Darling, E. E. Mayer, H.Dubois, S. G. Mildren, J. B.Duffy, M. J. Milton, P.Duncan, P. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Conquest, B. J. Peacock, A. S.Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R.Downer, A. J. G. Reith, P. K.Drummond, P. H. Rocher, A. C.Edwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M.Fife, W. C. Shack, P. D.Fischer, Tim Sharp, J.Fisher, Peter Shipton, R. F.Goodluck, B. J. Sinclair, I. McC.Hall, Steele Slipper, P. N.Halverson, R. G. Smith, W.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Sullivan, K. J.Hodges, J. C. Tuckey, C. W.Hodgman, W. M. Watson, DavidHunt, R. J. D. Webster, A. P.Jull, D. F. White, P. N. D.Katter, R. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows: (1) Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985- For the remaining stages, until 11.30 a.m. this day. (2) Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill 1985- For the remaining stages, until 4.25 p.m. this day. (3) States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985- For the remaining stages, until 4.30 p.m. this day. (4) Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985- (a) For the second reading, until 5.45 p.m. (b) For the Committee stage, until 5.50 p.m. (c) For the remaining stages, until 5.55 p.m. this day. (5) Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Bill 1985- For the remaining stages, until 6 p.m. this day. (6) Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1985- For the remaining stages, until 8.55 p.m. this day. (7) Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill 1985- For the remaining stages, until 9 p.m. this day. (8) States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill 1985- (a) For the second reading, until 10.15 p.m. (b) For the Committee stage, until 10.20 p.m. (c) For the remaining stages, until 10.25 p.m. this day. (9) States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985- For the remaining stages, until 10.30 p.m. this day. (10) States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985- For the remaining stages, until 11.55 p.m. this day. (11) States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985- For the remaining stages, until 12 midnight. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.26) —The embrace of 11 Bills in a guillotine motion inevitably means that there will be inadequate time for consideration of any of them. As all members of this place have just heard, we are to deal with a range of Bills for which five minutes alone has been allowed for consideration, debate and voting. In those circumstances it is totally inequitable for the Leader of the House (Mr Young) to take this action in respect of young people who seek to benefit from the range of educational proposals that are included in the Bills, although, in the manner of their application, one can only suspect that the Government has more to hide than to reveal. I think it is worth commenting that the companies and securities legislation alone is inordinately voluminous. I do not have a copy of it in front of me but, if I remember rightly, it is approximately three-quarters of an inch thick, and the explanatory memorandum is of about the same thickness. It is absolutely ridiculous to allow one hour-that is, until 11.30 a.m. today-for debate of the remaining stages of the Bill. The Government should bear in mind that while through the application of Party numbers it might ensure the accelerated consideration of these measures in the House of Representatives, the inevitable result of applying a guillotine is that there will be a delay in the passage of this legislation through the other House. It is necessary that matters that are of concern to the public be allowed proper consideration by the Parliament. The Senate alone can provide that consideration in circumstances where the Government denies us the opportunity to do so in this place. Mr Robert Brown —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Is it appropriate for the Leader of the National Party to be reading the same speech that I heard last year? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn honourable members that frivolous points of order such as that will be dealt with. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, I well understand the difficulties the Government is in. It obviously has not been able to get all the legislation up. It is running for cover. It is seeking to get the House up. We all know the embarrassment it has with the conflict between the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in regard to whether or not there is to be discounting. We know of its association with the high interest rate policy that flows from the accord, and the problems it is suffering in South Australia, where its colleagues are about to suffer an ignominious defeat. These are the reasons that the guillotine has been proposed today. The Government knows that in circumstances where it does not have a case to present, it needs to run for cover and hide. The Government is not prepared to debate issues. The answer is not to provide a guillotine which allows far too little time for debate. The solution is, quite apparently, for us to remain for at least an additional sitting week. The members of the public need to comprehend that when the program of parliamentary sittings was presented initially some weeks ago it was suggested that we might have an additional week's sitting in December. But what has happened? The Leader of the House has said: `Oh no, we can't come back'. One might ask why. Of course the reason is the Government's obvious discomfort because of its management of the economy, the problems in the rural sector and the difficulties with those who seek to borrow funds to build their own homes. There are obvious problems in the accord, which should now be reviewed, and which the Prime Minister says should be reviewed but, because of the relationship between Simon Crean, Bill Kelty and the members of this Government, it seems unlikely that it will be brought forward in the way that it should. In those circumstances we can understand why 11 measures are being rushed through in a debating program which we are told is to conclude at 12 midnight tonight. We have had several extraordinarily late nights because the Minister in charge of the House cannot set his program adequately, fairly or equitably. The Opposition is opposed to this motion and intends, obviously, to vote against it when it is put. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.31) —in reply-I want to respond to just a couple of the matters raised by the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair). Firstly, the Government is not taking a unique step by putting some time limit on debate within the Parliament. As the conservatives who ruled this country for 30 of the last 36 years know, this measure was used time and again every session by the conservative governments to make sure that they got their legislation through. We have been very generous with the time we have allowed for debates in this chamber. We have had only two late nights. I would not have thought that the Manager of Opposition Business was getting too old to have two late nights knock him around just yet. If he is worried about the House getting up because he sees some conflict between the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), he ought to look at the conflict between the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). I think there is a fair desire on the part of the new Leader of the Opposition to get out of this place because he has not been going very well in the last 10 weeks. He wants to go back to Bennelong and regroup his thoughts in order to see what he should do next year. I do not want to dob anybody in, but I had a request from someone on the other side who said: `Please stop us having to listen to six second reading debate speeches by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack)'. Question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 17 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Child, J. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dubois, S. G. Milton, P.Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron Ian Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Reith, P. K.Downer, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Sharp, J.Fischer, Tim Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N.Hall, Steele Smith, W.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Hodges, J. C. Watson, DavidHodgman, W. M. Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 11 October on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.41) —The Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill is about the size of, and about as relevant to the business affairs of this country as, a Hong Kong telephone book, but it is a major piece of legislation and it deserves to be debated and debated seriously. Those members of the Australian public who are listening should know the exact effect of what the Leader of the House (Mr Young), that unguided political missile, has done. He has limited the whole debate on this Bill to 50 minutes. That covers the second reading and the Committee stage which normally would go for quite some time, some few hours. But that is to be denied to us. Why? It has been denied to us because the Government is incapable of organising its program. We on this side of the House get a draft program of what is to take place over the next two or three weeks at the end of each two or three week sitting period. What then happens has nothing to do with what appears on the program. So it becomes fairly impossible to organise one's affairs and demonstrates not just an incapacity to organise the business of the House by the Leader of the House and by this Government, but a complete contempt for the workings of this Parliament. God knows, Parliament is not a perfect place, but it is about the only place that the Australian public have where their representatives can debate public issues. That is what we are meant to be here for, and that is precisely what this Government seeks to deny us in this gutless and unscrupulous use of numbers to prevent debate taking place. So we have a large number of highly important measures being rushed through this House which will not be considered, which will not be debated and which cannot be properly explained because of the use of the guillotine. Speaking for myself, I think it is about time this House sat very much longer than it presently does, that we sat for far more weeks than we do, so that measures could be properly debated, so that we would not go through this lamentable charade of putting up 40 or 50 minutes for the companies and securities package which, as I say, looks like a Hong Kong telephone book, reads like a Hong Kong telephone book and is about as useful to Australians as the Hong Kong Telephone book. But it has been put up by a Minister with a Hong Kong telephone book mind. What do we have? We have 200 clauses. We have amendments-- Mr Lionel Bowen —Why don't you get to the reasons for it? Mr SPENDER —The honourable member says: `Why don't you get to it?' The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is at the table, has presented a Bill with 200 clauses containing amendments to the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act, the Companies Act 1981, the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1980, the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1983, the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979 and the Securities Industry Act 1980. What does he do? He puts it to the House in eight circulated pages. So bereft are he and the Government of any understanding of this Bill that there is no attempt in the second reading speech to explain it to the House. The few items picked up by him read like items taken by a kleptomaniac from a department store. What does he take? He takes up conditions attached to takeover offers, retirement villages, use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of scheme legislation, recommendations concerning investments, liability of directors of trading trusts, priority of debts owing to employees and financial and regulatory impact statements. Undeniably, these are important matters but there are very many important matters as well as a great deal of nonsense and unnecessary rubbish in this Bill and one would expect from the Attorney-General a reasoned, objective and detailed commentary on the important aspects of this legislation. It is, after all, the Government's legislation. The Attorney-General is the person with the job of explaining it to the House. Mr Lionel Bowen —It is not. It is the Ministerial Council's. Mr SPENDER —He interjects and says that it is the Ministerial Council's legislation. If he does not want to put up the Ministerial Council's legislation, why does he not tell the House and why does he not take action not to put it up? He is putting it up on behalf of this Government. He is putting it up as a Bill to be passed by this House, so he should not try to protect himself from the laziness demonstrated by this Government and by himself when it comes to addressing the issues by saying that this is the Ministerial Council's decision and not his. If that is the case, he should not put it up, he should retire and give it over to somebody else who at least will debate the issues. Mr Lionel Bowen —Rubbish! Address your mind to the law. You don't even know what the law is. Mr SPENDER —The Attorney-General says: `Address your mind to the law'. Mr Lionel Bowen —What about the agreement you entered into? Mr SPENDER —I am well aware of the agreement that has been entered into, as he is, and I am well aware of the obligations under that agreement. One of the obligations that the Attorney-General has is to explain, if he possibly can, this legislation to the House. It is beyond explanation because all he can do is to get together eight limping pages on the subject. We have had two exposure drafts presented on this legislation. We have a great deal of informed criticism from bodies such as the Law Council of Australia. While some account has been taken of the criticisms that have been made, too much remains that is bad, that is objectionable, that is unnecessary and that is technically unsound. It is a very narrow decision as to whether it should all be thrown out, taken back to the Ministerial Council and streamlined as it most certainly should be streamlined. It is a narrow decision between throwing it out and seeking to put up amendments. The Opposition has proposed 15 amendments to the Bill dealing with important provisions in it. Ordinarily, these amendments would be debated in the Committee stage. That is not to happen because we are not to have the opportunity for a Committee stage. We are not to have that opportunity because of the decision made by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and supported by the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General. So the opportunity for debate of important measures is to be virtually non-existent. The purposes of the companies and securities code which we have here must be to lay down a framework within which companies and securities industries can operate. This involves conscious restraint by the legislature and the regulators as deficiencies will always emerge because human conduct is fallible, selfish and sometimes deceitful. However, that is not a good reason for seeking to cover the waterfront or for seeking to legislate against every possible contingency which this Government, through the Ministerial Council agreement, seeks to do. If the Government does not agree with the Ministerial Council, it should say so. If the Government thinks the legislation is bad, it should say so. If the Government is unable to explain the legislation, it should say so. If the Government thinks an agreement that has been reached with the States should be torn up, it should also say so. The Attorney-General should not, and I repeat this again, hide behind the Ministerial Council agreement and say: `This is not my legislation. I am simply the voice, the mouthpiece of the Ministerial Council. I do not have an independent role to play. Indeed, it is unfair that I should even be here at the table and it is unfair that I should have the task of making the second reading speech. The whole thing is unfair, difficult and complex and really this is something I should not have anything to do with'. He should either put it up and explain it, or say to the Ministerial Council: `It is nonsense and we will not have a bar of it'. That is the only way to go about it if one is honest and if one really wants to go about the business of putting up legislation which this House should have put up to it. Mr Cleeland —Haven't you heard about Federation? Mr SPENDER —Yes, I have heard about it. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House- (1) expresses its deep concern at the burden of costs and diversion of resources caused by excessive regulation that constricts Australian business and blunts its competitive edge; (2) expresses its deep concern that the apparent quest for certainty in legislation has led to unnecessary complexity and technicality, and (3) records its clear view that the entire legislative package which is the subject of the amendments proposed by this Bill needs to be examined as a whole with the objectives of: (a) lifting from business the burden of unnecessary, confusing and incompetently drafted laws and excessive regulation; (b) limiting legislation to essential matters; (c) achieving brevity, simplicity and intelligibility with the purpose of making laws as comprehensive as possible to the ordinary intelligent lay reader; (d) widening the process of outside consultation, and (e) streamlining the processes of law making'. That is the amendment the Opposition wishes to have time to debate. I will now engage in a brief examination-I will make it brief because I want to provide an opportunity for other members to speak on this Bill as we now have slightly less than 40 minutes left-of some of the provisions which are put up by this Bill and which the Opposition believes should be rejected. In the first place, there is a general provision which appears in different parts of the Bill and which would deny the defence of inadvertence or ignorance although there were no damning circumstances attached to the transaction in question. One of the amendments to the existing legislation-there are a number of them because the defence, and I use that word in general terms of inadvertence, has to be removed from various provisions-is designed to ensure that ignorance of the law will not be a defence to a prosecution under the Act. We are dealing here with an extraordinarily technical set of Acts, an extraordinarily technical code. Effectively this provision removes the defence of ignorance of the law in circumstances where the court would otherwise say that the ignorance was such that the defence should reasonably be applied. This means that if, for example, one is advised by one's lawyers that one can take a certain course of action, one acts on that advice and it turns out that the advice is wrong, one cannot raise that matter as a defence. Given the technicality of this law, that defence should be available. Additionally, however, the proposed amendment will apply to section 48 of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act. In that case the effect will be to deprive the court of its jurisdiction to make an order under section 48 of that Act where, for example, there has been a bona fide mistake of law of the kind that occurred in the FAI Insurances Ltd case. If the proposed amendment becomes law, a trifling and inconsequential mistake of law could not be rectified under section 48, with far reaching consequences for takeover offers made through Part A statements. A further objection the Opposition has is in relation to takeovers. An offer or under a Part A takeover scheme is to be denied the right to acquire shares on the market if the scheme is subject to a minimum acceptance condition. Unquestionably, the present law is open to abuse, but it is unnecessary to amend section 11 of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act for the purpose for which it is to be amended. The Commission presently has the power to seek a declaration under section 60 which empowers the Commission to declare which on-market acquisition of shares to be unacceptable, and empowers the courts to make a wide range of consequential orders. Next, we have enlargements in the Companies Act 1981 of the investigative powers granted to the Commission. These are to include random inspections. This is put in the explanatory memorandum in these terms: The NCSC has sought this power . . . that is, the enlargement of its powers to require the production of books- for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the provisions of a relevant Act- that is, not necessarily this Act, the Act under which the inquiry is being made, but a relevant Act- to conduct random inspections of books relating to the affairs of a corporation, whether the books are held by the corporation or by persons such as auditors and liquidators. Why is this needed? Why is it that every time a departmental request or a request by the Commission is made it appears to be acceded to? Where is the compelling need for these powers? What about the rights of privacy of which this Government speaks so highly? What about the rights of privacy that are meant to be entrenched in our Bill of Rights? Has that not occurred to this Government? Leaving aside that nonsense of the Bill of Rights, what about the ordinary rights of privacy that we have? Why should corporations' premises or anybody's premises be invaded for the purposes of random inspections? Have we reached the stage where any form of regulation should be enforced by random inspection? Is that the kind of country we have? Is that the kind of society this Government desires to build? The police, without a warrant, cannot enter one's home, yet the Commission will be allowed to enter one's office for the purpose of inspecting records, just to see whether or not things are going okay. It may be just a good way of spending a stray half hour when the fellows at the office have nothing better to do. I do not say that by way of criticism of individuals; I say it by way of what can happen under this kind of enactment. I say it from a great deal of experience in running special investigations and knowing how the Corporate Affairs Commissions and those who are charged with the investigative powers act. I have raised the Bill of Rights and I think it should be raised again in reference to this provision. As I have said, it enables random inspections to be conducted, which means that there is a right to go onto private premises for that purpose. How does this fit with the Bill of Rights? Yesterday afternoon the Attorney-General presented a string of amendments to the Trade Practices Amendment Bill which was before the House, one of which was to give effect to the Australian Bill of Rights. We have heard a lot of talk about the Australian Bill of Rights and how it will protect the rights of Australians. I read from the second explanatory memorandum for the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1985-the one that was sent out after the Government reconsidered some of its errors in the first set of amendments: Proposed sub-section 65Q (2) as it stands permits an authorised officer to enter premises without a warrant in certain circumstances. Having regard to the requirements of Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 12 of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 (arbitrary and unlawful interferences with privacy), new sub-sections are to be inserted to require an authorised officer to apply for a warrant to a person who is a judge of the Federal Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory before exercising the powers of entering or search . . . Why should that not apply to this Bill? There is no basis in principle for not applying it to this Bill-a failed protection. What are the consequences? The consequence should be well understood by the Attorney-General. The Bill of Rights, if it becomes law before this Bill now before the House becomes law, will override the provisions in this Bill dealing with such matters as arbitrary and unlawful interference in privacy. At least it may, if one could make any sense out of the Bill of Rights at all because it is so qualified that rights are qualified out of existence. But it simply demonstrates that this Government does not understand what it is about. If it believes in the Bill of Rights it would propose an amendment to this Bill or it would take this Bill back to the Ministerial Council and say: `Look, terribly sorry, but as usual we overlooked quite a few things. We forgot that we were proposing a Bill of Rights. It is so important to us, to the Attorney-General and to the entire Government and the back bench that it entirely slipped our minds, so we want to go through all this legislation with the purpose in mind of making sure that it fits the Bill of Rights'. Although I do not want the Attorney-General to take up any of the time of our back bench in explaining it, because we would not get an explanation, I would like to know at some time why nothing is going to happen here. Where is this great attachment by this Government to the Bill of Rights? It perhaps exemplifies the statement made by the Attorney-General which I called sensible once and will call sensible again that in effect it really does not protect anything at all. There are some other matters that I would like to deal with very briefly. I would like to spend more time on them but time is short because of the Government's action. There are some liabilities which are to be visited on directors for debts incurred by corporations acting as trustees. Let us be quite clear: Directors should not escape liability in a case where a company has been used as a trustee and the position has been misused, to put things in very general terms. But there are major problems in the way in which this provision has been drafted. Those problems have been set out by the Law Council of Australia. The Attorney-General, the Government and the Department have the submission of the Law Council of Australia, and the provisions dealing with liabilities of directors when corporations are acting as trustees need to be fully re-examined and redrafted so that they will operate effectively against directors who should be caught, but will avoid injustice against directors who should not be caught and will avoid injustice to shareholders in the cases which are illustrated by the Law Council in its submission. Next, there are three provisions relating to disclosure of the basis on which shares are held. This can only be called regulation for the sake of regulation. The new section is to have the effect of requiring shareholders of an unlisted company to disclose to that company the details of shares held in a non-beneficial capacity including as trustee, nominee for or otherwise on account of another person. This information is required to be stated in all new transfers lodged for registration. Failure to do so will constitute an offence. Why should it? Why is this kind of information necessary to unlisted companies? Notice must also be given when a change occurs in the capacity in which particular shares are held, either from a beneficial to a non-beneficial capacity or vice versa. What absolute nonsense! Is this not an example of laws for the sake of laws, of regulations for the sake of regulations, of throwing in anything because it seems to be a good idea? This is done by way of an amendment in clause 72. Clauses 73, 74 and 75 are to the same effect. Clause 75 provides for amendments in respect of all companies so that shareholders individually or together holding 5 per cent of the voting rights in the company, or the Commission, may institute a series of notices questioning persons holding relevant interests in the company's shares with a view to determining the ultimate ownership of particular shares. What a marvellously interesting exercise that will be for some of the people who may be interested in takeovers. What protection will that afford the public? What public good will that do? What is the public benefit? The public benefit is zero. The benefit to the company is precisely zero, although it may help directors of a company who wish to put themselves in a position of securing a company against takeover. It may help them because it will provide information concerning beneficial ownership. In short, it may help them to entrench themselves in a position of strength when they should not be allowed to do so. This will add greatly to the paperwork, to the costs and to the burdens of administering a company. I ask honourable members to consider the absurdity of visiting a fine, a penal offence, on somebody who fails to notify a change in beneficial ownership when it occurs. There are other objections that need to be made to this Bill. I will make two more brief objections to it. First I refer to priorities in a winding-up. When a company is wound up, what happens is that the assets of the company are realised. They are paid out according to certain priorities. The priorities go first of all to secured creditors in accordance with their securities. Thereafter, anything which is left over goes to unsecured creditors. Under our companies code there is a scheme which lays down priorities-that is, priorities given to certain classes of unsecured creditors. This Bill will add to those classes and priorities. Among those to be given priorities are people who are owed money by way of retrenchment payments. This point is dealt with by the Law Council of Australia. I quote briefly what it says in a submission which no doubt the Attorney-General has received: Since wages are in most cases drawn at frequent intervals, there is no necessity to remove the $2,000 wages limit- that is applying to priorities- . . . In view of the availability of social security benefits which provide some relief to persons losing employment but none to creditors we- that is the Law Council- are of the opinion that it is not necessary or appropriate to include as a priority debt retrenchment payments. Nobody likes to see people going unpaid, be they creditors of a company or people who work for a company, but at least those who work for a company are in a position to say, `You aren't paying me, I am worried. You either pay me or I will quit and find another job'. If it turns out that they are not paid and the company is wound up, is insolvent, at least they are able to get social security payments. What about the poor unsecured creditors who do not have priority? The more priorities one adds to the list of priorities in the companies code, the less the ordinary unsecured creditor gets. Who is the ordinary unsecured creditor? Quite often, he or she is the ordinary small business man or business woman. Who gives a damn about them? Nobody on the side of the Government, that is plain. This, in sum, is an appalling piece of legislation and I hope that the Attorney-General never again persists in seeking to deny responsibility for legislation that comes before the House on the basis that he is a party to an agreement. If he thinks that the legislation is bad he should say so and he should not agree to its being put up. If he thinks that the agreement should be scrapped, he should say so and make that position absolutely plain. I say, not personally but as an objective statement on ministerial responsibility-I say that because the Attorney-General is one of the most likable men in this House-that, objectively speaking, it is a cowardly repudiation of ministerial responsibility to seek to transfer his responsibility to others when it is his job to put up the legislation, to be satisfied about the legislation, and to explain it to the Australian people. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Hodgman —Yes, I second the amendment. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(11.10) —As has been pointed out, the Companies and Securities (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill contains a wide range of provisions. Obviously, given the time constraints on this debate, it will not be possible for me to deal with many of them, but I intend to comment on two aspects. I refer to the priority of debts owing to employees in the case of a company being wound up and to the conditions attached to takeover offers. I begin with a few brief comments on the proposals relating to the treatment of employees' retirement pay when a company is wound up. These have attracted criticism from some business representatives, including the Confederation of Australian Industry. The present legislation confers preference on employees wages up to a limit of $2,000 and leave of absence. As things stand, no amount is included for retrenchment pay. The legislation before the House removes the upper limit on the preference for employees' wages and allows a priority for full retrenchment payments to which the employee is otherwise entitled under an industrial award. Various grounds have been cited for opposing these provisions, but the essential point is that they will reduce the funds available for creditors of the company being wound up. We heard some comment on that from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) who talked about the parlous position of unsecured creditors. I would observe that the circumstances of unsecured creditors where firms are wound up presumably would vary, whereas the circumstances of employees subject to retrenchment would almost invariably be parlous. Therefore, I think that it is reasonable to legislate in the way in which the Government is proposing. It then comes down to a question of priority as between the interests of employees of the firm being wound up and its creditors. For the reasons I have just mentioned, I think that employees have a place in the sun. At this point I would like to refer to a speech delivered on 11 July this year by Henry Bosch, Chairman of the National Companies and Securities Commission. In his speech he refers approvingly to views expressed by former Attorney-General, Senator Evans, that the interests of employees should be expressly protected by the companies and securities code. Bosch concludes by saying: No satisfactory way of doing this has yet been developed, but I am far from convinced that we should not try. These amendments go part of the way in that direction. They involve a recognition that interests of employees do need to be specifically safeguarded. The objections are unconvincing. In regard to wages owed on the winding-up, the amounts involved are generally less than the $2,000 existing limit. Consequently, the reduction in funds available for unsecured creditors would not be great. It will primarily assist those employees who have forgone wages for a lengthy period in the hope that a company's fortunes could be restored. In regard to retrenchment pay, the exposure draft of this Bill included a formula that would have limited priority to about one-third of the entitlement. This formula has been removed. Removal of the formula will mean that redundancy provisions will be treated in a similar manner to workers' compensation and leave. There is no logical reason not to do this. In any case, an effective limit is imposed by the relevant awards. So far as Federal awards are concerned, payments will be limited by the termination change and redundancy case decision of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. These changes give greater recognition to the interests of employees in company matters and are to be welcomed. I turn now to the question of takeovers. The amendments in this Bill will enable the National Companies and Securites Commission to refuse to register offers in certain limited situations and to prevent a bidder from acquiring shares outside a takeover offer if the bid contains a minimum acceptance condition. These provisions have been criticised as constituting unwarranted interference in the takeover process. The Government, for its part, sees them as a reasonable compromise aimed at ensuring, as far as is practicable, an equal opportunity for all shareholders, big and small, to participate in any benefit flowing from a takeover proposal. Given the very limited time for debate I do not want to dwell on those specific provisions because the Minister made reference to them in his second reading speech. However, I was hoping to make a number of general points about the recent spate of takeover activity and the broad economic effects of that because I thought this might be an appropriate time in which to do so. We are dealing with legislation which strengthens the regulatory framework governing this type of activity. We have all seen recent media reports on this takeover activity. The names of companies and individuals involved have become household names. However, rather less emphasis has been given in most of the commentary to the broad economic effects of that activity. I make reference again to the speech by Henry Bosch, Chairman of the National Companies and Securities Commission, because he made a number of very interesting and very significant points about the effect of takeover activity. His broad conclusion is that while takeovers may bring benefits, the level of this activity in Australia at the moment is highly excessive. The benefits normally cited are that takeover activity serves to remove weak managements, to keep existing managements on their toes and to rationalise the economy by a reallocation of resources in ways that will produce long term benefits. Bosch, in his speech, effectively denied that broad conclusion and made reference to a number of reputable studies of the subject that clearly rebut that claim. I make reference to one study entitled `Determinants and effects of mergers-an international comparison'. It applies a complex and thorough methodology to many mergers in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Holland, Belgium and Sweden. In that report the effects of mergers are analysed under the three headings of effect on profitability, effect on size and effect on share price. The broad conclusion of the study was: The conclusion that merges increased economic efficiency as evidenced by profit and growth increases was rejected in every one of our seven countries. Bosch refers to further studies which I do not have time to go into now. However, all the studies referred to by Bosch come broadly to the same conclusion. In fact, the overseas evidence-there is a lack of local evidence-supports the view that the benefits from takeovers are largely illusory. I conclude by making reference to another aspect which has gained recent publicity. The tax minimisation of some of the highly geared takeover activities, with the involvement of very large borrowed sums and interest payments providing an offset, clearly require detailed consideration by the Government. I finish on that point. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.18) —I hope every businessman and every businesswoman, every lawyer, every accountant and every company director in this country will note that the Government considers the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous) Amendments Bill of such little importance that it has allowed a bare 50 minutes in this Parliament to discuss a Bill which contains 200 clauses and three schedules. Schedule 1 brings about 31 consequential amendments; Schedule 2 brings about 36 consequential amendments to the Companies Act and Schedule 3 brings about 48 consequential amendments. I remind the Parliament that the Companies Act of 1981 comprises 581 sections, five schedules and two tables. The entire company law package in the 1981 volume of the statutes commences at page 1,174 and continues to page 1,782. We have 608 pages, just in the 1981 legislation, being amended today by a Bill of 200 clauses and three schedules. For that the Parliament is given 50 minutes debating time. I cannot blame the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) who is at the table because he, unfortunately, is a tool of a government which today has brought Moscow to Canberra. The headlines of the world say that Moscow and Washington have gone to Geneva, but let me tell honourable members that Moscow has come to Canberra today. I can barely even get to the basic points which the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) outlined and which I wish to address in supporting his amendment. I make a number of fundamental points. I am a great respector of the federal system. I believe in it. I believe in ministerial councils, but no ministerial council is perfect. This is legislation of this Parliament for which this Government must accept responsibility. The Attorney-General cannot say that he is the agent of others. Let me say that even on the basis of principal and agent and vicarious liability the Attorney-General is in it right up to his neck. If the legislation is good, the Attorney-General gets the credit, but if there is a muck-up, he has to carry the odium. This legislation will add an enormous burden of cost, confusion and uncertainty and take away defences which were previously accepted. It will provide for random inspection entry and search. If we tack this legislation on to what was done last night with the Trade Practices Amendment Bill which switched around the onus of proof, prevented any right of appeal and created a situation which alone will add an additional cost of $50m to the manufacturers and retailers of Australia, I have to ask whether any honourable member in this Parliament can estimate the additional cost to industry, to companies and to their servants and agents as a result of this legislation. The honourable member for North Sydney is quite correct. I cannot claim the right, the opportunity, the expertise and time to go through this legislation chapter and verse. However, I note that the only example the Government can come up with when talking about the deregulation of private enterprise is in relation to the proposals contained in this Bill that the promotion of interests in retirement villages no longer be subject to the prospectus and trust deed requirements of companies and securities legislation. That is magnificent. That is a good move. However, the economy of this country will not be run on what happens in relation to prospectuses and trust deeds of retirement villages. Everything else in the Bill is of a regulatory nature. Regulation means cost. The Hawke socialist Government is strangling private enterprise; it is shackling it by regulation. Everyone has to have his own personal queen's counsel with him these days to be able to understand, let alone act, on the legislation. Before the Deputy Prime Minister shakes his head and denies this I tell him that I could have spoken in seconding the amendment. However, I deferred to his colleague from the Left in Sydney, the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin), who once again proved that the Left cannot count. He had five minutes in which to speak but went for eight minutes. I sympathise with the Attorney-General as a member of the Right. I am now going to conclude my remarks by saying shame on this Government, shame on the contempt for which it has treated the private sector of Australia in bringing this legislation in this way and limiting this House to a bare 50 minutes to debate it. The next thing that will happen, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that you will find the hammer and sickle above you on the Speaker's Chair. All debate will be in Russian and we will finish up being paid in rubles. That is the way we are going under the Hawke socialist Government; and shame on it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(11.23) —Time is limited on the debate on the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. I thank the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) for his courtesy and co-operation. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) in leading for the Opposition took his full time; I accept that. I make the point that I disagree completely with the suggestion that I have any discretion in this matter for the very simple reason that the whole arrangement concerning this Bill is due to the National Companies and Securities Commission arrangement. Mr Spender —I said you are responsible. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The law on this matter is very clear. The 1978 arrangements made by the then Leader of the Opposition made very clear that as Attorney-General I have to present to this Parliament, pursuant to the terms of clause 46-the honourable member for North Sydney did not even address his mind to this-the exact law as approved by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. Mr Spender —You consented to that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have to do so within six months. If the honourable member wants to vary it- Mr Spender —You can deal with that in six months. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member never did anything about it when he was in power. Mr Spender —You can deal with that in six months. You have had three years. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney will stop interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He is interjecting in order to prevent the truth coming out. The issue is this: An arrangement was made by the Liberal Party of Australia in 1978, and I am bound by that fact. I make it very clear I am bound by the legislation to produce the Bill as approved by the Ministerial Council with no amendments or alterations. The Opposition has no power to move amendments; but it is stupidly moving them here today. If Opposition members want to get out of this agreement they will have to give 12 months notice; that is the arrangement. Let us deal with the amendments which have been circulated to the business community for the last 12 months. There have been continuing discussions. Honourable members should in future address themselves to the law and not to personal abuse. These amendments relate to serious consideration given by the National Companies and Securities Commission on the basis of the various Attorneys-General all sitting down together and saying `Yes, there are problems in this area.' The question of who owns shares, for example, was identified by Costigan and Lafranchi as being worthwhile information in relation to criminal activity in corporations. Who would deny that? To suggest that ignorance of the law is an excuse is not a new matter; it is a cardinal principle of the law that one cannot readily take refuge in the fact that one was ignorant of it. It has been suggested that in the takeover code one should have a partial takeover and then obviate one's responsibilities by some other technique. Of course that must be addressed because some other shareholders would complain. It has been suggested that the National Companies and Securities Commission needs to have powers of investigation. Will honourable members deny that, having created it in the first place? It has been suggested also, in looking at the decision, in Wade Guardian Investments, that there was a defect in the powers of the NCSC to do something about investigation. Of course one should try to correct that defect. All those matters relate to specific problems, not dreamt up on a political basis, not thought up on the basis that we should interfere with personal liberties, but on the considered advice of the National Companies and Securities Commission which was set up by the Liberal Party. We are working in cohesion with the arrangements. We are considering all the suggestions. I, for one, would like to have national legislation, particulary in the area of securities. Is that the Opposition's view? No. I would like to have it and I think the business community wants it. We are talking about excessive regulation which comes from the very creature, the very structure that honourable members opposite set up, yet they are complaining about it today. I understand the position of other Attorneys-General. I have responsibility to present this Bill unaltered and I come here in legal chains, bound by this arrangement. It was designed by Mr Howard in 1978 and it is spelt out in black and white in the respective clauses what I am bound to do. My duty is to present this Bill unaltered. On that basis, I am not allowed to say that I disagree with its provisions. Mr Hodgman —It is your Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is not my Bill. It is a Bill pursuant to the Ministerial Council. Honourable members opposite delegated their rights away- Mr Hodgman —No. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member should not shake his head. If the Opposition moves amendments they cannot be carried here; they must go back to the Ministerial Council. That is the obligation and in future when honourable members opposite want to make remarks, if they have any intelligence at all or integrity to the legal point of view, they should address their minds to this arrangement. That is what they should be doing. I make it very clear that I can disagree within the Ministerial Council, but I cannot disagree here. Do not honourable members opposite understand that? That is the difference between ministerial responsibility in the normal sense and ministerial accountability here. Here I, as the Minister, have been cribbed and confined on the basis that I have to go to the Ministerial Council and accept its verdict. Further, I must produce the Bill unaltered and unamended in this place within six months. Those are my obligations. If honourable members opposite do not want to abide by this agreement, let us discuss this matter. Do they want to go on with this National Companies and Securities Commission provision or do they want an alternative? Do they want us to go one way and the States another? If we do not pass this legislation, the States themselves can do so. Honourable members opposite advocate a negation of this agreement. Why do they not address their minds to those factors? At least the honourable member for Denison made some intelligent remarks about the Bill; but the honourable member for North Sydney said that it was my personal responsibility. It is not. These changes have been designed by the Ministerial Council after deliberate consideration, they are designed to help shareholders in the corporate field. Every aspect there is a reason for the amending of this Bill. It has had wide criculation and there have been frequent discussions with the business community. The amendments cannot be accepted, there is no power to accept them. If they were to be deferred, we would be in breach of the obligation to present this Bill within six months. For those reasons we are addressing our minds to the issue of whether we want a National Companies and Securities Commission framework, as designed by the Liberal Party, or whether we should legislate on our own. I welcome the advice from the business community as to whether it wants us to legislate in this field or whether it still wants to adhere to the strait- jacket in which we have been placed- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Spender's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P.Darling, E. E. Mayer, H.Dubois, S. G. Mildren, J. B.Duffy, M. J. Milton, P.Duncan, P. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. DGear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C.Andrew, J. N, (Teller) Lloyd, B.Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S.Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J.Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Conquest, B. J. Porter, J. R.Cowan, D. B. Reith, P. K.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDowner, A. J. G. Rocher, A. C.Drummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shack, P. D.Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F.Fisher, Peter Sinclair, I. McC.Goodluck, B. J. Slipper, P. N.Hall, Steele Smith, W.Halverson, R. G. Spender, J. M.Hawker, D. P. M. Sullivan, K. J.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W.Hodges, J. C. Watson, DavidHodgman, W. M. Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J.Price, L. R. S. Coleman, W. P.Bilney, G. N. Carlton, J. J.Punch, G. F. Connolly, D. M. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendments Bill concurrently with the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3). If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(11.39) —On a day when, at least from now on, we will be concerned largely with education legislation-in fact, we will be dealing with 10 separate Bills in five cognate debates-let me restate that the Opposition is extremely critical of the mishandling by the Government of its legislative program which has led us to the situation in which we find ourselves now. In effect, because of the guillotine and because of the extreme time constraints, we now find that Bills of equal importance will be debated cognately and extreme time limits will largely restrict and compress the time for overall debate. The speaking time of individual members will be limited. Some honourable members will be unable to speak on any of the Bills, or at least not on all of the Bills that they might have wished to discuss at the beginning of the day. Let me say simply that education and educational issues fundamentally concern Australia's future. We on this side of the House would have thought that at least the Government would have been prepared to treat its own legislation, and in turn the Parliament and the Australian people, in a less cavalier and contemptuous fashion than it is doing today. This action is extremely high-handed, it is extremely arrogant and it is to be deplored. Let me turn to the two Bills that are the subject of this debate-firstly, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) and, secondly, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill. I will deal with them in the order that I have stated. The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985 is designed firstly, to provide grants to higher education institutions for higher education in 1986 and 1987; secondly, to provide adjustments for cost increases for grants already provided for under the principal Act; and, thirdly, to allow higher education institutions to admit full fee-paying overseas students in accordance with the guidelines determined by the Minister for Education. The coalition does not oppose this Bill. We are most concerned, however, about the poverty of the Government's approach to tertiary education policy. This Bill represents a blind continuation of the Government's tertiary education line. It reveals not a single shred of serious, constructive self-examination about the adequacy and effectiveness of the Government's policy in the tertiary sector. At a time when so many problems are evident in tertiary institutions and higher education generally, it is alarming in the extreme that the Government should be so backward in developing new, relevant and effective policy to resolve these problems. As the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has consistently denied that serious problems exist-and this is the only explanation and justification she offers for her inaction-I intend to outline this morning the problems which do exist and which require urgent attention. I intend to outline them from three perspectives-firstly, the perspective of students and potential students; secondly, from the perspective of academics, employed and unemployed; and, thirdly, from the perspective of the institutions themselves. Let me turn to the students' view about higher education and the problems therein. Firstly, from the students' point of view there is limited access to higher education. The number of places is determined by higher education bureaucracy in line with the Commonwealth's budgetary allocations. I have in the past engaged in debate with the Minister about the extent of the unmet demand for higher education places. Some estimate that the unmet demand is of the order of 5,000; others estimate that it can range as high as 30,000. Let me say that, even if there were five or 500 young Australians locked out of higher education institutions because of the limited access, from our point of view that would be a problem deserving of resolution. Secondly, from the students' point of view, they are subjected to course as well as institutional quotas. Not only is student demand for higher education not being met; the course preferences of those who do gain entry to higher education institutions are not being met either. Quotas reflect not so much student demand for particular courses as faculty entrenchment and staff tenure arrangements. Thirdly, on the question of income support for students, higher education students eligible for income support find it more strictly income-tested than the benefit received by their unemployed peers. We persist with this perverse incentive for unemployment rather than for further and higher education. Fourthly, there is only one way for Australian students to get into higher education institutions, unlike overseas students, who can do so in two ways-firstly, in the same way as Australian students, via a quota, and secondly, as from 1986, as full fee-paying students. Let me turn to the problem from the institutions' point of view. Firstly, their autonomy is limited by government and Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission funding decisions and by conditions attached to the receipt of those funds. Secondly, institutions have a rigid hierarchy imposed on them which decrees that colleges of advanced education and institutes of technology are like second class citizens, artificially prevented from challenging the university monopoly on research funds and post-graduate degree offerings. Thirdly, institutions are discouraged from pursuing new and innovative ways of supplying higher education services by the conformism which centrally planned and controlled systems necessarily breed. What of academics? From their perspective, there are many willing would-be academics and potential students who would take advantage of their tuition, but the present system prevents that demand from being satisfied. Existing academics are suffering diminished scope for promotion and many young and promising scholars will be denied academic careers because of the artificial constraints limiting the growth of the higher education sector. Higher education is now experiencing low or almost no growth, and that places new aspiring academics in a very dismal position indeed. What has been done? The Commonwealth has muscled in on higher education in a big way since the early 1970s, when under the Whitlam Labor Government it took over from the States funding of higher education. As a consequence of that new responsibility, a large higher education bureaucracy has been set up. Governments have thrown money at the higher education sector hand over fist; yet, despite this, the problems I have just outlined are becoming more apparent. Spending money was not and still is not enough to solve these problems. Even the present Minister for Education has admitted that. She has said on numerous occasions that the days of pouring buckets of taxpayers' money into the higher education sector are over. There is an argument that if we had unlimited funds there would be no problems; we would simply keep pouring taxpayers' money into the well of higher education. But there are not unlimited funds, and that is recognised even by this socialist administration. So the challenge for all of us is: How do we open up access and how do we encourage growth in a freer and expanding system. What is the Government doing about facing up to that challenge? Nothing. Is it looking at ways to open up the higher education system to let in those who are presently locked out? No. Is it looking at ways of giving back genuine autonomy to higher education institutions freeing them from the dictates of a far-off government bureaucracy which calls the shots? No. Is it considering just how artificial the divisions are between universities, CAEs and institutes and those divisions could be busted apart so that positive healthy competition can be established between them in the higher education sector? No. What can be done? The Commonwealth presently has monopoly control over higher education. As a result of its superior wisdom we have a crisis of capacity, with students being locked out of the system. We have institutions with a growing dependent mentality instead of an enterprising entrepreneurial mentality. Administrators are perpetually looking for larger government handouts instead of trying to develop creative solutions for themselves. Mr Barry Jones —Where were they three years ago? Mr SHACK —We have restriction instead of major expansion of higher education to meet the demand for higher education services. Something can be done. If the Minister would like to listen, I am sure he will come to the view that he and I share the same concern and regard for the importance of the higher education sector. Something can be done. Problems can be solved. We on this side of the House believe that much progress can be made if the Government's monopoly power is surrendered, if power is increasingly put back into the hands of consumers of educational services, and if genuine autonomy is returned to the higher education institutions themselves. The coalition's higher education policy is presently being finalised to give expression to these goals. I can assure honourable members and the wider Australian public that it will be a policy capable of solving the problems presently facing tertiary students and educators alike. It will be my pleasure to present that policy in the first half of next year. In the interim, I urge the Government to take a long, hard look at the state of tertiary education in Australia. Government members, from the Minister down, need to rip off the blinkers which confine their analysis of the problems and which restrict their perception of viable options for reform of the higher education system. The Government has a profound and fundamental duty to ensure that tertiary institutions operate in an environment which can maximise their social, economic, cultural and intellectual contribution to Australia and to individual Australians. The Minister, above all people, needs to break out of the orthodoxies she so desperately clings to which are holding back the development of tertiary education in Australia. It will take more than a fiddle at the edges, more than a bit of an increase in funds here and there, more than an increase in this or that quota, if our tertiary education community is to be allowed to fulfil its great promise. Australia's tertiary education system can grow, and grow much more, both in dimension as well as in qualitative terms. The policy preconditions necessary for that growth can and must be developed. The climate must be created so that the system can break out all over with new students, new academics, new institutions, new ideas, and new ways to teach and organise research. Australia's higher education institutions should be leading the way in thinking about how to solve their own problems instead of becoming inward looking and moribund, as is the danger now. The challenge is to imagine and to work systematically towards a more vital and exciting higher education community in Australia. This the Government is presently failing to do. Because this is a cognate debate, let me turn to other matters. I wish to refrain this morning from making extensive comments on the technical and further education sector. It is primarily the responsibility of the States, and the Government is commissioning a review of TAFE funding to consider its role in this important sector. Honourable members will be aware, nevertheless, of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's view of the Government's cuts to TAFE funding. CTEC, in its report released last month for the 1985-87 triennium, Volume 3, stated: . . . the Commission was concerned about the Government's decision of May 1985 to reduce the level of TAFE capital funds available for 1986. It considers that the maintenance of the 1985 level of capital grants for TAFE would have been justified in the light of the continuing heavy demands for TAFE courses, the deficiencies in existing TAFE buildings, and the skills training and retraining needs associated with the Government's employment objectives, including the development of traineeships. I make no comment on CTEC's view other than to point out that it highlights a serious disjuncture between various aspects of government education and training policies. At a time when a huge extra burden is being placed upon the TAFE system by the Government through its Priority One traineeship scheme, the Government is reducing funds to that sector. This, of course, is a totally contradictory position. One would hope that the Government could better co-ordinate its own policies, particularly when they are so directly linked. Finally-and in the interests of allowing more members to speak in this debate, I will restrict my remarks-I wish to declare the coalition's support for the Government's decision to allow tertiary institutions to enrol full fee-paying overseas students on top of their existing Commonwealth funded quota places. We on this side of the House hope that tertiary institutions will embrace this opportunity and develop a large and prosperous education export sector. That task will be made more difficult than it needs be because of the tight control the Government is determined to exert over institutions taking advantage of it. Honourable members should be aware that higher education institutions have a number of problems in relation to the guidelines which the Minister has laid down to govern their fully-feed offerings to private overseas students. These concerns relate, firstly, to the prevention of institutions from retaining any of the capital component of fees paid by overseas students and, secondly, the prohibition on the use of recurrent funds in the preparation for earnings from the export of educational services. They are not being allowed to spend a little bit of money to make money. Honourable members may have seen a report in the higher education supplement in today's Australian which quotes the Australian Committee of Directors and Principals as saying that it wants more consultation between higher educational institutions and the government department before agreement is reached on the final details of the full fee courses. We would hope that that consultation will be offered and will be forthcoming. One of the principal concerns is the inability of institutions under the present guidelines to buy capital facilities for use in the new courses with the capital components of the fees they earn. That is a real concern. The Government has made no case for not allowing institutions to retain both the recurrent and the capital components of the income they derive or will derive from overseas students. The Minister has simply decided, with no justification or explanation, that the Commonwealth should appropriate the capital component of the earnings of those institutions. In our view this will unnecessarily interfere with and will almost certainly slow down the growth in what could be a vigorously expanding area, an expansion which would benefit institutions, students and the wider Australian economy alike. It is regrettable that the Minister has chosen at this early stage to burden higher education institutions taking advantage of this new opportunity with rules and regulations which can only hinder their progress. I now wish to turn briefly to the second Bill that we are considering in this cognate debate, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill 1985. The coalition will not oppose this Bill either. The Government has apparently seen fit to make these changes in the structure of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. The previous coalition Government found that the existing arrangements worked satisfactorily. Successive coalition education Ministers were pleased to benefit directly from the advice of the universities, colleges of advanced education and TAFE councils. Nevertheless, we will not oppose this Bill. We hope, however, that the Government is not taking a decision that will have undesirable consequences-consequences which we will monitor closely. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(11.59) —A couple of days ago the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) came into this House and raised a matter of public importance regarding Priority One: Young Australia. He and his fellow members in the Opposition thought that they had found a weakness in the Government's performance. Let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the honourable member for Tangney is not Joshua. He is going to need a lot more hot air to blow his horn before he can expect to make a dent in the walls of this Government's record on employment, training and education in the past 32 months. If I were a member of the Opposition and had to come in here and speak in education debates, whether they be about schools, higher education, adult education or whatever, I would be downright ashamed and embarrassed but also I could not look myself in the eye for the rubbish that I would have to blurt out, especially when faced with the immense record of the Hawke Labor Government. To use another Biblical reflection, for the Opposition the writing is clearly on the wall. It has failed in education as it has failed in just about everything else. As with its policies on human rights, wages, industrial relations and so on, it does not have a comprehensive and united policy on education. We will have to wait another few months for that-perhaps some time next year. We will then see how united that policy is. The Opposition is split between the soft Liberal faction and the extremist, hard line, right wing attitude of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown) and the honourable member for Tangney. The Opposition's education policy is a mishmash of Thatcher-Reagan cliches and right wing rhetoric fuelled by people such as Professor Michael Porter of the Liberal Party's front organisation, the Centre for Policy Studies at Monash University, John Stone, who has really shown his Liberal spots and who shares the disgrace of the former Treasurer, now Leader of the Opposition, and Dr George Fane of the Australian National University. We are talking today about this Government's restructuring of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the state of higher education. Higher education is more than just a response to some economic parameter; it is a development of our social and economic infrastructure-a development of individuals for their own benefit and that of society. The Opposition treats higher education-all education, for that matter-as an item of production without thinking of the individuals or the rights of individuals to higher education regardless of their income, background or educational opportunity. This opportunistic Opposition is prepared to perpetuate an elitist system of schools education, income and taxation that over the years have very effectively denied the bulk of those from low income and low opportunity backgrounds access to higher education. This Government, through its general schools funding, specific programs and higher education spending, is opening the gates of elitist institutions, and these institutions and the Opposition do not like it. Despite very severe Budget restraint-something the Opposition was not able to achieve when in Government-this Australian Labor Government will again, increase its funding of universities, colleges of advanced education and tertiary and further education institutions in real terms in 1986 and, indeed, 1987. There will be an increase in real terms of 1.9 per cent for 1986, which builds on the record real increase of 2.8 per cent of 1985. The speech of the shadow Minister for Education, the honourable member for Tangney, was indeed a time warp of the Fraser years. The increase applying to the current year is the largest boon to tertiary education since the establishment of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in 1977. The CTEC supplementary guidelines for 1985-87 state: The Government made its firm commitment to growth in the tertiary education sector because of the vital role that education has in serving the needs of a changing economy and ensuring that young Australians have adequate opportunities to achieve their full educational potential. Since the Hawke Labor Government came to office only 32 months ago we have seen, mainly as a direct result of this Government's efforts, an increase in enrolments in post-compulsory schooling by 31,000 or 12 per cent and we have seen full time enrolments in TAFE go up by 11,000 or 15 per cent and full time enrolments in higher education go up by some 15,000 or 8 per cent. Part time enrolments in TAFE and higher education have increased by around 38,000, mainly in the TAFE sector. Overall, therefore, there are in 1985 some 57,000 more full time students that there were in 1983 in post-compulsory education-an increase of 11 per cent in only two years. The measures that the Government has announced will further contribute significantly towards the achievement of our objectives. When one combines this with the success of the Australian Labor Party Government's employment and training programs, where youth unemployment has dropped by 44,000 and youth employment has increased by 54,600 in the two years to September 1985, even the Opposition would be able to comprehend the justifiable pride of this Government in its record on education and young people. Even more startling is the turnaround in teenage unemployment. In the seven years the Opposition was in government, 30,800 teenage jobs were lost. Teenage unemployment rose by 107,400 between February 1976 and February 1983. I can understand the political desperation of the Opposition on the legislation before us and the matter of public importance on Priority One that it raised this week. In 12 months time, with 20,000 to 30,000 traineeships and further general economic and education growth, the honourable member for Tangney's education policies will not be heard of in this House. He will not have anything to say. But, of course, that will not stop him now and those who follow him. In fact, his attacks on the higher education system are just another part of the conservative parties' and their noisy, powerful friends' campaign to destroy equal access to higher education for low income-low opportunity Australians in their determination, as the wealthy and privileged, to preserve their wealth and privilege. This Government does not need the Opposition to tell it that the higher education system needs monitoring and reform in many ways. Of course, the Opposition had the opportunity, which we have accepted so readily and quickly since we came into government, but as usual the Opposition did nothing about it in all the time it was in government. Members of the Opposition speak sheer hollow words. We, not the Opposition, commissioned a review of CTEC by the Chairman, Mr Hugh Hudson, and we, not the Opposition, have accepted most of Mr Hudson's recommendations. The Commission has become clumsy and its present Council structure limits its effectiveness. Mr Hudson has found that millions of dollars can be saved by streamlining its administration, operations and consultative mechanisms. That has been very clearly spelt out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) and I barely need to repeat it now. Suffice to say that this Government recognises that a big ticket Budget item such as higher education demands that someone watches it continually to ensure that it does not become fossilised or remote from society. That does not mean that we have to accept the Opposition's and the free market pirates' view of the world which will lead to the ultimate destruction of an equitable higher education system. The honourable member for Tangney wants to free up education. He is convinced, it seems, as he told a Liberal meeting in Melbourne recently that `the solution lies with exposing the system to market forces'. He talks about voucher systems and privatisation of education. Only the rich will be able to afford education and the gaps in our society will widen. He spoke about access, but he did not speak about equal access for those from low income backgrounds. That is not part of his idea. Furthermore, as a result of that meeting he was quoted in the Canberra Times on 26 September 1985 as describing the higher education system in this way: They are resistant to change, have a poor capacity for innovation, lack responsiveness to consumer demand, are inefficient in the use of resources, possess a flourishing mediocrity in place of a hunger for excellence, and finally display a somewhat arrogant and inverted view of the world rather than a vital and dynamic intermeshing with it. Whilst in places that may resemble the higher education system, which was mainly a result of the Opposition's regime, that is really to me one of the finest descriptions of the Liberal and National parties that I have ever heard. It is a magnificent description and I think we on this side of the House all must be indebted to the honourable member for Tangney for his form of words. I encourage members of the Opposition to read about that in Hansard tomorrow because I think it will remind them of what they have to face up to. It will certainly remind members of the Australian public listening today of what they are faced with from these parties which are in Opposition. In conclusion, let me turn to some more specifics of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3). In the Schedule to this Bill we see quite clearly the objectives and, indeed, the will of this Government translated into places in higher education and bricks and mortar facilities. There will be an increase of $281.75m in the 1985-87 triennium. In my area of Jagajaga in the north of Melbourne, La Trobe University will get more than $12m for a new library and academic building. The Phillip Institute of Technology will get more than $4.4m for a long awaited library and teaching building. The library still has the same facilities as the ones it had when I was there many years ago. Now we are getting $300,000 or more for a new TAFE college in Diamond Valley to serve the growing needs of outer metropolitan Melbourne. I welcome this commitment by the Government to greater access for all and especially for those from low income backgrounds. I welcome these Bills and urge the House to pass them. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(12.09) —It is a great pity that the standard of rhetoric and fluency of the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) is not matched by the substance of the facts that we face today. We are debating a very large number of Bills in a very short space of time. The honourable member for Jagajaga clearly tried in his speech to cover very briefly the substance of a number of the other Bills to be debated today. One cannot blame him for that, but I had hoped that he would have been a bit more accurate in his assertions. For example, later today we will have the spectacle of this Government, including the honourable member for Jagajaga, lining up to repeal the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Act. The honourable member for Jagajaga had much to say about his feeling for lower income students and what he believes Labor governments have done for them. If he were genuine he would be concerned about the students who might want to avail themselves of that program-an initiative of the Fraser Government. Instead he will vote to throw it out. He will do so in the face of a bipartisan unanimous report from a Senate Standing Committee, three out of six members of which were Australian Labor Party senators. He will disown them. That Committee made firm recommendations in relation to that Bill which very strongly supported it. The honourable member for Jagajaga, the man whose heart bleeds for the lower income student, will vote today to deprive the lower income student of the opportunity the Fraser Government's loan scheme would have given. The actual state of the education debate in this Parliament and the attitude of this Hawke Government towards education are deplorable. This is only the second opportunity we have had this year to debate education. In this year's autumn session the Government allowed a whole one and a half hours of debate for education Bills. Today it will allow four hours of debate for a very large number of education Bills. I feel that this is a clear indication of the Government's priorities. The Budget Papers show that the projected Commonwealth expenditure for education for the next financial year is $958,429,000. Today we will cover nearly $1 billion of expenditure in only four hours of debate. In addition, there has been a large number of very significant education reports-a number of which have been referred to so far in the debate today and a number more will be referred to in the remainder of the debate-which have received no attention at all in this chamber. One of the Bills we are debating at the moment-the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill, was the product of one such report-`Review of the structure of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and arrangements for co-ordination and consultation with States and institutions'. It is a great pity that that report received no attention at all in this chamber. The honourable member for Jagajaga made some very selective reference to it. He made certain assertions about the recommendations of that report but he paid no attention to the detail of it. I think quite a number of people in Australia who are interested in the subject of education and how the education processes serve this country, would have liked to have made some comment on the report's re- commendations. They might have had some contrary points of view. I will refer very briefly to the report. In the introductory section we see these words: It is assumed throughout-- that is, throughout this report- that the continued independence of the Commission- that is the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission- is not in question. This independence is assured by the requirement that the Commission's advice be published and no change is proposed to this requirement. Nevertheless, one of the conclusions of this report which we have not had the opportunity to debate at all, is that the existing councils for universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education should lose a very important support to the role that they have played in public debate on education in Australia and the contribution they can make. In paragraph 3.12 Chairman Hudson states: I propose that the statutory independent Councils should be replaced by Councils which would be advisory to the Commission only. The introduction to the report making this very recommendation stresses the importance of the fact that the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's independence is assured by publication of its advice. The Commission's views and recommendations are publicly available and, therefore subject to public scrutiny and debate. Nevertheless, the report recommends that those councils which have the expertise in the three individual sectors of tertiary education should be advisory to only that Commission-that is, in future those councils' reports and opinions will not be public documents. If there is one area of public policy on which one would expect thorough, wide-ranging and well-informed public debate, it is education. In a public education debate one would expect that the best possible information would be made available. One would assume that the people involved in the research, policy formulation and administration of education would be reasonably educated, articulate people, and that those who have an interest in the subject might also be educated, articulate people. They would want to get the facts about what is going on so that they too can make their contribution. The real significance of this Bill is that those interested in the subject of education-in this case, specifically tertiary education-will lose the input of the councils. It is worth recapping briefly on the history of these tertiary councils and commissions. They arose out of the absolutely ghastly mess the Whitlam Government made of the tertiary education sector when it was in power from 1972 to 1975. The Whitlam Government, I will certainly acknowledge, spent a lot of money on education but the money was not all well spent. A debate arose during the Whitlam Government's term as to the wisdom of funding decisions being made in the different sectors-universities, colleges and technical and further education. There was no co-ordination between those sectors, except at Cabinet and Government levels. The commissions responsible for each of those sectors and for making recommendations to Government operated quite independently of one another. Their advice at no stage was co-ordinated, so recommendations and decisions were made on technical and further education quite independently of recommendations and decisions made, for example, on colleges of advanced education. We had absolute nonsenses arising. A certain college, for example, may have been very good at putting a case for a certain course and may have achieved it, but the decision in relation to that course being given at that college could be made without any regard to what was happening in other areas; for example, in allied areas of universities and technical and further education. I see that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, is frowning. If time permitted I could go through a list of courses established at great capital cost at tertiary institutions-less likely to be involving universities than college or TAFE institutes-which were expensive mistakes. One had to wonder, at the time, why a certain course was in a certain institution when a similar course in the other sector of education was very close by. There was a lot of wasted money because there was no co-ordination. There was a lot of public criticism of what I think was a well-intentioned policy in relation to spending in tertiary education, because of the wastage and inadvisable decisions being taken. When the Fraser Government came to power it took these matters of co-ordination and effective application of funds for tertiary education as a first priority. Out of that grew the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, which became the umbrella Commission for all tertiary areas. The previous commissions became councils. Universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education institutions each had their own councils. They did their own investigations and assessment of submissions and made recommendations. Those re- commendations went to the Tertiary Education Commission which drew up an overall report for projected development and expenditure in the tertiary sector. It was a very sensible thing to do. The reports were public, so that if one of those sectors was not happy with the final report of the Tertiary Education Commission, the information and recommendations that had been put forward to the Commission were fully and freely available. This is a difficult area of administration. There are a lot of reports and a lot of talk, but since when did that hinder informed decision making and since when did it hinder, except possibly in terms of time on occasions, sound and good decision making? We are now to be deprived of very significant areas of information input. For what reason? Apart from the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) saying in his second reading speech- Mr Ruddock —It will save only $100,000. Mrs SULLIVAN —Indeed, I will come to that point in a minute. The Minister said that the Government was picking up the recommendations of the report which had not been debated. He gave as a significant reason that savings of approximately $100,000 per annum will result from the changes in this legislation-that is, savings in administrative costs. I fear that it will not lead to wise savings in expenditure in the tertiary area, even though we do not sniff at a saving of $100,000. Let us look at the relevance of that saving to the education budget. If we take out the amount required for participation and equity in the Australian Capital Territory, the saving is very small from a total budget for the Tertiary Education Commission this year of nearly $5m. Out of the education budget of nearly $1 billion, that amount represents 0.01 per cent. What sort of effect on budgets does that have when one considers the possibility of the wisdom in decision making? Mr Ruddock —I think there is an ulterior motive. Mrs SULLIVAN —There is probably an ulterior motive. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has never shown herself to be a willing and good-natured participant in public debate where it involves criticism of the Government. That attitude has possibly flowed on to this House. We have not debated either the report I have just referred to, which reviewed the structure of tertiary education advice, or the very significant report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the 1985-87 triennium, on which the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3), to which I shall speak only very briefly, is based. That Bill, which relates to tertiary education assistance, is topping up tertiary education budgets to the extent of $580m. That expenditure will receive probably a total of five minutes debate today. It is quite a tragedy, for a number of reasons, that the Government approaches its education debates in this spirit. The amount of public funds is treated with scant regard. The public deserves better in terms of our consideration of the amount of money that it is contributing to this area. The Parliament deserves to have the ability to make a worthwhile contribution to the development of education policies. I think that those policies, ones being developed now and in the immediate future, are critical for the future of this country as it enters the twenty-first century. Unfortunately, I do not think that much contribution can be made under this Government by people who would and could make a real contribution to what is a very important public issue. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(12.28) —I am pleased to enter this debate on the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3). It is sensible that the Opposition is choosing not to divide on the Bills because it gives a little more time for people to participate in this debate. There are three issues to which we should be addressing ourselves. The first is the question of the restructuring of the functions of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, to which the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) paid good attention. The second issue is the particular funding arrangements that will apply; and the third is the overall framework within which education is proceeding. Previous speakers on both sides of the House have addressed themselves to these issues. I will turn in a moment to the question of the opening up of the Australian economy and, along with that, the opening up of the Australian educational system to try to match the demands of an expanding and emerging economy. On the question of the restructuring of the Commission, the Government has largely endorsed the recommendations of the Hudson report entitled: `Review of the structure of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and arrangements for co-ordination and consultation with States and institutions'. Those measures will have the effect of reducing the cost and complexity of existing arrangements while supporting a more efficient and effective process of advising the Government on the development of tertiary education. These recommendations of the Hudson report are very important. The Government recognises that it is important to put in place a more efficient and less complex arrangement of tertiary education funding and administration. One of the points brought out in the report is that the arrangements in the past were so complex that many tertiary institutions and their umbrella bodies spent a great deal of time complying with those conditions rather than getting on with the business of administering education and conducting education for students' sake. Clearly these changes will minimise that complexity. That is in accordance with this Government's intention of making more sensible arrangements. I now turn to the question of funding arrangements. The financial impact of the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 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 technical and further education sector for 1986. My colleague the honourable member for Jagajaga has commented on the TAFE sector. I share his enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of many of this side of the House for the TAFE sector and the role it plays in delivering educational services to those areas in the community where many who have had disadvantaged educational backgrounds come from. In our view TAFE provides that kind of offering for many students. It is also significant that TAFE is an area that has been very effective in getting equality of opportunity and young women are now entering trades courses. We, on this side of the House, are very pleased that TAFE provides that role. It serves many of the ordinary educational aspirations of Australian young people. My colleague the honourable member for Jagajaga also pointed out-I think this is a very central point-that this Government has a large commitment to improving employment opportunities not only in terms of the employment figures, but also in terms of the delivery of educational services. Much of this funding is about that. The sum of $183.9m will be provided as adjustments for cost increases to existing grants for all sectors. Under this Government's economic policies, with a structured indexation system, there is less uncertainty about those cost changes because we have been able to minimise the impact of inflation. Recurrent funds for 1987 will amount to $1,992.7m. This is 5.5 per cent higher in real terms than the 1984 level. Capital funding for 1985-87 will be $209.7m. This is an increase on the corresponding figure for the 1982-84 triennium of $59.4m or 39 per cent in real terms. In essence, the Government is putting money where it is important to put it-that is, it is creating some 2,000 additional educational places. I also note that it is intended to provide increased equipment. I will deal also with the general climate within which educational change is taking place. My colleague the honourable member for Jagajaga has spoken about the relationship between education, the creation of job opportunities and the maintenance of relevant education. This Government is paying great attention to that matter. The evidence is to be found not only within these Bills, but also within the statistics which show improvements in employment and improved participation rates. When we begin to talk about participation rates, clearly Australia has to do a great deal to try to catch up with countries such as the United States of America and Japan. When we look at comparative tertiary participation rates of 65 per cent for the United States of America, 68 per cent for Japan and some 38 per cent for Australia, we realise that we have to get things moving. It is to that area that I now direct my attention. This Government, I believe this community and, I note from some comments made by those opposite, this Parliament are about making education more dynamic. We are clearly of that view. We are also mindful of the fact that in making education more dynamic we also have to pay attention to equity and equality in education. This Government is doing that. The report on the sale of educational services overseas is encouraging. I know there has been some debate and some disquiet about the establishment of what might be called the Yanchep University or the Two Rocks University in Western Australia. A concern, rightfully expressed, was whether or not that would be at the expense of existing Australian students. Provided there is a provision in the arrangements for Australian students to enter tertiary places and provided educational standards are maintained, one will not have reasons for disquiet. These points are well made in the report on the sale of educational services. If the community can offer scholarships for young people arising out of the sale of educational services it is to be commended. It is clear that the future for Australia lies in the sale of services. In passing, I note with concern the decision by the Department of Aviation to curb the services of East-West Airlines Ltd between Perth and Sydney. The provision of services is very important. Unfortunately this Government is locked into a situation with the two-airline agreement where it cannot do anything about it. We recognise that we have a need to provide services for passengers between Perth and Sydney. I note that the two-airline agreement puts that limitation on us. There is a great future for us in the sale of services and I will deal with a couple of aspects in the limited time available. I am pleased to note that the centre for management development in the Western Australian College of Advanced Education is proving to be very dynamic in offering courses on a wide range for groups such as the St John's Ambulance Association through to professional management groups. I believe this is the direction we should be encouraging in Australian tertiary education. When we look at the climate we are trying to create, what we are saying is that we want Australian education to become more dynamic, more responsive and to open it up. There has been a tendency in the past for education to be moribund. I will make but one comment about the past. I think one of the mistakes of the previous Government was that it believed that by bearing down on education it would end up with a more responsive and effective educational sector. That was not to be the case. All it did was create a crisis of morale. This Government is trying to show that there is a purpose and a direction in education in getting people into institutions, making courses relevant for them and providing jobs at the end. The path that we have gone down in recent times has demonstrated that that is starting to work. Young people are finding opportunities and places in tertiary institutions and jobs are available when they merge on to the market. Nothing could be more starkly contrasted between the performance of this Government and the previous Government than the relationship between participation rates and job opportunities under this Government and the previous Government. If we are to look at ways of making education more relevant, one of the things we have to do is ignore the rhetoric of people in the community who talk in very anti-educational terms. The honourable member for Jagajaga has spoken about anti-educational ideas. We are concerned about opening up education and providing funds for that purpose. I believe there is a greater demand from the community for public accountability in education. Clearly, we should be ensuring that public accountability in education is furthered. I note with pleasure that the Western Australian Government has just received the Hetherington report on Senates and Councils of Tertiary Institutions in Western Australia. That is very important. The honourable member for Jagajaga also says that the question of accountability should go across the board in the private and public sectors of education. The notion of a public accounts mechanism to look at educational expenditure is something that we, on both sides of the House, should be pursuing with vigour. I believe that with the changes embodied in the restructuring of tertiary education the Federal Government is showing that it is determined to go down the path of accountability. Much will come out that is positive in terms of Australian education. These Bills are important. This Government believes education is important because it is a major part of creating a dynamic economy. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(12.34) —We have just been treated to another polished performance by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), a performance given with all the suavity of a smooth tongued lounge lizard. Mr Ronald Edwards —Hey, that is a bit harsh. Mr NEHL —Oh no, it is not too harsh at all. He comes in here calm and collected-the voice of reason. I am sure that the people listening to the honourable member for Stirling speak for 10 minutes would have been impressed and would have said: `What a marvellous man he is. He speaks so quietly and so calmly'. Yet his speech was full of nonsense; it was full of distortions of the truth. If honourable members listened carefully to what the honourable member for Stirling said, they would know that he would have all of Australia believe that he and the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), who is returning to his own seat so that he can interject with impugnity-- Mr Ronald Edwards —He wants to have a go at you. Mr NEHL —Good; that is very well too. The Government would have us believe that it is the great defender of technical and further education. The honourable member for Stirling went on at some length about what a great deal the Government was doing for TAFE. Of course, the reality is that what this Government has done is cut the funding for TAFE. I am indebted to the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) for giving me an extract from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report for the 1985-87 triennium which confirms that. I quote from page 4 of volume 3, clause 1.6: On the other hand, the Commission was concerned about the Government's decision of May 1985 to reduce the level of TAFE capital funds available for 1986. It considers that the maintenance of the 1985 level of capital grants for TAFE would have been justified in the light of the continuing heavy demand for TAFE courses, the deficiencies in existing TAFE buildings, and the skills training and retraining needs associated with the Government's employment objectives, including the development of traineeships. We talk about traineeships and the Government's Priority One: Young Australia scheme. All I can say is that the way that is going, with the lack of co-operation from the unions and the tardiness of the States to become involved, it has become Priority Zero. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill is of great importance to the National Party of Australia. Any Bill on education is important to us. I would like to remind the House that historically, without the commitment to tertiary education by the National Party, higher education would be almost non-existent outside the metropolitan areas of Australia. The universities and colleges of advanced education in country areas in Australia are a lasting monument to great parliamentary members of the then Country Party, now the National Party, such as the former member for Cowper, the late Sir Earle Page, and the former member for New England, the late David Henry Drummond, both great members of the Country Party and great workers for the country people of Australia. Without the commitment of these and other members of the Country Party there would be no country universities, no country colleges of advanced education and no country colleges for technical and further education. This is where it started. It started with Earle Page and Dave Drummond, with the establishment of the Armidale Teachers College and it started again with the establishment of what is now the University of New England as a college of the University of Sydney. However, these achievements have not resulted in country students having greater access to tertiary education because guidelines for programs such as the tertiary education assistance scheme, which can make the difference between whether or not a country student can afford to live away from home while obtaining a tertiary education, positively discriminate against potential country students. Mr Gear —Never! Mr NEHL —My colleague on the Government side says: `Never'. My friend, you should get out and see what is happening in the real world. Throughout my electorate and throughout every other country electorate in this nation there are children and families which have been placed in great financial difficulty. There is a need for assistance such as TEAS or living away from home allowances. Honourable members opposite talk about the bracket creep in terms of taxation, but that bracket creep affects as well country children who need assistance to go to university or to a college of advanced education. Some students are not fortunate enough to live with their family close to a tertiary education centre. The great bulk of the people of this country are being excluded from having their children gain the benefit of a tertiary education. The involvement of the Commonwealth in the area of tertiary education flows directly from section 96 of the Constitution which provides that the Commonwealth will make financial grants to the States on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit. Since 1974 when the Commonwealth entirely assumed responsibility for the provision of capital and recurring finance to universities, the Commonwealth's involvement has naturally increased substantially. The Bill before the House seeks to amend the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Act as a result of a reorganisation of the structure of the Commonwealth's involvement in tertiary education. I believe that it is important to remind the House of the functions which the Commission has under its act of incorporation. First, it is empowered to inquire into and to provide information and advice to the Minister for Education in connection with financial assistance to the States and Territories for tertiary education. Secondly, it is required to perform the administrative functions related to the programs of financial assistance for which it has responsibility. It is important to note that the principal Act requires the Commission to perform its functions with the idea of balanced and co-ordinated development in the provision of tertiary education in Australia, as well as diversifying opportunities for tertiary education. The Bill before the House, in proposing a streamlining of the administrative and policy formulation functions of the Commission, will assist it in achieving its performance goals of balanced and co-ordinated development in tertiary education and diversifying opportunities for tertiary education in Australia. What we have to do is to get to the point where any young man or woman in Australia, who has the ability and the desire to go on to tertiary education, is given the opportunity of so doing, without discrimination because he or she happens to live in an area remote from a tertiary education institution. Mr Gear —Hear, hear! Mr NEHL —I have heard the mutter and the mumble from those on the Government benches throughout this speech, muttering away and doing their hurrumph hurrumphs, straight out of Blazing Saddles. That is all they are up to. The real point is that there are young Australians who are not being given the opportunity of having a tertiary education because of the lack of funding to assist them in undertaking that. I have an example with me right now from a family in Coffs Harbour. The father is a teacher and his gross income is $1,127 a fortnight. He is having great difficulty in keeping one of his children at a tertiary institution in Brisbane. He earns $1,127 a fortnight. Out of that he pays: Tax, $350; superannuation, $61; medical insurance, $33; leaving net earnings of $683 a fortnight or $341.50 a week. This is one of the people in our society and in our economy who are supposedly well off. Out of that $341 net a week he has housekeeping for groceries, meat, milk, the lot, $110; home repayment, $73-there are a great many people in Australia who have to pay a lot more than that, so he is very lucky indeed-petrol, because he teaches out of Coffs Harbour, $30; school fees for two children at John Paul College, $11; his contribution to the St Augustine Church and school buildings scheme, $9; and cigarettes and alcohol, $12. That is not a big expenditure for people for a little relaxation. There is the cost of aerobics for his wife, who wants to keep healthy so that she can maintain the family, $11; weekly and weekend sport for two children, $8; and miscellaneous fixed expenses such as rates, car registration and insurance, electric light and telephone- Mr Fitzgibbon —The Coffs Harbour Cup. Mr NEHL —No, not the Coffs Harbour Cup at all. Holidays, nil, because they cannot afford to go on holidays; entertainment, eating out and clubs, nil because they cannot afford it. This is reality. This is a family in my electorate. According to honourable members opposite they are probably well off. Clothing, chemist, doctor, car repairs, et cetera, et cetera, amount to $17. That adds up to the $341 a week that is his net income. Without his wife scurrying around getting whatever work she can, cleaning a supermarket, there would be no way that their child could get any tertiary education at all. I appeal to the Government and, in fact, to the whole of Australia to realise that a great many Australian children are being deprived of tertiary education because we do not care enough. It is time this nation realised that our future rests with our children and the future of our children rests with education. Debate (on motion by Mr Uren) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr WILSON —Was the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations drawn to an article in yesterday's Adelaide Advertiser entitled `Tax changes spell motor industry ``disaster'' '? What are the employment consequences of falling motor car sales and rising stocks of vehicles held by manufacturers? What action does the Minister propose to take to avoid the imminent retrenchment of up to 1,000 workers in South Australian car plants in the light of the serious consequences those retrenchments would have for the South Australian economy? Mr WILLIS —The honourable member's question is obviously a pathetic attempt to try to make some mileage for the South Australian election. Let me say in reply to the detail of the question that the motor vehicle industry has had a record year. It has been a year of record production and employment in the vehicle industry and one in which the South Australian economy has benefited very much indeed. I am sure that the electorate of South Australia appreciates the fact that with Federal and State Labor governments the motor vehicle industry has benefited greatly from the policies pursued by those governments. Employees in South Australia who have jobs in the vehicle industry must indeed be pleased that there are Federal and State governments which have enabled that situation to come about. It is an absurdity to suggest that there is some imminent disaster awaiting the motor vehicle industry. There is no evidence available to show that there is any imminent downturn in production or in employment in that industry. Given the fact that from 1 January next year unleaded petrol will be a requirement for all new cars, the industry has been proceeding at a tremendous rate until now. It will continue to do so as it meets the need for cars using unleaded petrol. The whole basis of the question is an absurdity. The motor vehicle industry is in very good shape, as is the South Australian economy, and it will continue that way under a State Labor Government. Mr GORMAN —Will the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services advise the House what action the Labor Government is taking to reduce the excessive rent bill the Government pays to accommodate public servants throughout Australia? Mr UREN —This Government inherited a backlog of neglect in the area of the housing of Commonwealth public servants and statutory authorities. No major public building was built by the conservative coalition Government between 1976 and 1983. That Government relied so much on privatisation that the rent bill for public servants rose from $78m in 1981-82 to $248m this year. The Hawke Government, on coming to office, made a commitment not only to stimulate the construction industry but also to build up the stock of accommodation for Commonwealth public servants and statutory authorities, and it set about doing that in several ways. First, under the public works program, the Government constructed an $11m project in Townsville which now houses 600 Commonwealth public servants. It laid the foundation stone soon after it came to government and has now completed that work. The Government also has works under way at Bellerive and Glenorchy in Tasmania. A major construction works is in progress in the central business district of Adelaide. Another commenced at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport this year. In regard to the instalment purchase program, we have under way developments at Rockhampton, Mackay and Cairns in Queensland, Port Pirie in South Australia, Fremantle in Western Australia, and Devonport in Tasmania. In New South Wales we have under way developments at Dubbo, Wollongong and Phillip Street, Sydney. I am pleased to say that on Friday the Prime Minister will turn the first sod for a development at Parramatta which will house 3,600 Commonwealth public servants. It will employ 5,700 people during its construction, and the building will be of some 55,000 square metres. Those are only some of the ways in which we have tried to stimulate the construction industry. I point out to the House that at present we own only 20 per cent of the buildings that house Commonwealth public servants. I am pleased to say that in the next three years we will certainly do something about rectifying that situation and public ownership will be built up quite substantially. At the same time we will be stimulating the construction industry. Mr GOODLUCK —I ask a question on behalf of my loyal and staunch Tasmanian colleagues. Does the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment know that his recommendations to stop all forestry operations in 24 areas in Tasmania are in direct opposition to the wishes of most Tasmanians and, in particular, his Labor colleagues in Tasmania? Furthermore, does the Minister acknowledge that an acceptance of his recommendations by the Hawke Government will mean that a possible 5,000 jobs will be lost? Does the Minister still share- Government members interjecting- Mr GOODLUCK —Will you give me a bit of protection, please, sir? Mr SPEAKER —My experience with the honourable member for Franklin is that he does not need much protection. I suggest that he get on with his question. Mr GOODLUCK —Does the Minister still share the publicly expressed view of his colleague the Minister for Primary Industry that no jobs will be lost as a result of these recommendations? Mr COHEN —I thank the honourable member for his question. I am delighted that he is interested in the subject at last. I cannot think of any debate that has generated more unnecessary hysteria than the interpretation of the advice I gave to the Minister for Primary Industry. What I did-it was the appropriate thing for an environment Minister to do-was to indicate to the Minister for Primary Industry those areas that I felt ought to be protected. I gave him five pages of advice and in the second last paragraph-I do not have the exact words here-I said that 22 areas should not be logged. However, Mr Gray, the industry and the honourable member clearly have not read the next sentence, which is very convenient. It says, to paraphrase it, that those areas should first of all be carefully examined to see where the lines need to be drawn and what can and cannot be logged in them. So it was not a blanket ban on logging in those 22 areas. Mr Gray, together with the logging industry, took out full-page advertisements in the local newspapers in which they quoted that first sentence and ignored the next one. The Minister for Primary Industry-the honourable member might care to ask him a question-is now very carefully going through those areas with the Australian Heritage Commission and the Tasmanian Forestry Commission, and we will come up with-- Mr Downer —When are you-- Mr COHEN —Who is asking the question? The honourable member is from South Australia. I have been asked a Tasmanian question; let me answer it for the honourable member for Franklin. By 16 December, the Minister will tender advice as to the final areas that can and cannot be logged. Let me also say that I believe that my colleague has been grievously misrepresented by the environment movement. It has taken the other view-that he will log all those areas. Let me assure the honourable member that the final decision that is made on this matter will be carefully considered by all the bodies and will, I believe, be a very reasonable compromise that all parties will be able to accept. Let me also assure the honourable member that no jobs will be lost in Tasmania as a result of this decision. Mr SAUNDERSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aviation. Has his attention been drawn to a media release by the Leader of the National Party of Australia criticising the Department of Aviation and the Minister for restrictions placed on the operations of East-West Airlines Ltd? Was this legislation put in place by the Leader of the National Party himself when the Opposition parties were in government? If so, what substance can there be to his criticism? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for his question. I draw the House's attention to the opening paragraph of the Press release of the Leader of the National Party, to which my attention has been drawn. It begins with these words: East-West Airlines was getting the `bum's rush' from the Hawke Government, National Party Leader Ian Sinclair said today. I will deal with that. We will see who is getting the bum's rush. The two-airline agreement legislation is the creation of the present Liberal-National Party Opposition. That legislation established a commercial contract between Ansett Airlines of Australia, Trans Australia Airlines and the Commonwealth until 1990. The then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, the current Leader of the National Party and the current Leader of the Opposition were party to the pushing through of that legislation despite the very strong opposition of East-West Airlines at the time. Even the current Opposition spokesman on aviation, the honourable member for Murray, voted for it. The Hansard record shows it all. The restrictions the Opposition and East-West are currently complaining about were deliberately and specifically put there, as shown by the words of the then Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir. If one looks at the Hansard record one finds that the then Minister for Transport said: Successive prescribed routes such as Sydney-Albury-Melbourne can be combined to enable operators to increase further the extent of outside competition, subject to the requirement that the principal purpose is carriage of passengers over the individual prescribed routes and not the carriage of passengers between two trunk centres. The two trunk centres in that case were Sydney and Melbourne. Honourable members opposite knew what they were doing. They were specific about it. They planned for it and put it in the legislation. Let me also emphasise that in 1981 East-West Airlines operated out of Tamworth, which is in the Leader of the National Party's electorate of New England. He was not concerned about East-West then. At the time the Managing Director, John Riley, came to me complaining of the difficulty in seeing his local member, a member of the then Government. The airline could not get its foot in the door because the Government of the day did not want to know it. If the Leader of the National Party did not care about his constituency then, why should he worry now? I find it quite a contrast in his behaviour. The fact is that when the current owners of East-West acquired the business in 1983 they made a commercial judgment. They were fully aware of the restrictions imposed on all regional airlines on trunk routes. The two-airline legislation is a public document and East-West has publicly acknowledged its provisions, so it is a case of caveat emptor. East-West went into that deal knowing full well its obligations under the legislation that existed. That legislation, as I have said, is the Opposition's two-airline legislation. We have no intention of accepting responsibility for the Opposition's deeds. It created the legislation; it has to live with it. I stress that it is a commercial agreement between the Government and the two major airlines, and it is a contract which cannot be broken. The right honourable member for New England and his colleagues have locked us into this for eight years. Let there be no mistake about that. Again I quote from Hansard the words of the then Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Gwydir. In the course of the debate on that legislation, he said: I believe every minute of the 8-year period of agreement will be needed. So honourable members opposite knew what they were doing. They wrote it into the legislation, they set it in concrete, but now they want to reverse their decision. I am sorry about that; it is their doing, their legislation, and no amount of shonky argument from the Opposition will ever erase that simple fact. They bear the responsibility for it. We as a government are duty bound to uphold the obligations imposed upon us by that legislation. Mr LLOYD —Is the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism concerned that the decision of the Secretary to the Department of Aviation, which was endorsed by his colleague the Minister for Aviation, to terminate East-West Airlines Ltd's Sydney-Yulara-Perth route will seriously damage the viability of the new Yulara tourist complex? Does he also share the view of the Western Australian Premier that, unless East-West Airlines is allowed to continue services on this route, legislative amendments would be essential to rectify the present absurdity? What is the Minister doing to resolve this unacceptable situation? Mr JOHN BROWN —I am pleased to see that at least one member of the Opposition has some interest in tourism. It is rather refreshing. I think the question has been adequately answered by my colleague. The comments of the Western Australian Premier are pertinent to some extent, but I think that everybody in this House realises that the Minister's hands are tied by the legislation that was invoked by honourable members opposite. It does the Opposition no credit to criticise this Government under the terms of legislation that was introduced by it when in government. The Yulara village is adequately served by the other airlines at the moment. When a resolution of the two-airline agreement comes about there may be another answer, but until then-- Mr Lloyd —So you do not agree with the Western Australian Premier? Mr JOHN BROWN —I agree with the decision that has been made by this Government under the terms of the legislation which governs us. Mr MOUNTFORD —I direct my question to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. I direct his attention to an article appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday, 13 November, which suggests that significant Aboriginal sites would be denied world heritage listing because the Federal Government, acting on advice, would not submit a tentative list of sites to the World Heritage Committee? Has the Minister's attention been drawn to this article? If so, can the Minister inform the House whether the allegations set out therein are true? Mr COHEN —Once again an article has appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald under the byline of Mr David Monaghan, aided and abetted by Mr Michael Rae of the Wilderness Society. It purports to reveal that some error on the part of my Department has denied protection to Aboriginal cultural property. This is the latest in a series of revelations by the same authors that have been consistent for one thing-they have all been wrong. I have yet to come across a journalist quite as unprincipled as Mr Monaghan. His modus operandi is to determine what is a good story and then selectively quote documents out of context that back up that story. The background to Wednesday's story is that my Department has been advised by the Attorney-General's Department not only that those sites were either on or nominated for the World Heritage List protected by the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act but also that any indicative list of sites sent to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation could trigger that Act. As the Government has made it clear that it will nominate those areas put forward by the States and not act unilaterally, it was clear that, if Attorney-General's advice were correct, the indicative list provided to UNESCO would have the same result as nomination. Mr Monaghan, however, in his usual devious manner talks of conflicting legal views between my Department and the Attorney-General's Department. He said that Attorney-General's advice indicates that places on any Australian indicative list would become identified property under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act with the obligations that that entailed. He then states: No such Attorney-General's advice has been disclosed by freedom of information request. Proper research would have revealed that the differing advice was written by the same officer. The advice of 1 June 1984 referred to a planning list, which has no status, prepared for use internally in Australia and provided to the International Council for Monuments and Sites and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and not to the secretariat of the World Heritage Committee. It is my Department's and the Attorney-General's view that the provision of such a list to the World Heritage Committee would have triggered the Act. The most amazing part about the absurd claims of Rae and Monaghan is that no Aboriginal cultural property has been recommended by any States, other than those already listed. In other words, the whole story is a creation of the fevered imagination of the Rae-Monaghan fantasy team. Mr WHITE —My question, which is to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, relates to the Australian Institute of Sport. If the Minister is so convinced that the financial administration of the Institute is in order, as he told the House yesterday, why did he order an investigation and why did he recommend to Cabinet that the status of the Institute be changed to give the Government greater control? In view of the widespread public concern about this matter, will he order a full public inquiry? Mr JOHN BROWN —I note that the wide public concern is restricted to one newspaper, and it is a source of some amazement to me that these alleged scandals have merited two front pages, two editorials and four other pages in the Daily Telegraph and about half an inch in all other more responsible newspapers. What a great scandal! If that is the best scandal those opposite can find we will be here in office forever. The move to alter the status of the Institute of Sport to a statutory authority was made months ago-well in advance of these alleged malpractices. Mr White —Why? Mr JOHN BROWN —Simply because the proper way to run these things is on a statutory authority basis whereby the Institute will be in every way answerable to this Parliament rather than in the manner in which it was set up as a private company by Bob Ellicott in some haste. I know that he privately regrets that that was the case, and it was always the ambition of the Board of the Institute of Sport, from Bob Ellicott's first days, to move to a statutory authority basis. As far as I am concerned, the only imputations about any sort of economic dalliance or misdemeanour at the Institute have been in these articles which have been promoted in the Daily Telegraph. As I said yesterday, I have ordered an inquiry by our internal auditors, Price Waterhouse, to see that these things are explained, and I will come to this House with an explanation. However, to suggest that a full public inquiry is required is simply an exaggerated absurdity. It is strange, in fact rather sad, that the only time this Opposition, which sat over here for 31 of the last 36 years and did nothing whatever for sport, ever mentions it in this House is by way of criticism or in negative terms. We introduced sporting legislation into this House recently and those opposite opposed it. It is no wonder that they are treated with disdain by every sporting organisation in Australia. While I am taking these charges seriously, as well I should, and have instituted a proper inquiry, as well I should, let me make an observation or two about these articles. They have been promoted by two coaches whose contracts were not renewed and who have never given up their vendetta against the Institute because their contracts were not renewed. One of the journalists who are writing these articles, a man called Mike Hurst, is very closely associated with one of those coaches and continues with this bitching and unjustified criticism of the AIS. I am very confident that, when I come back with the report from the internal auditors, everything will be found to be in apple pie order. I really cannot work out the fascination that the Daily Telegraph has with this thing. It would be much better if it devoted a little of that column space to some of the enormously important achievements of the Institute of Sport. It is something of which this Government is entirely proud and of which the Australian sporting community is entirely proud. I am very sad that the Daily Telegraph seeks to beat up this ridiculously small story into what appears to be a major scandal and that someone of the honourable member's dimwittedness has the stupidity to stand up here and ask for a full public inquiry. Mrs CHILD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government hopeful about the outcome of the first United States-Soviet summit meeting in six years which is currently under way in Geneva? Mr HAYDEN —I dare say that it is something of a commonplace comment to stress once again the importance of the summit meeting in Geneva between the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the commonplace nature of that comment does not diminish just how vitally important the matter is. It is the first time that there has been such a meeting between the leaders of East and West since 1979. In the intervening period a fragility has developed on many issues of principle between East and West, heightening tension and widening differences between the two. We should have no illusions that there will be sudden and dramatic results from these discussions. They are not the culmination of a long period of detailed negotiations preceding the summit, as has been the case on previous occasions. Therefore, we should hope rather that this summit will take us off the roller-coaster of United States-Soviet relations for the last six years and will be the beginning of a steadier and more even path. Australia has of course a very deep interest in this matter. Like all countries, we are concerned to make our contribution to anything that might help to avoid nuclear war. Secondly, for good reasons which we have explained before and which are related to issues of verification and deterrence, arms control and early warning, we have, in joint operation with the United States, United States facilities on our territory. The Prime Minister has responded to an invitation from President Reagan to set out some comments from an Australian perspective and this was done before the summit got under way. The Prime Minister has made it clear that Australia welcomes the exchange of proposal and counter-proposal between the United States and the Soviet Union on strategic arms limitations and in particular strongly supports a 50 per cent cut in nuclear weapons which both sides have proposed. I should perhaps mention some of the matters which specifically the Prime Minister has conveyed to the President of the United States. I bear in mind that the President of the United States sought this information and assured us that it would be treated with great and serious consideration and addressed in the course of negotiations. Australia would wish to see mutual commitments to negotiate agreements on deep cuts in offensive forces, confirmation that both sides will adhere to the antiballistic missile treaty, a clear definition of what is acceptable research on strategic defence and explicit undertakings that the provisions of the SALT treaty will not be undercut beyond the formal expiry date at the end of this year. In areas beyond strategic arms, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we support the concept that the United States and the Soviet Union should devise new ways of dealing with regional problems to ensure that they do not spill over into uncontrolled tension between the United States and the Soviet Union, and he has also urged that Cambodia be one of a number of items for consideration in this context. I sincerely trust, as would all seriously minded people, that the summit conference in Geneva is the first step forward in an important development which hopefully will lead to effective arms control. Mr CARLTON —My question is to the Treasurer. Are the taxation proposals outlined in the Government's statement of 19 September to be implemented without alteration? Mr KEATING —I do not know whether this question is directed towards some publicity about the position of the Democrats in relation to the Government's tax reform measures. The Democrats take the position that they support the general thrust of the Government's policies and support the revenue raising measures, but have concerns about the application of some of the detail of the measures. That is in brutal and stark contrast to the position the honourable member for Mackellar is taking in opposing the lot. The Federal Liberal Party-we do not expect much of the National Party-has finally got to the stage where it says that it will not oppose all the tax reform measures; it will take the reductions in marginal rates but oppose every other measure to pay for them. It is almost unbelievable. If one had said three months ago that John Howard, as Leader of the Opposition, would say of tax reform that he would take the reductions- Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Shut up for a moment. If you ask questions and want to hear the answers, shut up. I will sit down if you like. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Treasurer sit down until the House comes to order. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer and I can wait until the House comes to order. Mr KEATING —If one had said two months ago that the honourable member for Bennelong, as Leader of the Opposition, would stand with the authority of a leader of a major party in this country and say, of a process as important as the tax reform process in this country, with the importance the Government attaches to it, that his Party should propose to accept the reductions in marginal rates and oppose all the measures to pay for them, one would have stood incredulous at such a statement. But in fact that is now the official position of the Opposition. Worse is that he says: `It is only $700m to $800m, and we will fund that another way'. Do Opposition members think that anyone in business is not horrified by such a statement from people who have shown no regard for these things? Honourable members opposite had a razor gang which took a year to identify $500m, which finally dwindled to under $200m, compared with a Government which has cut nearly $3 billion out of outlays and tax expenditures. For the Opposition to say that it will cover the cost of $700m to $800m by some undefined basis of raising the revenue is almost unbelievable. The Government's tax reform package of course will succeed. It will be the most substantial change to the tax system since its inception, with major changes in marginal rates of tax, a full imputation system for companies, the most dramatic reform to the company tax system since its introduction and the eradication of all the tax shelters planted and protected by the coalition so that its supporters could slip through the 60 per cent rate. The consequence will be that the public of Australia, the ordinary working persons, will now have a fair tax system. They will not be asked to carry the burden of the tax bludgers who for years have been protected by the Opposition. For the first time in a long time we will be truly encouraging people to take income, to declare their income and to pay the appropriate and going rate of tax. No more will there be sleigh rides and free rides for people working their way round the tax system. The tax package will succeed and will get through. Mr BRUMBY —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry and concerns woodchipping in Tasmania. Does the Minister agree with the content of an advertisement run last Friday in the Age newspaper by the Australian Conservation Foundation? Will the Minister clarify for the House the basis for National Estate classification? Mr KERIN —First of all, the advertisement in last Friday's Age was placed by the Wilderness Society and the Australian Conservation Foundation. It was wrong on four counts and totally misrepresented the facts of the situation. I think that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment has gone some way towards clarifying that matter today. The whole problem with this issue is, as the Minister said, that everyone is focusing on one sentence in the second last recommendation. I will read it out because I have a copy from my office: It is recommended that no logging or forestry operations should be permitted in the areas listed in schedule A. These areas should be reviewed to establish more precisely workable boundaries in the light of the results of the recommended consultation. If one goes back to page 2 and looks at the consultative basis which I negotiated and discussed with Premier Gray this morning, the full picture comes out. The whole problem with this issue, as my colleague has stated, and the reason why there is absolutely no division between us, is that the extremes in this issue focus on one sentence without reading the other sentence in the specific recommendation, and without reading the rest of the overall advice to me under the terms of the Act under which the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment acts. The fact is that the Federal Cabinet has not considered the issue and has got no papers before it. The decision-making process involves the submission of an extensive environmental impact statement to the Government. My colleague assessed that, gave the advice to me, and I have just related some parts of it. Then I have to take into account this concept of `prudent and feasible alternatives' in terms of any conflicts between heritage values or National Estate values and woodchipping or logging in this instance. We have before us a most complex environmental impact statement virtually for the whole State. What I then have to do, after taking all those things into account, is take forward a Cabinet submission. Our Party also has this matter before it. We are a very democratic party. Opposition members-Oh! Mr KERIN —Well, the moment we put out a paper, it gets to the newspapers, so it is total democracy. What has happened over the last week is that the Tasmanian Government supplied additional information to me on all the areas under contention. That was information I requested in July and confirmed in a telephone conversation with Premier Gray in September. Last night I had discussions with the Australian Heritage Commission and today, as I said, I had discussions with Premier Gray and the Tasmanian Forestry Commission. It is very important that honourable members are fully aware of the meaning of National Estate classification. The advice to me from the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment on the environmental impact statement in terms of those areas that have become known as Schedule A points out that there are five areas that have been registered, 16 that have been listed and three that have been nominated. Regardless of those classifications, what we are focusing on is the values themselves, whether nominated, listed or registered. But the objective of National Estate classification is to highlight significant heritage values which must be taken into consideration. Some parts of the Schedule A advice from Minister Cohen to me, designate existing wilderness forests which are protected and, partially, one additional wilderness area. However, the bulk of the designations relate to National Estate or heritage values centring on animal, fish and plant species and caves and archaeological sites. In fact, many of the areas are already subject to forestry operations. A National Estate classification does not necessarily proscribe forestry operations. Mr Cadman —He is reading his statement, as he always does. Mr KERIN —It is hard to accept the view of the Australian Conservation Foundation that forests presently being cut, which have been cut more than three times already and which have been roaded, are wilderness. I give a classic example because I know that one honourable member is having a problem with this answer. Let us look, for example, at the fish, galaxias fontanus Eucalyptus viminalis, found in the Harding Falls area. Mr Cadman —Mr Speaker, this is a sham. Mr KERIN —Another problem is- Mr Cadman —You are wasting time. Mr KERIN —No, I am going all right. Another problem- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I hope the Minister is drawing his answer to a conclusion. Mr KERIN —I know the honourable member for Mitchell has problems with this. However, another classification with respect to Tinderbox Hill and Mount St Louis is associated with the forty-spotted pardalote. The National Estate value in those examples is in species of animals-in one case fish. Therefore, the National Estate classification is associated with habitat. If honourable members want to look at that in terms of the forty-spotted pardalotes they will see that they are associated with the eucalyptus viminalis-a species of tree. Mr Goodluck —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cannot understand this answer. Mr KERIN —We simply have to protect those trees in that area. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Franklin raised a point of order which I did not hear because the Minister continued with his answer. Mr Goodluck —Mr Speaker, that is probably just as well. Mr SPEAKER —I call the Minister, in conclusion. Mr KERIN —I wanted to get this debate back on an even keel. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the Minister that it is not a debate but actually an answer to a question. Mr KERIN —In answering the question, Mr Speaker, I am trying to clarify a debate that has been raging in the media because both sides of the argument have wilfully misrepresented the case. Minister Cohen and I are proceeding, as we should under the Acts to which we respond, in terms of all the matters we should take into account. There is no difference between us. I am trying to explain to the House what a National Estate classification means. Because we have a National Estate area that might centre on a fish, a cave or a bird that does not necessarily mean-as long as we protect the habitat-that there cannot be forestry operations. It does the conservation movement no good when it advertises that there will be bulldozing on top of the Western Tiers when all that is on top of the Western Tiers is scree and rock. The conservation movement is making such emotional statements. Furthermore, when I tried to explain these matters to members of the Australian Conservation Foundation on Sunday afternoon, after an hour and three-quarters discussion with them, they immediately went out of my office and delivered a statement to the Press which they had prepared before the meeting. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister whether the Treasurer's answer to the question just asked of him by the honourable member for Mackellar means that the Government will not accept any amendments at all to the tax proposals detailed by the Treasurer to this House on 19 September. Mr HAWKE —As the Treasurer is indicating sotto voce behind me, the Leader of the Opposition has really forfeited any rights he has to ask questions in this area. There is no way in which the Leader of the Opposition will be able to create any division between the Treasurer and myself in terms of his interpretation of what I have said or what the Treasurer has said. The position is clear: This Government has undertaken, by the mandate given by the people of Australia in the last election, to conduct a serious, extensive review of the dilapidated and inequitable taxation system which we inherited. I remind the people of Australia that the taxation system with which we are dealing arose under something like 31 years of conservative government in this country. What emerged out of that was a taxation system which satisfied none of the relevant criteria of efficiency or equity; nor did it sensibly direct itself to the proper allocation of economic resources in this country. This Government directed itself to ensuring that a taxation system would be created which satisfied those three criteria of equity, efficiency and appropriate allocation of economic resources. Out of that detailed, lengthy process of public consultation and examination by those best equipped to deal with it, the Government has now proceeded to put to this Parliament a package which will satisfy those criteria. The package which the Government has arrived at, intended to satisfy those three basic criteria, will not be departed from. Mr MILDREN —Will the Minister for Primary Industry advise the House of the progress of current negotiations with Victoria for the establishment of a single meat inspection service? Also, will he indicate what cost benefits will flow from such an arrangement? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for his question. The Victorian and Commonwealth governments have agreed to the merging of the two inspection services and that this should occur on 1 January 1986. The immediate cost benefits to the Victorian meat industry will be a saving of some $2.4m per annum. This is an effective reduction in charges of about 35 per cent and will be of major benefit to the industry. As well as that, we can add the $0.9m saving in respect of the elimination of the dual inspection fee. However, it is possible that despite the agreement reached between the two governments on this matter these savings might not be realised because of the likely opposition to the legislation in the Victorian upper House by the Liberal and National parties. Honourable members may be well aware of the intense lobbying of the Federal Government by rural groups, including the meat industry, to take all steps necessary to assist in reducing costs to rural based industries. Given the savings I am at a loss to understand why the Victorian based opposition to this proposal has occurred. I must question the motives of those people involved, particularly as most of the opposition appears to be coming from small vested interest groups. The establishment of a single national meat inspection service has been a long-standing policy of successive Federal governments. I think it has been on the agenda of the Australian Agricultural Council since 1957. I call on the Opposition actively to support the finalisation of single meat inspection arrangement in Victoria which, after all, was commenced by the previous Federal coalition Government. In other words, my predecessor, Peter Nixon, with the same policy position, negotiated with the New South Wales Government to get the transfer. Of course, that involved a State Labor government and there is always a bit more sense in Labor governments. The Labor Government in Victoria is prepared to hand over the service but, once more, the National Party is blocking that. The National Party in the upper House in Victoria recently blocked legislation in regard to the dairy industry which would have cut down on registrations in that industry but in this regard it seems to be a little sillier than usual. It is very important that we get a single meat inspection service in this country. The last report on this matter to the Government was from Mr Bert Kelly, the former member for Wakefield. Again, it was as clear as day that there should be a single meat inspection service because that would give one authority total control of the meat chain. All the findings of the Royal Commission into the Australian Meat Industry pointed to that. It said that there is a need for surveillance and monitoring and that there would be cost savings. Everyone who has looked at this matter objectively realises that such a reform is sensible and sane and cuts down on costs. There is greater flexibility if there is a single meat inspection service. The United States Department of Agriculture and all our customers say that we should get this service. The only thing holding it up in Victoria is, as usual, the National Party which is more responsive to vested interests than it is to the farmers and graziers. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Aboriginal Affairs annual report for 1984-85. 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 and Mr McArthur. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that they are opposed to the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper for the reform of the Australian Tax System in so far as they relate to the imposition of further Capital Gains and Wealth Taxes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to reject any proposal to increase the burden of Capital Gains and Wealth Taxes on the Australian people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Ian Cameron and Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled: 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 promiscuity (The Australian 26.1.85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Halverson and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all, fulfilling employment, a sustainable society conserving natural resources and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Create an Australian Ministry for Peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict; 2. Convene a national Summit for Survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and international co-operation; 3. Support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund peace activities; 4. actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education, self help development and environmental repair; 5. Develop National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops; 6. Implement National Recycling Programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted domestic sewage-sludge and organic garbage with mineral-rich gravel dust, a by-product from rock quarries and mines, into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser for use in revitalising impoverished soils; 7. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples and Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the 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. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of 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 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the Arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) The ready availability of X-rated videos and other pornographic material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the recent cuts announced in the Mini-Budget to Preschools and Day Care Services are a reversal of 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 Mr Hodgman. 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 restore all Federal Funding to Children's Services in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ronald Edwards. 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 being persons connected with and employed in the building industry within Australia deplore the attempts to enforce compulsory unionisation within the Architectural profession and in particular to oppose all attempts at compulsory unionisation, particularly by the Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees and base such opposition on the conflict with the essence of a professional standing, a conflict with the Architects Acts and a conflict with basic Common Law interests, particularly in respect of the Architect being independent in supporting the interests of his client, and further that if an Architect is directly involved with a Building Industry Union that this would be a conflict of interest in the role of the Architect as a Quasi-Arbitrator between Proprietor and Builder. Any such proposal to require compulsory unionisation of Architects discriminates against and inhibits progress within the profession and the building industry and curtails employment throughout the Nation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled reject proposals for compulsory unionisation within the Architectural profession and support the profession and the building industry in its independence and standing for the promotion of independent and high standards within the profession and the building industry. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Howard. 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows woodchipping and clear-felling will destroy the Otway Forests, water catchments and jobs in tourism. Your petitioners therefore pray that you will protect the Otway Forests for the future and refuse any licence to export woodchips from the Otways. by Mr Kerin. The Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that. 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack, itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses, represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable house will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change'. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable, the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses, represents the nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law. (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 3. They know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to its form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: Will ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the `Australia Card' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of Identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory Identity cards. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia show that on the subject of the tropical rainforests of north east Queensland, that this wilderness is under threat. According to your own scientific report and consultants' opinions, this wilderness is one of the most significant regional ecosystems in the world, is of outstanding scientific importance and adequately fulfils all four of the criteria defined by the World Heritage Convention for inclusion in the World Heritage List. Your petitioners therefore ask that you reconsider your decision not to nominate the Queensland rainforest for World Heritage listing. We ask that you act according to your responsibilities, and nominate the area so that it can be protected for this generation and all to come. And your petitioners, in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for `Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the Union of Australian Women calls on the Australian Government to: intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament; remove U.S. bases from Australian soil; keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mr Tickner. 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 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 (i.e. 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 Australians 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. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) the Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in 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 to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade unions. 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. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The interest rate implications of the Hawke Government's subservience to the ACTU. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.55) —Today, 20 November 1985, is a rather important date in regard to the economic debate in Australia at present, and that is for a very simple reason. Exactly a year ago today, on 20 November 1984, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) gave the clearest possible undertaking and the clearest possible promise to the Australian public that interest rates in 1985 would not go up to the Himalayan levels they have now reached; that interest rates in Australia would fall. I invite all of those Government members who represent marginal seats around Australia to ponder for a moment the implications, politically as well as economically, of that promise, the failure of this Government to deliver on that promise and, worse still, not just the failure of the Government to deliver on that promise but the fact that not only have interest rates not fallen in 1985 but also that interest rates in 1985 have gone to their highest level since the years of the Great Depression in the 1930s. Mr Shipton —They have gone through the roof. Mr HOWARD —They have not only gone through the roof but also they have reached levels that no political commentators or practising politicians in Australia would have dreamt possible a short while ago. It serves us well to remind the House exactly what the Prime Minister said at a business luncheon, appropriately enough, in Adelaide on 20 November 1984: At present the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for . . . a decade. It gets even better. He continued: We will continue our work of putting the public finances of this nation back in order and creating the conditions where further interest rate reductions can occur. The statement by the Prime Minister reached an absolutely exquisite height when he said: Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past 20 months. If they were the rewards, I would hate to incur the penalties of the policies of the past 20 months. He continued-and this is the pinnacle of the promise: We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future we will harvest the crop. That is the end of the quotation from 20 November 1984, exactly a year ago today. Over the last couple of weeks we have all been enjoined by members of the Australian Labor Party to remember anniversaries. We have been exhorted to maintain our rage, to maintain our enthusiasm and to maintain our recollection of what happened 10 years ago. I will say this much for the Prime Minister: He certainly maintained the interest and the interest rate over the last 12 months. Having received that promise, we have been treated to the worst interest rates that this country has experienced for over 50 years. Having promised that interest rates would fall in 1985, what have the Prime Minister and the world's greatest Treasurer given us? Have they given us lower interest rates? Have they given us a stronger dollar? Have they given us an inflation rate which makes us more competitive with our trading partners? Of course they have not. I will tell honourable members what they have given us. They have given us a prime overdraft rate that has gone up by 6.5 percentage points, or 50 per cent since 20 November 1984. Yesterday the Westpac Banking Corporation lifted its prime overdraft rate to 19 1/4 per cent, a level of interest that people would never have thought likely to be charged on business overdrafts in Australia. The small overdraft rate has gone up by 4 1/2 percentage points; that is, about a 40 per cent rise. The Bankcard rate has gone up to 21 per cent. Housing loan interest rates have gone up by an average of 2 percentage points which, in terms of a $50,000 savings bank loan, represents an increase of $75 a month. We have had all of this from the low interest rate specialists, all of this from the people who during the election campaign last year apparently got carried away and made wild promises. But they did not learn. After the election was over they continued to make promises. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) made a promise on 14 March. This was after the dollar started to fall, so he cannot excuse himself by saying: `We did not know the dollar was going to fall when we made that promise. We had a floating exchange rate and when you have a floating exchange rate the dollar might go up or down, but you cannot really ask us to predict what will happen with it. We made the promise in good faith and we did not think the dollar was going to fall'. The Treasurer cannot escape joint responsibility with the Prime Minister for breaking the promise they both gave to the Australian public. Mr Keating —No, I did not. Mr HOWARD —Oh yes, you did. I know the Treasurer does not like it. He is very good at standing at the despatch box and yelling out across the chamber, but if anybody reminds him of the miserable deceit he has practised on the Australian people regarding interest rates, if any- body reminds him that he has played the Australian public for mugs, if anybody reminds him that instead of taking on the Australian Council of Trade Unions and getting a decent renegotiation of the prices and incomes accord he just says: `Let us inflict some higher interest rates on the mug Australian public'. If anybody reminds him of these things he starts to slither and slide and interject and protest. He is terribly good at dishing out that sort of nonsense but he is not terribly good at taking it. The Treasurer said a few more things earlier this year that he will be reminded of. This is what he said on the PM program on 14 March 1985: I still stand by the remark-- these are the words of the world's greatest Treasurer- I made in the election campaign that I think there is an interest rate step fall ahead- I ask the Treasurer pray to tell us in his reply when that interest rate step fall will occur. He said: . . . I think there is an interest rate step fall ahead for Australia and its interest rate structure generally through 1985. He also said: I said in the election campaign that I accepted the view of most market commentators that a further interest rate step fall is ahead of us when we get through the tax rundown period. We all know that the tax rundown period ended in May. It is now November and far from falling after the end of the tax rundown period, interest rates have gone up over the past few months to absolutely Himalayan levels. Later on still, after the devaluation was well and truly set in cement, on 17 April 1985 the Treasurer said: I was asked in the election campaign whether I agreed with the views of most market commentators about an interest rate step fall ahead in Australia in 1985. I said that, after the tax rundown period, basically I agreed with the views of those commentators. I stick to that commitment. That statement was made on 17 April 1985. So, stretching from November of last year right up to April and May of this year, we had promise after promise from both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that interest rates were going to come down. The result is not that interest rates have come down but that we are literally being ground down under the worst levels of interest rates that most of the present generation of Australians have ever experienced. That is the Hawke-Keating interest rate legacy for Australia and that is the legacy that is affecting home buyers, small business, larger corporations and general levels of economic activity throughout Australia. Faced with a choice between taking on the ACTU or letting interest rates rip right across the Australian community and affect Australians at all levels of life-with rates at an intensity that we have not experienced for a couple of generations-what has the Government decided to do? It has decided to let interest rates rip. It does not have the courage to go back to the ACTU and say: `The accord we negotiated with you a couple of months ago is not an effective accord. We were too generous. We were too indulgent. We did not look after the interests of the Australian public'. Instead of going back to the ACTU the Government would rather inflict upon the Australian public the highest real interest rate structure we have had for a period of 50 years. The accord that was negotiated with the ACTU a couple of months ago is not an effective response to the devaluation that took place earlier this year. If it had been effective, the world financial markets would not have marked down our dollar. If we had responded effectively to that earlier devaluation, the rest of the world, instead of selling our dollar, would have started buying it. The Treasurer is fond of saying that when we have a floating exchange rate we have to cop the judgment of the market. Of course we do. That means that we have to get our domestic policy settings right. One domestic policy setting he has not got right is his wages policy setting. He should have gone back to the ACTU and had the courage to say to Simon and Bill: `Look, fellows, we got it wrong a couple of months ago. The rest of the world does not believe us. We know we are right and Bob keeps telling me I am right, but something is wrong. The rest of the world does not believe us. We would like to shoot all the messengers. It is all the fault of the Fourex dealers and those money market commentators. It is the fault of the private market economic forecasters. It is the fault of the rest of the world. It is the fault of the Opposition. It is the fault of everyone else, but it is not the fault of Keating, Kelty and Crean. We got it absolutely correct, but somehow or other nobody believes us, because ever since we renegotiated that accord our dollar has been sinking down and down'. We had a national wage case a couple of weeks ago and a 3.8 per cent wage increase was awarded. Immediately, there was a run of confidence in the dollar. Immediately, the rest of the world gave the thumbs down to that decision. Immediately, the rest of the world's financial community said that that was not an appropriate judgment. How on earth can a nation pay itself an across the board wage rise of 3.8 per cent when the annual inflation rate of most of its competitors is below 3.8 per cent and when that 3.8 per cent increase was for a six-month period? So inevitably, the world financial markets marked down the value of the dollar and, inevitably, they said that there was something wrong with our wages policy. The immediate reaction of the Government, through the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), was to say: `They are all wrong again. Shoot the messengers. We do not take any notice of what anybody else says'. The fact that the rest of the financial community gave the thumbs down left the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer quite unmoved. A couple of days ago, the Prime Minister said that maybe national wage judgments did have an impact on the rest of the community and maybe-just maybe-if circumstances warranted it the accord would have to be renegotiated to get more discounting. A day later, the Prime Minister said that we did not need to renegotiate, we did not need any further discounting. This morning, we had the Treasurer's latest contribution when he said that it would be absolutely crazy and inappropriate to renegotiate the accord. Where on earth does that leave us? Is the Government willing to renegotiate the accord or is it not? After all the adverse judgments of the international financial community, is it really willing to stand up and face the ACTU and say: `It is our responsibility as the Government of Australia to make that choice and to get the ACTU to accept a fair share of the burdens of devaluation'. That is all discounting is. It is not asking the wage and salary earners of this country to carry the burden of devaluation. Unless we have discounting we do not fully share the costs of devaluation. Unless we have discounting a disproportionate share of the burden of devaluation is being loaded on to our fixed income earners, our unemployed, our manufacturing industry and our producers. This phoney notion that by seeking a discounting the wage and salary earners of Australia are in some way being asked to carry a greater burden is an absolute load of economic nonsense. Unless we have full discounting we will not be able to capture for our import competing industries and export industries the competitive gain that devaluation has conferred. That has been the gist of this argument about devaluation from the very time this Parliament sat after the 1984 election. The first question the Opposition asked the Prime Minister after the 1984 election was whether the Government would seek full discounting for the effects of the devaluation which had just taken place. The Prime Minister gave an equivocal answer then. The Government has been equivocating even since, and the price of that has been the lowest level ever for the Australian dollar. Only 2 1/2 months ago this Treasurer presided over a Budget that was based upon a trade weighted index value of the Australian dollar which was 10 per cent more than its present trade weighted index value. The fall in the dollar has literally blasted away the parameters on which the Treasurer's last Budget was based, and that is the most graphic illustration yet of the enormous price this country is paying through the unwillingness of the Government to unshackle itself from its subservience to the ACTU. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.10) —Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may presume to correct you, the honourable member's time is expiring. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the economic rationalist of 1984, is the economic vandal of 1985. All we get now from the Leader of the Opposition is basically a repeat simply of opportunistic claptrap. I think this is the seventh time that I have stood up to speak on the same proposition about the level of interest rates. The Opposition in this country, the parties which were in government in this country for the last 30 years bar a few years, now has no wages policy, no fiscal policy and no taxation policy. In other words, it is totally bereft of economic policy right through. It has no policy on tax reform, it has no credible fiscal policy and it has no wages policy. The whole point of bringing on this matter of public importance today has been simply to enable the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and try to embarrass the Government about high interest rates-nothing more, nothing less. While the Opposition is shedding crocodile tears over the loss of disposable income as a result of high interest rates, its spokesman stands up and says in an unprincipled way that we ought to take a wage cut. At the same time he says that the whole nation should take a wage cut, he says that it is a burden to have high interest rates diminishing people's disposable income. What is the logic, the principle and the decency of that position? Maybe I am missing the point about jargon such as: `The Government wants to impose higher interest rates on the nation but not go back to the Australian Council of Trade Unions'. The expression `go back to the ACTU' is Howard- speak for cutting wages. What he does not have the guts to say is: `Why don't you go back and cut their wages rather than raising the interest rates?' He is not game to say that, so he uses the expression `why don't you go back to the ACTU' as if this would be of some hurt to some people in some building in Melbourne. In fact, what he is implying is a wage cut across the nation for everybody. In the same breath as he stands up here and sheds crocodile tears about the loss of disposable income as a result of higher interest rates, he urges the Government to cut wages. That shows the degree of principle and consistency of the Leader of the Opposition. The free marketeer, the man who, more than anyone else in this Parliament, was elected to the leadership of the Liberal Party on a free market strategy, says that he wants to put interest rates in the hands of the market. The man who was elected on the free market strategy is the man who stands here almost every day and endeavours to exploit the market outcomes. Whatever the market outcome is on interest rates, he stands to exploit it, despite having removed the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) from leadership on the basis that he had no respect for the market mechanism, that he had a political approach which was abhorrent to the new rational Liberal Party. During Question Time I went through its tawdry record of late on the tax reform exercise. For months I was implored by the Leader of the Opposition, then the Treasury spokesman, to lift the ceiling on housing interest rates of 13 1/2 per cent. However, as a result of the first bit of pressure brought about by the South Australian election, the Leader of the Opposition now says that he does not want the ceiling to be abolished or raised. He says that he understands the political pressure that the Government is under. Now he has completely abandoned that policy. This is the strength and rational position of John Howard, political aspirant. He wanted to abolish the 13 1/2 per cent rate. I quoted the Hansard references to his enjoining me to raise the rate. Yet we find that he abandons his position the moment he is under the slightest pressure in terms of the South Australian election campaign. It is not even a Federal election campaign but he has yielded under pressure. He went to South Australia to support Olsen and abandoned his interest rate stance. In the same breath as he says that we ought to be lowering interest rates he says that we ought to be cutting wages. I do not understand how an Opposition could hope the Government would cope with that sort of rationalisation. I asked the honourable gentleman and his colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) whether they believed that the Government's monetary policy was now right after months of them saying it was wrong. They said on the record-if anyone is interested in the Hansard reference, I will find it-`Yes, the Government's monetary policy is now right'. But they refuse to accept the market outcomes of such a monetary policy. I am totally amused and bemused at the change of stance of the Leader of the Opposition. He is now a man fighting for his parliamentary life. That is what he is doing today. He is not attacking me; he is fighting for his parliamentary life. He knows the Opposition is in a state of shambles intellectually. The honourable gentleman can grin. That is all I have ever seen him do since he has been in Parliament. He must be the world champion grinner. The Opposition is in chaos intellectually. There was a time when we might not have agreed with the Liberal Party's stance but at least it had a framework for the position it took. It now has no framework. What the Leader of the Opposition is doing today in proposing the same pro- position for the seventh time is, wittingly or unwittingly, fighting for his parliamentary life. The honourable member for Kooyong may well sit and wonder about his fate at the hands of his colleagues in the Liberal Party. He may quite reasonably wonder why they took the view they did when we find within two months or so of the honourable member for Bennelong taking office that the Liberal Party now has no framework whatsoever for its policy stance on the major economic issues at hand. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition does not think that I should be impressed by the force of what Opposition members are saying. I am not. I regard honourable members opposite as jokes-absolute jokes. This is something which is too sad to laugh about. If the honourable gentleman thinks he is cutting any ice with me he can simply think again. In 1982, when the honourable gentleman had interest rates at the level they now are, the economy was in a state of depression. It was at the bottom of its worst depression since the Great Depression. The result was that people had to borrow to hold on. People are borrowing now, but the upward pressure on interest rates now is from people borrowing to invest. There is a total difference in people borrowing to save themselves from insolvency and bankruptcy when the rate of unemployment went from 6 per cent to 10 per cent of the work force and the rate of inflation went back into double digit figures, to nearly 12 per cent. One cannot compare this strongly growing economy with the kind of economic chaos that existed under the previous Government. I have talked about the accord on a number of occasions. The Leader of the Opposition keeps insisting on raising the question of full discounting. I want to make a couple of points to him. The first point to make is that the depreciation started in February. The first wage response-the 3.8 per cent wage rise-was in October of this year. So, for a start, there has been a nine months' lag in the wage response to the depreciation. The Opposition has never conceded that. The second point is that average weekly earnings for the year to September rose by 4.1 per cent. Can the Leader of the Opposition honestly look me in the eye and say that, with 4.1 per cent rise in average weekly earnings, in the face of 20 per cent plus depreciation and 5 per cent economic growth, he could hope to produce such a good result in any system of labour deregulation in Australia under any formula he may propose? It would be nonsense to suggest that he could. The figures on award wage drift were put out the other day. What was the degree of award wage drift in the economy? It was 0.2 per cent for six months-a half of one per cent on an annual basis. I made it quite clear that not only is there a nine-month lag in the wage effect of some of the depreciation but also, as we said would be the case, there has been full discounting of wages. There is 2 per cent to be taken off the April wage case. The deferment of the productivity case is worth at least another 2 per cent. We have productivity in the economy running at about 2 1/2 per cent. If there is half a per cent for drift, let us say that there is, in round figures, a further 2 per cent to pick up the indirect effects of the depreciation. So we have discounting of roughly 4 per cent. Why does the Leader of the Opposition suggest and keep repeating that with a depreciation of the magnitude we have seen, with to date the direct effect of discounting of only 1.6 per cent and with an agreement in place for discounting of 2 per cent, plus another 2 per cent, there is anything less than full discounting? Why does the Leader of the Opposition diminish his standing by saying that? It is full discounting, as we said it would be, because the Government assumed that that would pick up more or less-probably more, given the pattern at least in the initial period-the price effects coming through, particularly as the price effects have been muted by importers absorbing some of the price impact and cutting their margins. So the fact is that there has been full discounting. It is true that the foreign exchange market reacted badly to the trade figures of last month. That is the prerogative of the market. We say that the fundamentals are important. The Government has a strategy which will turn around the pattern of production in Australia, the current account and the deficit. But nobody expected that a change in the exchange rate would, within a month, get the manufacturers of this country back into the business of investment in manufacturing and finding export markets when for a decade they had been told to import and not to try to export. It takes time to change that. The Leader of the Opposition understands that but he is up to a bit of vandalism on the way through. If he can exacerbate the position and throw a spanner in the works for the miserable interests of the Liberal Party, he will do so. That is a far cry from the stated position he has had for years. In fact, what we are seeing now with a major depreciation is a change in the pattern of investment and production in this economy. That is as it should be. We want to start exporting our brains, our creative work, our manufactures and our services. We want to compete against imports rather than simply selling forever minerals and the products of agriculture. We do not want to be a developing economy, a Third World economy, forever. We want to get back in the business of added value-technology and innovation. That is what the depreciation does. That is what this fundamental change is doing. The Opposition is trying to hold the Government to ransom by taking these cheap jibes at us while this change is taking place. I understand the crude game of politics, but let me say this to the Opposition: There is a full wage discount in place; fiscal policy is appropriately adjusted; monetary policy is appropriately adjusted; every reasonable Government adjustment is in place. Now we are seeing a turn in investment practice across the economy which will eventually turn the current account. I know that members of the Opposition say that they are market people, but they do not believe in market outcomes. They say that the J-curve will be an L-curve and that there will be no effect from a 20 per cent plus price change in the economy. If honourable members opposite do not believe in the market, for God's sake let them say so and give up this pretence that they are market people. We do believe in the market. Honourable members opposite might think that my Party does not have the philosophic backdrop to be interested in the market-place, but intellectually we have consistently followed a policy in government of belief in market mechanisms and we have put those mechanisms in the market's hands. I am sorry to say that the Leader of the Opposition now stands without any credibility whatsoever. So in the future he should not come into the Parliament and try to lecture me. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Treasurer's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(3.25) —I support the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) in this debate this afternoon on the matter of public importance. Today celebrates one year since the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a promise which has been blatantly broken. As the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong, has said, ironically the Prime Minister chose to make that promise in the city of Adelaide. In this Parliament there is always a danger that we are somewhat insulated from the reality of what happens to the rest of the world. Too often we sit in this chamber unaware not only of the cries of Australia but even of the cries of people who are at the front door of the Parliament protesting. We do not hear them because the very framework of this Parliament tends to mean that we are insulated from some of the immediate realities. But it seems that no one is as insulated from the realities as is the Treasurer (Mr Keating). He wears an asbestos suit and makes it look snappy. He is impervious to the pleas of productive Australia. Today we in fact make a plea for the people who are unrepresented in this Parliament because they are unrepresented on the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This afternoon the Treasurer accused us of being repetitious. We have no other weapon but to repeat the pleas of those in Australia who are unrepresented in this Parliament and are being cruelly affected by the tax policies of this Government, as encouraged by the ACTU. The Treasurer has come into this House and accused the Leader of the Opposition of fighting for his parliamentary life when, in truth, he is in this chamber fighting for the people of Australia who have no voice in this Parliament because they have no voice in the ACTU. Every time a matter of economic importance is raised we are berated by the Treasurer. He pours scorn and derision on the Opposition. He effectively fiddles while Rome burns. The issue before the House this afternoon has nothing to do with the Opposition's policies. It does not matter in which chamber of parliament in Australia this debate takes place; the policies of the Opposition are relatively irrelevant to it. The issue that affects every Australian is: What are the policies of the Government? The Government is elected to govern and what is it doing about the dilemma that currently faces Australians? This Government is insulated against the reality which we cannot escape in our electorates. While we debate this matter this afternoon I have farmers in my electorate who are making their way around paddocks with grain rattling in harvester bins. They might well ask themselves how many bushels of that grain they are harvesting for the Government and how little they are harvesting for themselves. Everyone in this chamber knows of people who are in retail outlets and business who may well ask themselves why they are bothering to persist when the current Government policies are eroding the work they are doing and the profitability they ought reasonably to anticipate. Let us take again the example of my grain growers. Once-in 1981 and 1982-in the face of a drought they made their way around those same paddocks with a header comb that damn near ploughed the sand because there was nothing to be harvested, and they survived. For the duration of this Government they have made their way around paddocks in relatively good years. The problem, the mystery, the question they cannot solve is: `Why can we still barely survive'? They can barely survive because in the face of good seasons this Government is sending Australia bankrupt. The farmers might be tolerant if in the face of an international recession or a drought they were being sent bankrupt. But in the face of good seasons and a productive and expanding world economy they are wondering where their next meal will come from. In fact, while the Treasurer has come in here mouthing mere rhetoric and pouring scorn on the Opposition he has done nothing to address the real problems that face every Australian, particularly those involved in some form of export industry. Consider for a moment the sobering fact that, in spite of good seasons, the farms of Australia currently face a situation where the ratio between prices aid and prices received is the lowest since 1965 and the real prices received for products are the lowest since 1965. What does that say for the Treasurer's handling of the economy? No one on this side of the House has accused the Treasurer of creating rural or national poverty, but we accuse him of exacerbating it just when we ought to be enjoying productive years. There has not been a world recession, but in spite of that the Australian dollar on a trade weighted index is at an all time low. Today's Australian ran a front page story making the point that interest rates have hit all time high levels. Everyone knows that our inflation is at least twice that of our export competing countries. Well might Australians ask why, in the face of good seasons, we face so dismal an economic outlook. It is because this Government has a relationship with the ACTU that blinds it to the economic realities. We persist as a parliament, under the persuasion of the Government, with high interest rates rather than offend the ACTU. If we had been prepared, as the Leader of the Opposition has pleaded with the Parliament, to look again at the 3.8 per cent wages rise that we have foisted on all productive Australians in the past month, we may not have seen the dollar fall as it has fallen; but while the dollar falls interest rates will rise. While we maintain this relationship with the ACTU it is inevitable that interest rates will rise. I stand in this Parliament as a South Australian. My plea to the Parliament this afternoon is on behalf of South Australians, because as dismal as the economic situation may be in the rest of the nation, nowhere is it worse than it is in South Australia. The cost of living has risen at a more rapid rate in Adelaide than it did in any other capital in our nation. The Bannon Government cannot escape its share of responsibility for what has been our economic demise. I remind honourable members that under Labor in South Australia petrol has gone up by 36 per cent and housing and interest rates have gone up, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated, by 55 per cent. The things that every South Australian needs have gone up-bread by 21 per cent; beer by 27 per cent; electricity by 41 per cent; water rates by 64 per cent; and bus fares by 43 per cent-under the watchful eye of the Bannon Government. In what ought to have been good and productive years for South Australians, the Parliament has heard how South Australians ought to be rejoicing in the Grand Prix, and I have told of a horse jumping event that will occur in my electorate. South Australians have reason to be pleased that these things are happening, but no reason to be pleased at the way the economy is turning. The Grand Prix and horse jumping events do nothing to pay the mortgage, and it is the mortgage that is biting as interest rates rise. The tax package before this Parliament-this sop to the ACTU-is in place. While it placates the ACTU, it is an effective disincentive to investment anywhere in our nation, particularly in South Australia. The tax package is part of what has pushed up interest rates and is a disincentive to all those who would take a risk to make Australia a more productive country. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(3.35) —It almost ill becomes me to say it, but I am continually surprised that this Opposition has more cheek than the rear end of an elephant. It has continually looked backwards for inspiration and it simply regurgitates the rhetoric that was put forward in the various maiden speeches when the red necks came into this House. The Opposition ought to look back and take note of Lincoln's maxim: `You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time'. Today's matter of public importance is in the context of the so-called subservience of the Government to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and its relationship with interest rates. This union bashing, Tory approach is part of the Opposition's political baggage and political lexicon. Instead of talking about industrial relations policies, it talks about sackings. We have had the macho approach of the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the Opposition's Rambo, who has talked about deregulation, attacking the soft end of union power and so on-all rhetoric. I think we should make a clear distinction between what constitutes subservience and what constitutes co-operation. The conclusions ought to be based upon whether this Government is adopting a confrontationist approach or a co-operative approach. In terms of analysis about which is the most appropriate policy mix, it is important to learn a few lessons. Opposition members should not come into this House and simply talk about horse jumping in their electorate; for goodness sake! It is important to go to the library, have a nosey through the index and pull out some current articles and data and have a look at that. Mr N. A. Brown —What would you suggest? Mr GRIFFITHS —The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party continues interjecting in his rude and arrogant way. The ignorance of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is exceeded only by his compulsive rudeness. He is a disgrace to his Party and to this House. In the context of an analysis of which policy mix-in terms of co-operation or confrontation-various governments embrace, it is important to look at overseas experience; that is, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development experience. A book written by Kerry Schott in 1984, entitled Policy, Power and Order concerning the persistence of economic problems in capitalist states, contains a table on page 55 which is headed `Countries Ranked by Economic Performance Criteria and Political Arrangements throughout the Seventies'. It draws a correlation, or a nexus, between relative economic performance indices and the degree to which particular governments embrace co-operative, as opposed to more market orientated, approaches to wages polices and the whole range of other policies. I refer to only a couple of examples, as the list is quite exhaustive. Group 1 is those countries which have succeeded in terms of growth rates, inflation rates and unemployment rates by embracing a consensual or co-operative approach to economic policy. Heading the group is Japan, which had good growth rates, good inflation rates and good unemployment rates. Austria also has a rating of good for those three economic outcomes. Germany is in the same table with the same results. Each of those countries, with the exception of Germany, embraces what could be termed the most extreme form of consensual approach to economic policy formulation. Germany is described as medium-that is, it has a judicious mixture of reliance on market mechanisms, but it also has a very strong dollop of the consensual approach. In the second group I will witness only Australia. In the 1970s Australia's growth rate, inflation rate and unemployment rate were medium. There are a whole range of other countries in that group which do not come out as well as that, but many countries come out better. In the 1970s Australia did not have a consensual approach, as is known by every member of this House. That manifested itself in massive rates of unemployment, which increased towards the end of the 1970s, with a correlating massive increase in inflationary levels and so on. It resulted in a very low growth rate-in fact, in 1982-83 there was a negative growth rate for the first time since the Great Depression. At the bottom of the table-it is worth just running through these examples briefly-the United States of America, in terms of growth rates, has a medium response, its inflation rate and unemployment levels are poor. What was its approach? It certainly was not consensual, it was based on the rhetoric of deregulation and market outcomes. Canada's growth rate is medium and its inflation and unemployment rates are poor. Again, there is a non-reliance upon a consensual approach. We all know the outcome in the United Kingdom. In every major area growth rates, inflation rates and unemployment rates all have poor outcomes and there is no reliance at all upon a consensual economic approach. I think it was worth running through those figures because anyone can come into this House and mouth rhetoric. Indeed, if I were as bereft of ideas as is the Opposition in terms of economic policy, I suspect that that is precisely what I would be doing. It is an easy thing to do, but it adds nothing to the economic debate in this country. In today's Sun News-Pictorial there is an article on Mr Kennett, the Opposition Leader in Victoria, regarding his approach to wage fixation and the trade union movement. The article is headed, `Work or sack-Kennett'. It states: Under the Liberal plan-- this is, in fact, a journalist paraphrasing- which appears to draw on the Queensland Government's handling of striking power workers-sacked employees would be given the chance to rejoin government service on contracts which guaranteed reliable service . . . Sacked workers who did not decide within two weeks to return to the job on agreed conditions would be barred from work in the public sector. The old stock in trade-when one has nothing to say, attack the trade unions. Unfortunately, at the very same time that Mr Kennett was mouthing the Opposition orthodoxy, the National Farmers Federation put a spoke in the wheel and stated that it does not support penal sanctions, but is for their removal. That is a most important point. I am sure the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) will agree with that. For those on the conservative side of politics that is a fundamental change in terms of employer attitudes. The honourable member for Wakefield felt it appropriate to dwell on matters that were pertinent to South Australia. It is important to address a couple of those points. The Opposition Leader in South Australia has not had the guts to endorse Mr Howard's opting out policy. He knows what that will mean at the ballot box. People are not stupid. They will not be prepared to put their own lifestyles in jeopardy because the soft end of union power will be attacked and, as a result, their personal standards of living will be badly affected. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) adequately outlined the confusion on interest rate deregulation. Mr Howard, of course, would remove the ceiling and leave those who are paying off large mortgages at the whim of the market. We will not do that. We are for protecting the ordinary home owner and home purchaser in Australia. Again, there has been a degree of confusion. What will Mr Olsen do? The South Australian people would be well advised to send a message via Mr Olsen to Mr Howard. We are not for a deregulated home interest rate regime. The Australian Financial Review today talked about the precariously-based economic policies of Mr Olsen's privatisation approach. Opposition members have no credible wages policy, tax policy or fiscal policy. They have no monetary policy to talk of. Given the chance, they would create a new wage-price spiral. The future is in our hands. The OECD's lessons are clear. With Mr Howard we would be well and truly up the deregulation creek without the accord paddle and all Australians would be the losers. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The discussion has concluded. Bill presented by Mr Kerin, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.45) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purposes of this Bill are to enact legislation to validate the past collection of various fees for services provided by the Commonwealth under the Quarantine Act 1908. Firstly, the Bill validates the collection of certain human, animal and plant quarantine fees for which there has been no authority under the Quarantine Act as a result of the unintended effect that notices made under the Act have had in revoking the basis on which fees for some quarantine services have been charged. Secondly, the Bill validates charges levied on airline operators under the Act to offset expenses incurred in the removal and disposal of airline waste. The Quarantine Act was amended by the Quarantine Amendment Act 1984 with effect on 24 May 1984. As a result a new provision, section 86E, was inserted in the Act. Section 86E gave the Minister power to determine, by notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, that fees of amounts set out in the notice are payable for certain services provided under the Act. The fees that were prescribed in regulations were kept in force as determinations by force of the amendment Act. On 1 October 1984 a notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette revoked all determinations that, by virtue of the amendment Act, had remained in force but only determined new fees relating to export inspection of livestock. However, the requirement that the determination should be tabled in each House of Parliament was not complied with. As a result the determination became void and of no effect on 24 October 1984 and the earlier provisions relating to fees were revived by operation of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. In consequence, there were no quarantine fees, other than for export inspection of livestock, in the period1-24 October 1984. However, fees were charged in this period as though provisions covering all quarantine fees were in force. Until 13 December 1984 the Quarantine Act was wholly administered by the Minister for Health. After that day the Minister for Primary Industry became the Minister administering the Act in relation to animal and plant quarantine. The Minister for Primary Industry subsequently made further determinations that were also defective, but these did not apply to human quarantine fees. Fees estimated to amount to approximately $2.5m will have been paid and collected before new notices are published that consolidate, on the one hand, fees for export inspection of livestock, and, on the other, all other fees relating to animal and plant quarantine. The departments of Primary Industry and Health only recently became aware that past notices may have been defective. Advice of the Attorney-General's Department was immediately sought. That advice confirmed the Departments' suspicions and indicated that legislation would be necessary to rectify the defect. This Bill will overcome this defect in the legislative arrangements under which fees are charged for quarantine services that have been or are being provided by the Commonwealth. The second matter for which validating legislation is required concerns the collection of quarantine fees levied by the Commonwealth for expenses connected with the removal of galley waste from aircraft arriving in Australia. Galley waste from aircraft arriving from overseas has, for some time, been collected and disposed of either by, or under arrangements made by, the Department of Health in accordance with its quarantine responsibilities. Various charges, intended to offset expenses, have been levied for that collection and disposal. The amount of revenue collected from airline operators in 1984-85 is approximately $630,000. Until the need for validating the collection of other quarantine fees became apparent, theDepartment of Health considered that it derived authority for charging for the collection of galley waste from section 64 of the Quarantine Act. However, with the benefit of the closer scrutiny that the need for validation elsewhere has provided, it has become apparent that there has been no legislative authority for the imposition of fees for this service. A new determination under section 86E of the Quarantine Act to cover the levying and collection of charges for the collection and disposal of aircraft waste has since been made by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and took effect upon gazettal on 18 November 1985. This Bill will ensure a proper legal basis for the collection of fees for the provision of this service prior to that date. The Bill has no financial implications. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr White) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Howe, and read a first time. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security)(3.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is part of a package of measures designed to provide improved social security assistance to people who move between countries. The package includes provision to enter into a reciprocal social security agreement with each of Australia's major migrant source countries, and indeed any country that is interested in a reciprocal agreement with Australia. The introduction of this package will enable Australia to become part of an international network of such agreements throughout the world. There have been some major developments since I made my last statement to the House on reciprocal social security agreements on 8 May 1985. In that statement I indicated that the Government was preparing to negotiate reciprocal social security agreements with interested countries on the basis of 35 years residence in Australia. It also indicated that the Australian Government was prepared to sign a draft agreement with Italy on this basis. However, before going ahead with legislation to give effect to these decisions and before proceeding further with negotiations with other countries, I initiated detailed consultations with the ethnic communities in Australia to inform them of the Government's plans and to seek their reaction. These consultations were a most valuable exercise. They showed that the ethnic communities in Australia had some very great concerns about what reciprocal agreements would mean for them and that the Government needed to take these concerns into account. As a result, the Government has made a number of changes to the position I announced in May. Before outlining these changes to the House, I would like to remind honourable members about the purpose of reciprocal social security agreements. Reciprocal social security agreements are formal arrangements entered into by countries to ensure that people who move between countries receive social security pensions and benefits on a fair and equitable basis from the countries in which they have lived. They are treaties binding countries under internation law and are put into effect under the laws of the countries concerned. Reciprocal agreements allow many people who at present do not meet all the qualifications related to place of residence, citizenship and other territorial requirements for a pension to acquire entitlement. For example: 1. People can fail to qualify because they lived in Australia for less than 10 years. This particularly applies to aged parents of migrants who want to come to Australia to live with their children. 2. Another major group who fail to qualify at present are those who have lived and worked in Australia, but have returned to their country of origin before they have become eligible for an Australian pension. Under present law, they cannot apply for any pension from Australia while they are overseas. 3. Most countries pay pensions only after people have lived and worked there for a certain number of years. If a person has not paid contributions from his or her wages for long enough, or has not lived in the country long enough, then he or she can fail to qualify. 4. For some social security systems, people need to be citizens of that country. For example, if they have been Australian citizens and contributed to some other country's social security system, they might lose their entitlement to the other country's pension. 5. Under some social security systems, people must be living in a country to claim and receive a pension from that country. A person can fail to qualify because he or she has moved to another country. 6. Some countries have currency restrictions. Even if a person is entitled to a payment, he or she may not actually be able to get it while out of the country. Over a million people in Australia and overseas are affected by these problems or will be in the future. Reciprocal social security agreements can overcome them. Agreements are based on shared responsibility. If a person has lived in Australia and some other country or countries, each country will pay a share of the person's total pension. However, as I indicated in May the Australian social security system is very different from those overseas. It pays flat rate pensions while most overseas social security systems are based on contributions. For this reason it is necessary to change Australia's arrangements for paying pensions abroad so that they are payable on a proportional basis in line with overseas social security systems. I turn now to the changes the Government has made as a result of the consultations with the ethnic communities: 1. Each reciprocal agreement will be introduced by a separate Bill after it is negotiated. It is possible to introduce them by regulation; however, introducing them by a separate Bill will facilitate more rigorous parliamentary scrutiny and will provide the ethnic communities and, indeed, the whole community with an assurance that a particular agreement cannot come into effect until it has been debated by both Houses of Parliament. 2. The basis for reciprocal agreements and the calculation of all pension payments outside Australia will be 25 years rather than 35 years as previously announced. Most countries pay their minimum pensions after about 15 years and their maximum pension after about 40 years. In Australia, we have flat rate pensions, or in other words the maxima and minima are the same, and are payable after 10 years. A period of 25 years would put the Australian system for paying full pensions overseas at about the mid point of the periods provided under the various contribution based schemes operating overseas. 3. Many people residing in Australia at 8 May 1985 who are close to retirement have a reasonable expectation of taking full Australian pension overseas. To meet this expectation, the Government has decided to exempt all people residing in Australia at that date from the new rules until 1 January 1996. After that date, only those who go to a country with whom Australia has a reciprocal agreement will be affected. This is particularly important for people who go to former refugee source countries or countries where a reciprocal arrangement is not possible. 4. Considerable concern was expressed during the consultations with the communities about people who become widowed or invalided in Australia. The Government has decided that in these cases it is equitable that Australia should accept responsibility for payment of full pensions. Proportionality will apply for people who become invalided or widowed outside Australia. 5. The final change the Government has made is to extend the period allowed for temporary absences from Australia from three months to 12 months. Of course, as previously announced, all existing pensioners, whether in Australia or overseas, will not be affected by the new rules. I now want to turn to how the new provisions contained in the Bill will operate. Honourable members will be aware that the Social Security Act 1947 provides that certain pensioners in Australia can continue to receive their pensions if they go overseas. The new provisions do not alter these basic provisions. What they do, however, is provide a method for paying proportional pensions overseas under reciprocal agreements and the portability rules. The proportion payable will be the length of time a pensioner has spent in Australia during working life, divided by 25 years. A full pension is paid to those with 25 or more years residence. In the case of most single pensioners it will be the pensioner's own residence that will be used to calculate the level of pension payable. However, for married pensioners the residence in Australia of the husband or the wife, whichever is the longer, will be used; for wive's pensioners the residence in Australia of the spouse will be used; and for care pensioners, the residence in Australia of the age or invalid pensioner being cared for will be used. All those to whom the new law will apply will be able to go overseas for visits of up to 12 months without their pensions being affected. As I made clear in my statement in May, the existing residence requirements in Australia will continue to apply. For example, the requirement for age pension will continue to be 10 years residence in Australia, of which five years must be taken during one continuous period. However, the Bill introduces the concept of residence during working life. This is a new concept for Australia and provides a better basis for reciprocity. Working life is the period between age 16 and age pension age-65 for men and 60 for women. There is no requirement that people need to be working during that time. It is assumed that during that period of life a person is a member of the work force. The provision is that only residence in Australia accumulated during this period of life can be taken into account in meeting the 25-year period for maximum payments. I now want to give the House a number of important assurances about the package of measures I have referred to earlier. Firstly, I want to re-affirm that the Australian Government is ready to sign the draft agreement with Italy as soon as an opportunity arises. This is a most important agreement for Australia because it is the first one negotiated on the basis of proportional payments. The Government has been advised that the Italian Government is also prepared to sign this draft agreement and I am hopeful that it will be possible to bring this agreement into effect some time during 1986. Secondly, I want to re-affirm that Australia is prepared to negotiate with any interested country. This was the assurance given by the previous Government when it was in office. This will be honoured by this Government, but with one important qualification-that we would not be prepared to commence negotiations with any country unless in the relevant ethnic community in Australia there was broad support to such negotiations taking place. Thirdly, I want to assure the House that negotiations towards reciprocal agreements will be accompanied by close consultation with the ethnic communities. The negotiations themselves are a matter for governments and of course must be confidential. But it is essential that those participating in the negotiations understand the problems being experienced by the relevant community and that the communities' views are taken into account in developing the principles being negotiated. For this purpose I have invited the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia to assist me in planning a program of consultation with the ethnic communities. Fourthly, no agreement can be implemented until the legislation necessary to give it effect in Australia has been passed by this Parliament. Fifthly, it is clearly not possible to negotiate a large number of agreements simultaneously, and I hope to develop a program that will be based on the expectations of the communities and take into account the priorities this Government views as necessary as well as those perceived by our possible agreement partners. A large number of countries have been pressing Australia strongly to commence negotiations, in some cases for many years. I want to assure them that Australia is very interested in proceeding with reciprocal arrangements. We recognise that it is the way of the future, but because of the very different system we have in this country and because of the importance of working closely with the ethnic communities here, it may not be possible to go as fast as some of these countries may wish. There are many people throughout the world who have spent time in Australia who are experiencing real hardship because they have no pension entitlement from this country and a reduced entitlement from their country of residence. There are also many people in Australia who have contributed to a foreign social security system and who now can receive no benefits from their contributions. This Bill provides a basis for us to negotiate reciprocal arrangements on a fair and rational basis so that these people can be assisted. The introduction of this Bill is a major step in a process which has been going on for some 30 years. It will enable us to bring to fruition major improvements in the lot of Australia's migrants-an objective that has proved too much for previous governments. Because of time pressures in these sittings I have given only a brief introductory statement on this occasion. I hope to go into more detail of the Bill's contents at the time it is debated in the next sittings of this House. Its introduction now will give honourable members an opportunity to peruse its contents, consult as necessary and consider at length its implications. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Blunt) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(4.03) —The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill and cognate Bill are extremely important because they raise some fundamental issues concerning the future direction of education in this country. Let me say at the outset that one of the priorities of the Labor Government has been to try to strengthen the education system at all levels but in particular at the tertiary level, as I will illustrate in my comments. These measures are further evidence of the Government's attempt to increase the number of places in the tertiary education system, to streamline procedures within that system, and to increase the standard and quality of that system. We need to look at the background to this legislation. If we look at the retention rate among high school students during the period of the previous Government, the record was appalling. It is true that that situation had been in place for many years. The fact is that the previous Government did nothing to change the retention rate of high school students. I seek leave of the House to have incorporated in Hansard a table which illustrates what happened to retention rates from 1973 to 1985. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Retention rate of high school students 1973-85 Percentage of students beginning high school who completed final year 1973-33.1% 1974-32.9% 1975-34.1% 1976-34.9% 1977-35.3% 1978-35.1% 1979-34.7% 1980-34.5% 1981-34.8% 1982-36.3% 1983-40.6% 1984-45.0% 1985-No final figures at this stage, but a further increase expected. Source-Department of Education, Canberra, 20 Nov- ember 1985. Dr THEOPHANOUS —As the table indicates, the average retention rate over the Fraser years was 34 per cent; that is, 34 per cent of students who began high school finished high school. This was one of the lowest retention rates in the Western world. For a civilised developed country to have such a rate is an absolute disgrace. Indeed, what we had in Australia was clearly an idea that education was not a right but merely a privilege. We had very little action on the part of government to encourage students to stay at school, to finish their high school studies and go on to tertiary education. There seemed to be an idea that tertiary education was something for an elite group, for a small minority, rather than a right of all people who had shown sufficient ability to achieve it. The fact is that a whole generation of young people did not achieve tertiary education because of the policies of the previous Government and indeed of conservative governments generally. Mention has already been made in this debate of the huge spur to tertiary education that was given by the previous Labor Government, the Whitlam Government. But after that time we had a series of freezes, a squeezing out of tertiary institutions, the idea that tertiary institutions should in a sense be treated almost as an afterthought for increases in the Budget. There was no planning for the idea that education, especially tertiary education, was an investment in the future of this country not only for the people who had that education but also for the nation as a whole. There was no such planning by the previous Government. Consequently, we had a situation which was virtually disastrous in terms of the increasing inability of young people to finish high school or even, when they did finish high school, to get into tertiary institutions. From the first day that this Government came to power, the Minister for Education, Senator Susan Ryan, began the process of turning that situation around. In the three years we have been in government, 20,500 new higher education places have been created. That is the sort of record one needs to look at and to ask: Why was this not achieved before? The fact is that a disproportionate number of the drop-outs from high school came from, and a disproportionate burden of the Fraser Government's policies were borne by, people from working class areas, from underprivileged, disadvantaged or migrant groups. It was those people and their children who were unable to get through the high school system and into universities or colleges because of the starving of money. Even when they did manage to get through the Higher School Certificate, they were unable to get into colleges or universities because there were insufficient places. That is the dreadful record of the previous Government. In the first two years of the Labor Government, we shifted the retention rate to over 40 per cent and each year it is going up. More and more students are staying at school and more and more of them are getting opportunities in the tertiary sector as a consequence of the policies that have been put into place. The reason for that increased retention rate is not only the investment in education by the Labor Government in terms of places but also the broadening of the concept of tertiary education. The Tert- iary Education Commission's guidelines set down by the Government state: Alternative means of increasing enrolment and participation in tertiary education including the wider use of new technologies and more intense utilisation of resources available to institutions and the need to make adequate provision for the disadvantaged. I emphasise the words `adequate provision for the disadvantaged' because, as I mentioned, during the period of office of the previous Government the deprived areas in this country were treated with contempt, especially in relation to tertiary education. There was no attempt to build colleges or universities in those areas. It was considered not good enough to build them in working class areas. The kids in those areas had to travel huge distances, just as I had to travel huge distances every day to Monash University from Broadmeadows in Melbourne, simply because the previous Government did not even consider building universities in those deprived areas. It is only because the Government has set down these guidelines for the Commission and it has acted on them that we will have the new technical and further education college which will open in Broadmeadows at the beginning of next year. Why was that college not built 10, 15 or 20 years ago to cater for the 200,000 people living in a huge housing commission project in the area? It was, of course, because it was not considered good enough that colleges and universities be built in such areas. But now, finally, the new Government has acted and built a tremendous college in that area. Furthermore, in my electorate, in the deprived west of Melbourne, funds have finally been provided by this Government, through this Bill, to help in the planning of a new tertiary college, the Western Melbourne Institute of Post-Secondary Education. That institute will direct its energies towards assisting people from that deprived area and ensuring that whatever disadvantages are encountered in the school system are overcome through a tertiary program that is designed to meet their needs. The planning for these sorts of institutions will be exciting and revolutionary because it will allow people who previously have not been able to participate in tertiary education, to do so. As I say, it is a terrible blight on this country that, notwithstanding the increasing number of places in tertiary education over a period, it is only recently that we have seen a turnaround in the sense that people from those deprived areas are now able generally to go to universities and colleges and to participate in the tertiary system. The future of this country does turn on a substantial improvement in education generally, and that means that we have to abandon the idea that tertiary education is some kind of elitist right. Nearly all of our young people should now be going to some kind of tertiary institution, rather than looking at it as some kind of privilege for an elitist group. I am reminded that over all the years when the young people from the deprived areas were not admitted to colleges and universities, their parents were paying taxes and were sustaining the sons and daughters of the wealthy. That was a deliberate strategy and it was a blight on this country. It created a severe disadvantage for the future generation. But with the steps we have put into place-I congratulate the Minister for Education on her efforts in this respect-the situation will change. I encourage the Government to do even more in this area because there is no doubt that this is the sort of investment Australia needs for the future, not only for its young people but for the country itself. Without those educational advantages and training programs, we will not be able to develop the professions, the industries and the whole gamut of our social life in this country. Dr WATSON(Forde)(4.15) —I rise to talk on the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill 1985 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985. I support the shadow Minister for Education, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). I reiterate that we are not opposed to the Bills and I would like to make one or two points about them. As has been suggested by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill was introduced as a result of some recommendations of the review of March 1985 by the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Mr Hugh Hudson, of the structure of the Commission and the arrangements for co-ordination and consultation with States and institutions. In his report, Mr Hudson reviewed the structure of the present CTEC and suggested that there are some disadvantages associated with that structure. I must admit that there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that some of the points he makes are true. For example, on pages 8 and 9 of the report he mentions, firstly, that the present structure gives rise to an inordinate amount of paper and report writing and, secondly, that in a sense everything needs to be done twice because each council makes an assessment of funding and then the Commission reviews it. Thirdly, he suggests, that the present structure encourages unrealistic expectations or ambit claims. When one reviews reports that have been written over the years, there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that those remarks might be true, although I do not think he has provided a very strong empirical justification for it. He went on to mention a couple of other suggested disadvantages which I would like to comment on. He said that he had found the Commission to be too remote from the institutions for an understanding of their day to day operations and that, in particular, he would like, in a revised structure, to include sectoral expertise in the Commission. Having reviewed the report, I do not really see any significant mechanism for encouraging, if you like, decentralisation. Perhaps in his running of the CTEC on a day to day basis Mr Hudson hopes to achieve that, but there is certainly nothing in this report which suggests that there will be significant restructuring from that point of view. Perhaps it is because I am a Queenslander and a Queensland academic that I noticed that in the past there has been no academic representation on the universities council from any of the universities of Queensland. Of course, we have three universities in Queensland, the major one being the University of Queensland and the others being the James Cook University of North Queensland and the Griffith University. I do not see anything in the report that would, from a Queensland point of view, give one any feeling of satisfaction that that situation will change. When the funding received by the University of Queensland is compared with that received by the University of Melbourne over a significant period-those two universities are comparable in size and variation in terms of the disciplines that they cover, the faculties and departments that they have-we see that the University of Queensland is presently in a rather deprived position, to the tune of about $4m annually. I do not see anything either in the report or in these Bills that might change that position. I also do not see anything in the legislation to overcome another criticism Mr Hudson makes, basically that intersectoral development is not encouraged. As an educationist, I would be concerned to see policy guidelines which tend to force institutions to integrate their activities or to break down barriers purely for the sake of breaking them down and without taking into account the various goals and strengths of the institutions. I think it would be much better to set in train a process which would allow universities and colleges to combine in a natural fashion. Perhaps we should have incentive programs for this to occur rather than any particular policy guidelines. I have not dealt with any other recommendations of the report because basically these Bills are based upon only the first half a dozen recommendations mentioned on page 38 of the report. There are some other recommendations in the report which the honourable member for Moncrieff and I believe deserved to be debated in the Parliament. The second Bill I turn to very briefly is the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985. The Government claims that it is supporting extra tertiary education places. I indicate right here and now that the number of places it is supporting is quite inadequate. Despite what the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) said, the position of Australian students graduating from high school with respect to tertiary education in Australia is getting worse. The problem is clearly indicated on page 16, volume 1, part 2, table 9 of the 1985-87 triennium CTEC report. It shows that, for example, in 1981-82 some 31,000 applicants did not receive an offer from a university or college. In 1982-83 the number had increased to nearly 40,000. In 1983-84 it had increased to something like 56,000. I would be surprised if the figure had not become worse for 1984-85 and did not get worse in 1985-86. I do not believe that the Government's announced increase in the number of tertiary education places in the 1985-86 Budget will impact significantly on this figure. There is considerable difficulty with the assertions of the honourable member for Calwell and the Government that the Government has increased significantly the number of places at tertiary institutions. The problem of Queensland's institutions in particular is not addressed. Again, if one looks at the participation rates in Queensland for post-secondary education, particularly at the tertiary level, one sees that, on a percentage basis, significantly fewer places are available to high school students there at tertiary institutions than to students in, say, the Australian Capital Territory. In fact, if one looks at the figures, one sees that something like two or three times the number of places are available to students in the Australian Capital Territory compared with the number available to students in Queensland. The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) has already addressed the hypocrisy of the Government in regard to there being two access routes for overseas students but only one access route for Australian students. I do not wish to develop that issue in any more detail. I can see that there are only a couple of minutes left for the debate. Rather than take the full 10 minutes allocated to me, I think that my good friend the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) would also like to say a few words. In conclusion, I state that whilst we do not oppose the Bill there is room for some serious debate on aspects of the Hudson report. I hope that at some time the Parliament will be given that opportunity. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.23) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is only a matter of time before the coat of arms on the Speaker's chair in which you sit is removed and we have a hammer and sickle over the top. The Hawke socialist Government affords this Parliament and this House less than 90 minutes to debate these measures, the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill 1985 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985. I am obliged to my colleague the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) for giving me the chance to speak for just two minutes. That is the remaining time available. At 4.25 p.m. the Government's guillotine comes down and honourable members who wanted to contribute to this debate, members who are genuinely concerned about tertiary education in this country, will be chopped off. It does the Government no credit at all that on the one hand its ethereal Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) in another place pontificates about the Government's commitment to tertiary education, while on the other hand it creates a situation whereby two very important Bills are dealt with in this Parliament in this manner. I come from Tasmania and the history of tertiary education in my State is a chequered one. In the one minute remaining I would like the Minister representing the Minister for Education, the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) if he can, or if he cannot today, to tell me and the people of Tasmania through some other person, who is telling the truth on the question of the funding of nurse education in Tasmania. A representative of the Government told a packed meeting at the Hobart Town Hall that if a southern campus for nurse education were to be established afer the transfer to the Institute of Technology in northern Tasmania, the Commonwealth Government would pick up the funds for the campus. However, we now have two Ministers of the Crown, senior Ministers at that, saying that it is not true. If the Government is going to answer any questions in this most undemocratic of parliaments-the worst I have been in for 20 years, State or Federal; we cannot get answers to any of the questions we ask-somebody sooner or later is going to have to tell the truth on the question of nurse education and who is to pay the bill if there is a campus in Hobart. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) — Order! The time allotted for consideration of the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 21 August, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985 concurrently with the Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Bill 1985. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr Dawkins-Mr Deputy Speaker, I crave your indulgence for a moment to indicate that during the Committee stage of this Bill it is the intention of the Government to move an amendment which has been circulated to the House. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(4.28) —We are debating cognately the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985 and the Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Bill 1985. The Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill is the substantive piece of legislation. The second Bill is enabling legislation to allow the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education to charge fees for overseas students. I intend in my remarks to deal firstly and at length with the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill and the entire issue of overseas students studying in Australia and finally to make some remarks about the Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Bill. The substantive legislation is designed to raise the level of charge to which students from other countries studying in Australia are subject. Overseas students charge was introduced by the previous coalition Government in 1979. The principal Act, the Overseas Students Charge Act 1979, was introduced into this House by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) who was then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister representing the Minister for Education in this chamber. At that time he stated the coalition Government's desire to expand educational opportunities for overseas students. He pointed out that for some years the number of overseas students studying in Australia had been arbitrarily limited because of the costs flowing from their enrolment in our educational institutions. Prior to the previous coalition Government's initiative those costs were borne wholly and solely by Australian taxpayers. Under the tertiary funding arrangements existing at that time the Commonwealth had to balance the competing demands of domestic and overseas students for places in our tertiary institutions. The overseas students charge was introduced to increase Commonwealth revenue so that more overseas students could be accommodated in our tertiary education system. The Bill presently before the House vindicates the previous Government's initiative insofar as it confirms the principles underlying and underpinning the principal Bill, now an Act, which was shepherded through this House in 1979. In respect of this legislation specifically we have amended some important reservations. Firstly, unless there is an important breach of equity inherent in the Bill as it presently stands. Its passage will result in substantially and unexpectedly higher costs to overseas students who are already enrolled in tertiary courses in Australia. They will be subject-unless the Bill is amended-to increases of up to 40 per cent. Overseas students who have arrived in Australia having carefully budgeted for the costs of their courses and leaving themselves with little financial room for manoeuvre will be severely disadvantaged by the creation of this high impost, effective from 1 January 1986. Some students will be in danger of having to abandon their courses of study midstream simply because they will be unable to meet the cost of the new charges. A survey conducted in the Australian Capital Territory by the Australian National University overseas students collective gives and indication of just how many students this may encompass. According to that survey, 43 per cent of overseas students surveyed said that they would have to continue their studies in their home country or transfer to institutions in other countries if they suddenly became subject to the 40 per cent higher overseas student charge embodied in the Bill as it now stands. The coalition believes that the Commonwealth is party to a tacit contract with overseas students which extends from their arrival in Australia to the completion of their courses of study. We believe that one of the Commonwealth's obligations under that tacit contract is the provision of certainty and stability with respect to the costs faced by overseas students. Without protection for existing students from sudden and unexpected large increases in the overseas student charge, this Bill, if unamended, is plainly inequitable. The Commonwealth would be effectively breaking its contract with overseas students already enrolled in our tertiary institutions. It would be raising the cost of tertiary education to existing overseas students who have taken the plunge on the basis of a different set of expected costs. This Government would have little regard for the financial vulnerability of many overseas students in Australia if it proceeded with the Bill unamended. We have for weeks been urging the Government to amend this Bill so that existing overseas students would not be subject to the 40 per cent higher overseas student charge which would flow from its passage, unamended. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), who is at the table, has indicated that an amendment has been circulated. I advise the House that the Opposition is still discussing this amendment with the Government. We will determine our final position in the Committee stage of this debate. The Opposition's second reservation about the Government's stance-wider than this legislation-is its dismissal of recommendations concerning overseas students in the report of the Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, known as the Jackson report, in favour of the report of the Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy, known as the Goldring report. On 22 March this year the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), in her ministerial statement on overseas students policy, said that the Government was adopting `basically the Goldring approach'. The Goldring and Jackson committees have both made an important contribution to policy-making in this area. However, we feel that the Minister for Education has been unfairly dismissive of the Jackson Committee's recommendation, and I would like to comment on the respective approaches of both it and the Goldring Committee to the admission of overseas students to Australian tertiary education institutions. Both committees correctly identified the hidden subsidy to overseas students which in 1984-85 cost Australian taxpayers $98.6m. Presently, the overseas student charge covers only 25 per cent of the average per student cost of tertiary education, with Australian taxpayers picking up the tab for the other 75 per cent. If this Bill is carried, the overseas student charge will cover around 35 per cent of average costs, and the Government has foreshadowed another rise taking it to 45 per cent in 1986-87. As yet, no subsequent increase beyond 1987 has been indicated. To the extent that these changes will progressively relieve part of the subsidy burden borne by Australian taxpayers, the Opposition supports the Government's policy for all new enrolees from 1986 and onwards. The complementary policy adopted by the Government and operative from next year of allowing unlimited access to Australia's tertiary education institutions for overseas students willing and able to pay fees, is also one which the Opposition supports, although we are suspicious of the Government's motivations for embracing it. The Minister's sympathy with the Goldring Committee's proposal in preference to those of the Jackson Committee is most revealing. There is a very distinct philosophical difference between the approaches of the two committees which highlights conflicting views of what the education system is now and what it could be in the future. On this matter, the Minister and the Government and the coalition and I may be at odds. The following passage is a direct quote from the Goldring report: Several arguments in favour of a market-based approach to education for overseas students were put to the Committee, but, after very careful consideration, were rejected insofar as mainstream education is concerned. Later in the same paragraph the Goldring Committee asserts: Further, a system based on full-cost recovery would discourage overseas students from coming to Australia to study, would disadvantage students of limited economic means, and could, if fees were paid direct to institutions, endanger academic standards and the quality of education offered to Australian residents. Suggestions that the disadvantages attaching to a system of fees based on the recovery of full educational costs could be overcome if accompanied by the introduction of a system of scholarships were also considered and rejected. I take issue on these points. Firstly, the Goldring Committee's rejection of a market-based approach to education for overseas students is unfortunate given the practical proposals put forward by the Jackson Committee, which are very much market-based. I will return to those shortly. Secondly, the Goldring Committee's assertion that fees paid direct to institutions by overseas students would endanger academic standards is patently absurd. Have tertiary education institutions in the United States of America, for example, been corrupted in the way the Goldring Committee seems to suggest is possible here? I think not. Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and Yale are all reassuring examples to the contrary. In short, the Goldring Committee fails to make any solid case against a market-based approach to policy on overseas students. The Minister for Education, in full contradictory flight, also argues that a market based approach will not work. This is despite the Government's own policy of allowing unlimited access to overseas students from 1986, subject to guidelines on standard and capacity, provided that they are willing to pay full fees. Why have such a policy if the Minister does not believe that it will work? I quote from the Minister's statement of 22 March. She said: Whether the mainstream courses offered at completely full cost would attract students is yet to be established. Later in the same paragraph she stated: Given that the full cost would be very high in relative international terms, it is not at all clear that Australian places offered in that way would be competitive. In fact, in my judgment they would not be. I suggest that the Minister for Education is not at all interested in making such an approach work. Indeed, I believe she has adopted the Goldring model rather than the Jackson model precisely because the latter has a much greater chance of providing an enduring, market based answer to the questions perpetually raised in policy debates on overseas students. Some of the Minister's old friends from the education lobby have also wheeled out their guns on a market based approach to policy on overseas students as part of a campaign of resistance to a market based revitalisation of the entire education sector. The Federation of Australian University Staff Associations, the Federation of College Academics and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have all begun attacking a market based approach in completely spurious terms. They have a particular paranoia regarding the development of private tertiary educational institutions as well as entrepreneurial educational undertakings by existing tertiary institutions. For example, I note from recent Press reports that some academics from the Murdoch University in my home State of Western Australia have attacked that university's plan to create a privately funded second campus. One of the arguments used by critics of this proposal is that the new campus plan emphasis on foreign students would create an Asian ghetto and increase the risk of racism. We reject that argument absolutely, utterly and totally, as do others who have considered the problem of racism on tertiary campuses more deeply than critics in the Murdoch University Staff Association. Racism against students has been an inevitable by-product of the present structure of the tertiary education sector. As pressure has been created by Australian students being turned away from tertiary institutions in ever greater numbers, overseas students have regrettably become a focus of resentment. Campus racism can be remedied more effectively by opening up the tertiary education sector to all comers, to Australian and overseas students, in unlimited numbers on whatever basis is mutually satisfactory to an institution and the individual student so that both internal and external demand for our educational services can be met. This would end once and for all the simmering resentment felt by some young Australians towards overseas students who appear to them to be taking many scarce tertiary education opportunities. Such an opening up of the system is clearly preferable to the Government's approach of placing ceilings on the number of overseas students in individual institutions and in individual courses of study. After the demolition of such spurious, racism based objections to entrepreneurial ventures in the tertiary education sector, it is difficult to find other critical arguments and to take them seriously. I for one look forward to a continuing debate with the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations, the Federation of College Academics and their like on this matter. I doubt whether the poverty of their criticisms will prevent them from continuing their push against educational enterprise and innovation. I now wish briefly to outline the Jackson Committee's proposals for policy in this sphere which I believe provide a genuine long term alternative to present arrangements and to the proposals of the Goldring Committee, which I regard as satisfactory only as an interim measure. Very simply, the Jackson Committee's proposal is this: The overseas student charge, provided that there is certainty for those currently enrolled, should be raised progressively so that by the mid-1990s overseas students not on scholarships would be paying the full cost of their education in Australia. The charge would be paid directly to the institutions which overseas students attended. The hidden subsidy now being provided by Australian taxpayers would be made explicit and used to fund scholarships for several thousand other overseas students through Australia's aid budget. This proposal has been sensitively designed progressively to free up and consequently restructure an aspect of one of Australia's most rigid, regulated and protection bound industries, the education industry. Its adoption would also enable Australia to meet its foreign aid obligations in a clear and equitable manner. Finally, it would allow foreign students unlimited access to tertiary institutions in Australia without prejudice to Australian students and, subject to academic standards, on a proper full fee-paying basis, with visible complementary scholarships so that Australia's contribution to the important educational enrichment of its less developed neighbours would be made explicit. I acknowledged earlier the kinship of the Minister's stance with that of the previous Coalition Government, but time moves on and longer term responses must be developed. What was useful and appropriate as an interim step is not necessarily appropriate in the long run, and in this instance I am disappointed that the Minister is unwilling to embrace the Jackson Committee's most practical and equitable market based resolution of policy issues in this area. Most seriously, there is a deep internal contradiction in the Minister's handling of policy relating to educational access for overseas students compared to Australian students. Overseas students will now have two bites of the cherry as a result of the Government's new policy to allow unlimited access to tertiary institutions for overseas students willing to pay full fees. They will be able either to gain entry through one of the Government's fully subsidised or partially subsidised places or take advantage of the full fee paying places offered by tertiary institutions. Australian students, on the other hand, will be allowed access to tertiary education only through the quota of fully funded places handed out through the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. They will continue to be denied the right to new fee-paid places created by tertiary institutions even if those institutions are willing to create them and even if the students themselves are willing to pay for them. In the light of this contradiction, are we to be faced with the nonsensical prospect of some Australian students having less chance than overseas students of gaining entry into higher education institutions in their own country? Are we to witness Australian students having to go overseas in order to have an equal chance alongside overseas students of applying for and gaining admittance to full fee paying places? Mr Deputy Speaker, you would recognise and the House would recognise that these possibilities are totally absurd as well as unarguably inequitable. The Government's education policy is shot through with such inconsistencies and we on this side of the Parliament are determined to dissect them assiduously over ensuring months. This Government is firmly in the grip of interest groups which are not interested in positive systemic change but in furthering their own narrow material and political agendas. As a result, the Government has an education policy which lacks vision, courage and direction. In the context of this Bill we in the Opposition line up with the Jackson Committee which commented in its report: The Committee believes that Australian education does not need the protection it now enjoys, but that it has the resources and ability to compete effectively in an international context. This attitude and belief contrast markedly with the defeatist and pessimistic view of the Minister for Education which I quoted earlier. The Minister persists in being preoccupied with what is and what has been rather than with what should be and what the system could be transformed into. We on the other hand are not similarly moribund. We do not have the dead hand of conformism hanging over us; not the desperate drive to level down the quality of education, instead of working towards its enhancement and the promotion of excellence. We are concerned about the dollars and cents of the education budget, but we are equally concerned to return to consumers their right to exercise choice-in the tertiary education system as well as in the school sector-between public and private institutions and between an infinite variety of educational offerings which could and will develop as the system is increasingly exposed to market forces. In the case of overseas students, the coalition welcomes all. Australia has the capacity and skilled manpower rapidly to become a major exporter of educational services. The potential is only now just being realised and already the initial estimates of its foreign earnings and employment potential are breathtaking. We will not be able to take advantage of these opportunities unless a determined effort is made to break out of past and now redundant conceptions of the higher education system. The preoccupations of recent decades, if they continue to fester without lasting resolution, will deflect us from the pursuit of fundamental systemic reform. As is the case in so many policy areas, time is running out. We cannot endlessly defer tackling the big issues and refuse to stand up for what is right against what is easiest. I have no doubt that the Government will float on during the rest of its term of office with a higher education policy little changed from that which presently exists. The Minister for Education will look back on her tenure in the portfolio and have, at the very most, only incremental change chalked up on the slate in this sector. We will not be satisfied and will not content ourselves with such a holding operation. We will proceed and are proceeding in our own policy development deeply motivated by an urgency for positive change that will reveal this Government's and the Labor Party's educational theorists-and every branch of that Party is stacked with them-for what they are. They are conservatives in the worst sense of the word, determined to resist change at all costs and trenchant in their refusal to take heed of the opinions and preferences of the consumers of educational services. We have an absolute commitment to open up the higher education system at all levels and to all-comers. We intend to inject it with a vitality and spirit of excellence and enterprise that will make the Government's education policy look as grey and as dull as it really is. I foreshadow that we will deal with the Government's proposed amendment specifically in the brief Committee stage of this Bill. I conclude my remarks at this second reading stage of this cognate debate by turning lastly to the Commonwealth Education Institutions (Overseas Students) Amendment Bill. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this Bill's purpose is to amend the Australian National University Act and the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act to empower the charging of fees for overseas students in accordance with the guidelines determined by the Minister. I made most of my comments on this Bill when discussing earlier today the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) which incorporates the principal legislative provisions enabling universities and CAEs in the States to admit full fee-paying students. We will support the passage of this Bill. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(4.55) —I listened with great interest to the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) and noted his rather sweeping statement that the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia proposed to open up tertiary institutions to the people of our nation. That sounds very good, but the people of the nation will not forget that it was the Whitlam Government that abolished university fees in this country. It is to the great credit of the Australian Labor Party that people were no longer excluded from university because the family was poor. We must acknowledge some of the great things that Kim Beazley senior did when he was Minister, with the help of the Whitlam Ministry. Also, another area that must be noted is what the Labor Party and Whitlam Ministry did for technical and further education, that cinderella of education. Surely Australian Youth-young girls and young men-are entitiled to go to technical and further education without fees and one recalls what the Labor Party has done for colleges of advanced education. To get around to the legislation we are discussing, particularly the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill, the present Budgetallocates $4.9 billion to education in this nation. Of that sum $2.2 billion goes to universities and colleges of advanced education. That is an enormous amount of taxpayers' funds going to the young people essentially of Australia without any means testing. It allows them to go to university without paying fees. At our universities some 136,700 men and women are enrolled. There are slightly more enrolments at the CAEs-some 141,000-in what were the teachers colleges and colleges for training all the associated courses. That includes nurses, physiotherapists, speech therapists and all the people who do such wonderful work in our hospitals and schools. Although the CAEs have more enrolments, they do not get the expenditure that the universities receive. In the Budget they were allocated $920m. Technical and further education which educates nearly one million Australians-the actual figure is 831,000 in full time courses and 423,000 in hobby courses-was allocated $354m in the Budget. So a vast amount of taxpayers' funds goes to post-school education. What the House is dealing with this afternoon is legislation to recoup some of the funds from 18,000 overseas students who are in universities, CAEs and secondary schools. There are in all 136,700 enrolled in universities, 140,900 in CAEs and a much larger number in secondary schools. The honourable member for Tangney mentioned two very good reports commissioned by the present Government. One was the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Aid Program. The other was chaired by a friend of mine, Professor John Goldring, a professor of law at Maquarie University, who dealt with overseas student programs. The report is entitled `Mutual Advantage Report of the Committee of Review of Private Overseas Student Policy'. The Government by this legislation today will increase by 40 per cent the fees payable in 1986 by new private overseas students. Continuing students will not have to pay the 40 per cent increase. They will have to pay a 15 per cent increase. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has recommended to Cabinet, which in turn recomended to Caucus, that this be the case. It is not a heavy burden because the Australian dollar has devalued against many of the currencies in which these students pay their fees and no real hardship is involved. Nobody in this chamber knows more about overseas students possibly than I do because for some years I was honorary solicitor for the Sydney University Chinese Students Society. Without charge I advised and helped many students in Sydney and I know that some of them were extremely poor. They were very impoverished and from families which had raised every possible penny to send one of the children to Sydney from Malaysia, Singapore or somewhere else to undertake a course in arts, economics or some other discipline. Many of these students were living in poverty, paying high rents and so on. I often worried that they did not have enough money to buy their next meal. The very sensible report of the Goldring Committee pointed out, as did the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, that while Australia was taking overseas students and the Australian people were receiving them with great goodwill there was no guarantee that we were getting the most needy or worthy students. We were not necessarily getting the best students, who may have been culled off by other institutions in the United States and elsewhere. The Goldring Committee made a number of very good recommendations. It suggested that the Government should frame a proper educational policy to include the notion of an overseas student population-a population which will never be very big. In fact, the number of overseas students in secondary schools is limited to 2,000. The Committee recommended that the Government should adopt an education policy in these terms: . . . to contribute to the social and economic development of people and institutions in developing countries, especially those in the Asian and Pacific region, by granting them access to Australia's educational and training resources; to increase cultural exchange and to improve the quality of Australia's educational and training resources; and to serve Australia's interests by improving communication with and understanding of Australia. The Goldring Committee made a number of very good points as to the advantages to our nation of taking private overseas students. It pointed out, firstly, that these students paid fees in 1983-the year in which the research was done-amounting to $105m and that their cost to the taxpayer at that time was $70m. That rose to $98.6m in the last Budget. Further, the Goldring Committee reported that research students from overseas make a genuine contribution to research in our nation. It also made the point that substantial trade benefits accrue to Australian business. If we train young people from overseas for five or six years as scientists, engineers, economists or accountants, when they go back to their countries the only nation they know is Australia. They buy from Australian firms and write their specifications and orders in Australian terms. It is not that they have a bias toward Australia, it is just that they know the Australian scene and milieu. This is very good for Australian business. I often wonder whether the Australian business community appreciates the advantages of training people here and then sending them back to the countries of Asia. Another very important point made by the Goldring Committee related to the political goodwill that flows from bringing young people from all the Asian countries and training them here. I think that is also a big plus for the Australian people. We get to know young people from other countries. Our young people get to know young people from Asia and from the Pacific islands. It opens a new vista for them; it means new contracts and an understanding of other cultures, other races, other religions, even other political systems. The Goldring report made the point that it is difficult to apportion the cost to the taxpayer of overseas students. However, as I said, it estimated that cost, in the year in which the research was done, to be $70m. The report recommended that post-graduate students should be exempt from charges. Although the Government has not gone along with that recommendation, it has supported other recommendations, for example, that schooling for secondary students remain free of fees. Of course, that is complicated by State and Federal funding of non-government schools, where a lot of overseas students are being educated. The third recommendation is that certain students from Papua New Guinea and from the Pacific islands be exempted from fees. That has been adopted, but the Australian Development Assistance Bureau is picking up the tab for those students. We have an important piece of legislation before the House and I urge the House to support it. The honourable member for Tangney seemed to be unaware that there is a quota system for each country in relation to overseas students. Each student has to compete academically for a place. In a sense they are not excluding Australian children from entering university because, proportionately, overseas students are a very small minority of the total tertiary students in our nation. I congratulate the Minister for Education on bringing forward these amendments in what is a difficult area of education planning. Dr WATSON(Forde)(5.06) —I rise to speak on the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill in support of the shadow Minister, my colleague the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). The Bill is designed to increase the fees payable by foreign students. Before addressing particular aspects of this Bill I believe I should make one or two general points about my own position. First let me say that as a former foreign student in the United States I appreciate the positive influence overseas students have and I understand the contribution they make to our society and to our education system. Overseas students certainly add to the cultural enrichment of our society and to the general education of local students. As a professor I have lectured and supervised many overseas students, both in the United States, and Australia. Like the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) I understand the significant sacrifices many overseas students make in order to receive that education. Perhaps I should also point out to the honour- able member that compassion in this area belongs not just on one side of the House. However, my experiences, while increasing my appreciation of such matters, have also heightened my understanding of the extra demands that overseas students place on our limited resources. Secondly, it is reasonable for the Government to set out a schedule of fees which in the future students enrolling for the first time should pay. It is also reasonable for such a schedule of fees to have a scale which changes over time, reflecting the increase or decrease in the costs of education. With rapidly changing technology no one expects education costs to remain constant over a number of years, so it is reasonable to make marginal variations in fees to reflect cost changes. Likewise, it is reasonable for the Government to recover more of the costs of educating overseas students and to do so by a systematic increase in the cost-recovery percentage over time. Where the Opposition disagrees with the Government-at least with its initial proposal and perhaps with aspects of the current amendment to the Bill-is in relation to the speed of implementation of the increase. We believe it is inequitable to impose additional fees, beyond those related to inflationary effects, on students already in the system. Such a move is analogous to retrospective taxation, which I also completely oppose. The currently enrolled overseas student has made a commitment based on a Government-induced set of expectations. It is reasonable for such a student to expect this Government to honour these reasonable expectations. As I said, overseas students have a positive influence in our society. However, it is also worth noting that under current regimes in which universities and colleges are funded for a particular number of places the acceptance of an overseas student essentially means the exclusion of an Australian student. This comes at a point in our history when many Australians are being denied the opportunity for higher education. The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission report for the 1985-87 triennium, which I mentioned in an earlier speech, in Volume 1, Part 2, table 9 on page 16 clearly demonstrates the problem. It shows that some 31,000 applicants did not receive an offer from a university or college in 1981-82. In 1982-83 this figure increased to 39,700, and by 1983-84 the deficit had increased to something like 56,000. I am sure that the figures for 1984-85 and 1985-86 will not improve significantly, despite the Government's announced increase in the number of tertiary places in the 1985-86 Budget. In fact, there are about three times as many overseas students attending Australian universities and colleges as there are extra places that the Government has funded. I think it is also worth noting that many overseas students-this is confirmed in the Australian National University survey-are coming here because of restrictions placed on their entry into universities in their own countries. If one looks at the ANU survey, for example, one sees that a female aged 21 came here because of restricted opportunities for tertiary education due to quotas and government policies. A similar position was mentioned by a 21-year-old male-a lack of university places in his home country-and another said that the opportunity for tertiary education in his home country was very restricted due to government policies. Let me reiterate that I am not against the admittance of overseas students. Instead, I would encourage such attendance. However, I believe we must develop a system of higher education funding which permits all Australians the opportunity of attending universities or colleges of advanced education. If the present Government were really interested in expanding the number of places available to Australians, it could start by at least recognising a couple of facts. First, it could recognise that there is a significant foreign subsidy in the education budget for overseas students. The Government currently collects about 25 per cent of the cost of educating an overseas student. This leaves 75 per cent to be funded from the education budget. Even if the Government increases the recovered amount to 45 per cent-as it will eventually do under the Bill by 1987-55 per cent will still be funded by the education budget. This is a form of foreign aid. Secondly, in regard to these students and, of course, other students who are fully funded by the Government under plans such as the Australian Development Assistance Bureau plan, or those students from countries such as Papua New Guinea, it seems to me that funds should be transferred specifically from the foreign aid allocation in order to cover the full cost of educating these overseas students. I think that the two amounts that I have mentioned should be paid directly to universities and colleges which are involved in educating the overseas students; in other words, I think there should be a transfer of funds from the foreign aid budget directly to those institutions. In this way no Australian student would be disadvantaged. This is consistent with the Government's proposals for the total fee of the full fee-paying student to be paid directly to the tertiary institutions involved. Allowing institutions to receive directly the full cost compensation for taking overseas students would simultaneously encourage the export of Australian expertise without the necessity of creating fictitious dichotomies within the education system. Finally, because of the time contraints-I know that my colleagues are interested in participating in this debate-I urge the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to consider one additional amendment. I urge the Government to provide relief from increased charges to those students who actually continue to pass their respective courses. My experience in universities has perhaps taught me that we should create a set of incentives which would reward individuals for success, but failure and waste of Australian taxpayers' resources should be positively discouraged. With those few words on that subject I hope the Minister will consider such an amendment. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(5.14) —I am pleased to support the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill, although I have some reservation about all of its contents, and I will discuss that matter in a little while. The Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985 is a step forward. I am proud that it has been presented to the House. It is interesting to note that over 200,000 students, mainly from Asia and the South Pacific, have graduated at tertiary level in Australia since the late 1940s. That is a significant number of students, as has been mentioned by honourable members who have spoken before me in this debate. Overseas students do add a lot to Australia, not only in the educational field but also culturally, in the time that they spend here. In the ongoing decades, as they return to Australia, or as they pursue their business or professional operations in the countries which they come from-as I say, they come mainly from the South East Asian area-they maintain contacts with Australia and build their businesses and professions around some of the people with whom they became involved. They also benefit from the expertise they gained in this country. That, I think, is one of the great things that emanate from the overseas student program. I fully endorse the points made in regard to the overseas student area in the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program. I believe we should be moving towards obtaining full cost recovery, having regard to all the caveats that Jackson put on it in regard to that point. Let us not misre- present that point. There were various recommendations. One concerned full cost recovery from students, where that could be achieved, and another concerned a massive number of scholarships-up to 10,000 scholarships-which he believed could cost $150m and which would come out of the aid program by the mid-1990s. One is then really creating an export industry, if one wants to look at it in that way, for Australia in the education field. Why should we not do so? We are very good in the area of education. It is one of the things that we do very well. Therefore, we should be looking at ways of bringing education to people and using it in many ways that will benefit this country. Of course, there are benefits to everyone if an industry-if I can use that word-can evolve over the next few decades so that several thousand students come to this country and are educated, mostly on a full cost recovery basis, but also on a scholarship basis. As the previous speaker, the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson), has mentioned, the money should go directly to the institutions so that those institutions can then offer better oriented courses for the overseas students. I think that that would benefit every one concerned. Some people have been afraid that students will not come to this country. I do not believe that, because the institutions-particularly if the money goes directly to them-can evolve courses aimed specifically at those students. They will not be taking the places of Australian students if the money goes to the institutions. The institutions should be able to expand and make the offers. If some institutions do not want to do so, that is fine; it is up to them. But I am sure that other institutions will move into the area quite extensively. I hope that the Government does take the bit between its teeth and does move down the track of the Jackson recommendations. On page 95 of the Jackson report, paragraph 6.25 reads: To ensure that students from developing countries are selected by ability and need, not income, a three-tiered scholarship system should be implemented: (a) The existing Australian government-to-government sponsorship scheme should be retained at current levels in the context of country and regional aid programming. (b) New `merit scholarships' should be awarded directly by post-secondary institutions in Australia. To ensure a development orientation, the merit scholarship scheme should be based on development criteria. (c) `Special' scholarships should be provided to give balance to the sudent intake. Since it is impossible to administer scholarships on a means basis for foreign students, these special scholarships should emphasise opportunities for disadvantaged groups. At the end of paragraph 6.26 there appears this statement: Spending on scholarships should gradually, but substantially, be increased within funds available from the aid program during the next decade. If $A150 million, in constant prices, were to be available by the mid-1990s, roughly doubling the present outlay, scholarships could cover about 10,000 students. That number would be over and above the number of students who would be able to pay full cost recovery. I think that a number of people in Australia would ask why students should be receiving free education if they are able to pay substantial sums towards it. I am pleased that the Government has made a move in the right direction. I have concerns that I expressed this afternoon. I trust that the Government will continue to consider this issue which is very important in the long term for Australia and, in particular, the question of money going back to the institutions to allow them to expand their courses and general operations. However, I am pleased that the Bill is a step in the right direction. I hope, as I have said, that we will continue down the path of expansion and achieve growth in an industry in which we do very well. Education is one of Australia's fortes. Let us make sure that we do the most we can with it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have much pleasure in supporting the legislation before the House. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(5.22) —Australia is a country which has been, and remains, firmly committed to the pursuit of equitable and sustained development in developing countries. There is widespread agreement within Australia that we have a humanitarian obligation to help the world's poor. However, there is considerable disagreement regarding the best way to carry out this obligation. What is the most beneficial and efficient way to direct Australian funds and skills to these developing countries? Education is central to development. Indeed, it is one of the best investments a country can make in future economic growth. For this reason, In 1979 the coalition Government introduced the Overseas Students Charge Act. The Act was designed to increase Commonwealth revenue so that more overseas students could be accommodated in our tertiary education system. It was designed to expand the educational opportunities for overseas students. Regrettably, the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill before the House today represents an attempt by the Government to reconcile the two conflicting reports it has received which examined the issue of our overseas student policy. The problem is that the two reports, one prepared by the Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Policy and the other by the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, cannot be reconciled. They represent fundamentally different approaches and philosophies towards educational policy and overseas students. The Goldring report is a conservative, rigid and myopic document, a document which favours the status quo and entrenched bureaucratic educational interests. The Jackson report, on the contrary, offers a more dynamic and radical alternative, which promises both an expansion in educational services and an increasingly effective educational aid program. This Government has opted for a shoddy compromise. Whilst neglecting the philosophies of the Goldring report, it has failed to accept those which flow through the Jackson report. It is left in an arid half-way house. I believe that it should be condemned. I am pleased to note that due to coalition pressure, particularly pressure applied by the Opposition spokesman for education, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), one blatant inequity in this Bill may be remedied. Under the proposals announced by the Government, many overseas students will be forced to abandon their courses in midstream. These students, already in Australia, and having carefully budgeted for the cost of their courses before arriving in this country, have suddenly been faced with unexpected higher costs. I hope that the Government will revise its proposals to allow them to complete their studies. Under the present system, Australian taxpayers are subsidising the education of foreign students to the sum of $98.6m annually. These are not, in some classes, the children of the poor or the needy; their parents have the money and horizons to be able and willing to afford to have their children come to Australia. Moreover, under the present system, by being here they displace from universities Australian students and, not surprisingly, cause resentment on Australian campuses. This is unfair to them and to Australians. I firmly believe that students from developing countries have a very beneficial impact on Australian society, both while they are here and when they return to their home countries. Their presence should be encouraged, but we should ensure that, whilst Australian universities remain open to overseas students, this is not done at the cost of displacing Australia's own students. Australian taxpayers should not be expected to subsidise foreigners who may not be in need. What Australia must do is make a much greater contribution to educational assistance for developing countries, while at the same time developing its educational institutions into a major export sector to meet the large demand for education in developing countries. This should be done by clearly introducing a system of full fees for overseas students entering Australian universities and by opening up these institutions. In doing so, we should also be instituting a proper scholarship program for overseas students with both need and talent who wish to come here. The demand for educational services in the Asian region is expected to be considerable in the decades ahead. By throwing off the shackles of educational rigidity, Australian education can expand to meet this demand, a demand which would provide jobs for Australia directly and would have multiple spin-off effects. The development of an educational export industry, particularly in the graduate field, would not only benefit the economy directly, but also through research, would link us to the high technology industries which we so dearly need. An example of an admirable Australian institution expanding to meet this demand is the Darling Downs Institute, which is in my electorate. I am very proud to inform this House that the Darling Downs Institute presently has 100 students in Hong Kong enrolled in its newly formed external studies program. The program is proving so successful that an additional 70 students will be enrolled in its upcoming summer term. Furthermore, there are plans to expand the program to include students from Singapore and Malaysia. Mr Conquest —Tremendous. Mr McVEIGH —I appreciate the remarks of my colleague to the effect that it is a great thing that Australian people can compete internationally. The success of the Darling Downs Institute is proof that Australian institutions have a deserved international reputation for the quality of their various disciplines and that they have the resources and ability to compete internationally for overseas students. In opening up Australia's educational system, we should seek to ensure that a fair and equitable scholarship program is put in place to continue to encourage overseas students to come to Australia, who might otherwise not have the money to do so. The arguments the Goldring report puts against a marketing or full cost approach appear to be largely based on bureaucratic or structural rigidities, difficulties or elitism. Let me read an extract from the Goldring report arguing against the full cost market approach. It states: In rejecting, too, a totally deregulated, market-based approach, the Committee accepts that it may be criticised for stifling academic initiative and diversity, for being unduly conservative, and for adopting a protectionist attitude towards Australian educational standards. It is also conscious of the fact that educational institutions have been criticised for being insufficiently responsive to the demands of the community, particularly of employer and professional groups. However, it sees good reasons why educational institutions should not be overly sensitive to such demands, not least because one of the main values of such institutions is their ability to provide relatively objective criticism of community attitudes. To do so effectively, they must to some extent be protected from the hurly-burly of the market place. The Committee does not believe that the Australian community would wish for a choice of undergraduate courses designed simply to attract a higher number of students, rather than courses demanding a high degree of intellectual rigour. I could not agree more with this criticism. The Goldring approach does stifle academic initiative and diversity. It is unduly conservative, and it does adopt a protectionist attitude. At least, however, the Goldring report does have a philosophy, even if it is one with which I disagree. I ask honourable members: What on earth is the philosophy behind the Australian Labor Party's approach to this particular Bill? It removes none of the rigidities of the current educational system. It diffuses none of the resentment on campus in Australia over displacement and subsidising of many middle and upper class foreign students and, further, it erodes what some might consider the noble principle of providing cheap, good education to developing countries. Australia is a country which is relatively rich in educational resources. These should be exploited for the benefit both of Australians and those who live in developing countries. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(5.29) —In speaking to the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985, I am taking the opportunity to raise a number of matters which concern me in relation to overseas students' tertiary studies in Australia. The Bill will raise the charge for providing places for overseas students in higher educational institutions to $4,340 for courses in medicine, veterinary science and dentistry, and $3,500 for all other courses. The increases will mean that the contribution provided by the overseas students will now amount to approximately 35 per cent of the average cost of the courses. My main concern is that the increased charges will impose an unfair burden on those students who are part way through their courses, but I also have a general concern as to whether these charges should be imposed at all. I must admit to being a convert to these views as a result of the many letters I have received and talks I have had with representatives of the various students' organisations around Australia. Previously, as an assistant registrar at the University of Melbourne for many years, I personally experienced the effects of a large influx of overseas students, particularly ethnic Chinese from Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong, into the courses at the university. My experience was that the majority of those students came from middle and upper class families with substantial financial means. Of course, this did not mean that some of those students were not suffering financial hardship as there were cases where they had come to Australia without parental approval or had embarked on courses for which their parents were unwilling to provide financial support. I was, nonetheless, inclined to the view that the majority of overseas students could afford to make some contribution towards their Australian education, particularly at a time when many potential Australian students were denied the opportunity of entering college or university degree courses. It has taken the findings of the 1984 report of the Goldring Committee of Review of Private Overseas Students Policy to remind me that the University of Melbourne is not a typical university and that I, like many other professionals in the education field, had made the mistake of using Melbourne University and Sydney University as typical of all universities and colleges of advanced education in Australia. In fact, entry to the courses at those two universities is highly competitive and the majority of places are taken up by students who possess the combination of top Higher School Certificate results and advantageous family backgrounds of wealth and status. The Goldring report provides the background results of its survey of about one in six overseas students in Australia. The report states: The information gained from the committee's survey, from official sources, and from submissions has helped provide a picture of these students. A majority come from Asia, with over half from Malaysia alone. Most of them are concentrated in Melbourne and Sydney. Most come from families which, by Australian standards, are not wealthy, and most have parents with relatively low levels of educational achievement. A substantial proportion need to work part-time or in vacations in order to support themselves while studying in Australia. The wealthier students tend to come from the poorer countries. Australia is the first choice as a place to study for a substantial majority of the secondary and tertiary students who come here. Almost all feel they are gaining a great deal from their stay in Australia. The Association of South East Asian Institutes of Higher Learning, with the assistance of the Adelaide University Union, has also conducted a recent survey of overseas students with one in five response which bears out the findings of the Goldring report. The only problem which I have had with both surveys was that they were subjective in that they required the students to supply their own information in relation to the incomes of their parents. However, I do not consider that the subjectivity detracts from the findings of the Goldring survey or the findings the University of New South Wales Student Union survey referred to in the report and the more recent survey by the Association of South East Asian Institutes of Higher Learning. As an example from the wealth of statistics which indicate the financial difficulties faced by the majority of overseas students, based on the September 1983 poverty line for a single person in the work force, including housing, of $5,673, the University of New South Wales Student Union found that only 10 per cent of overseas students had an income above the poverty line while the Association of South East Asian Institutes of Higher Learning found only 39 per cent over a poverty line of $4,999. If account is taken of the range of parental income under $20,000 included in all three surveys-from Goldring showing 54 per cent, the South Australian survey with 67 per cent and the New South Wales survey of more than 84 per cent-it will be seen that there is no doubt that the majority of overseas students come from poor socio-economic backgrounds in comparison with Australian standards and the increase in the overseas charges will be more than many students can bear. As mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I have a particular concern for those overseas students who are already studying in Australia and are part way through their courses. While I appreciate that overseas students are aware, as part of the undertakings in obtaining a student visa that the education charges may be raised, nonetheless the proposed steep increase will cause immense hardship for those students. A recent survey by the overseas student collective of the Australian National University Students' Association has found that of the overseas students surveyed, 43.2 per cent have indicated that they would be forced to discontinue their studies in Australia as a result of these increased charges. Mr Scott —Did you say 43.2 per cent? Mr MILTON —Yes, 43.2, which is appalling. I take the opportunity to make a plea to the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), who is at the table, that the Government reconsider its proposal to levy the charges on those students who are already part way through their courses. It seems to me that the overseas student program should have built into it elements of stability and certainly which would follow the triennial funding system for Australian universities. In my view, the overseas charge should be fixed for a three-year period and students entering a course should at the beginning of that course contract to pay the current charge for a three-year period which is the normal duration of most undergraduate courses. Another problem area is the lack of specialist support services provided for overseas students. Students visiting Australia for the first time frequently encounter a culture shock, involving difficulties with communication and instruction and unfortunately, at times, harassment. To cope with such difficulties, overseas students require special counselling skills and it is clear that many institutions of higher learning are unable to provide appropriate counselling facilities for such students. Another problem is the cumbersome nature of the administration of the overseas student program which is presently administered by the three Government departments of Education, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Foreign Affairs. The cumbersome nature of this administration has no doubt contributed to the present crisis situation and it seems to me that a worthwhile reform could be for the program to become the responsibility of one department. It is my view that now that we are requiring overseas students to meet 35 per cent of the costs of their education in this country, the very least we can do is to ensure that they obtain the best possible value for those courses by improving the support services provided. I note that the Goldring report has made recommendations along those lines. The following comment from the report is worth quoting: Australia has received students from overseas since the beginning of this century. A national policy on overseas students is a relatively recent development. The present policy appears to have been more a series of responses to immediate problems than a considered approach to the role of overseas students in Australia. The policy and its administration since about 1965 have encountered many changes which have at times been confusing, inefficient, or both. I was most pleased to note that, unlike the 1984 report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program, the Goldring report rejected arguments in favour of a market-based approach to education for overseas students. Again I quote from the Goldring report: Education, while in some senses a commodity which can be bought or sold, is far more than that. The Committee could not see that any system of fees based on recovery of full costs from overseas students could be completely self-financing and in any case the distinction between overseas and Australian resident students would have undesirable consequences in terms of educational planning and resource allocation. Educational planning for `mainstream' educational activities, particularly courses of study leading to formal awards, must primarily be based on planning for the needs of Australian residents. Further, a system based on full-cost recovery would discourage overseas students from coming to Australia to study, would disadvantage students of limited economic means, and could, if fees were paid direct to institutions, endanger academic standards and the quality of education offered to Australian residents. In this respect I would like to express my strong opposition to the proposed new private university in Western Australia. As I understand it, one of the aims of this proposed institution would be to make higher education in this country an export market product. It is apparently intended that Murdoch University will provide administrative support for the establishment of the new private university. Such a proposal will need careful scrutiny as approval has not yet been given by the Commonwealth Parliament for Murdock University's support services which are funded by the Commonwealth to be allocated for the establishment of a private tertiary education institution. Other Australian tertiary education institutions are considering providing academic support for courses mounted in other countries which does seem to me to be a more proper way of making our education resources available to underdeveloped countries. It seems to me that there is something immoral about selling education or selling health services for private gain either in Australia or to overseas countries. I take the opportunity to disassociate myself from the recommendations of the Jackson Committee which promoted education as a marketable commodity. In conclusion, I acknowledge that the Federal Australian Labor Party Caucus has approved the Bill in its present form, but I hope that the Minister for Trade, who is sitting at the table, can indicate that the concerns I have expressed will be taken into account in the future administration of the overseas student program. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(5.40) —In the few minutes available to me I wish to support the outstanding contribution made by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) and my other colleagues on this side of the House, the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson) and the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh). I will make just a few comments on what I believe are the very important aspects of the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill in relation to the arguments put by the Opposition. I support very strongly the free market approach to which the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Tangney, has referred, and as was advocated by the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Programs. It is my view that the Government will be extremely unfair to Australian students if it continues to prevent them from entering tertiary institutions, even though they are prepared to pay for courses, while allowing some overseas students to pay full fees to enter courses if they so desire. Such a practice will be highly discriminatory against Australians. I hope that the Government will realise the implications in the future of these actions. I believe it matters not at all whether the numbers refused are a few hundred, 5,000 to 10,000 as has been mentioned by the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, or up to 30,000, as has been claimed by the honourable member for Tangney. At present, the Tertiary Education Commission places restrictions on the number of Australian students entering courses. It is my view that people ought to be allowed to pay if they want to pay. I see no reason for preventing the students of Australian families from paying if it is their desire so to do. In 1986, when some overseas students will be allowed to pay, Australian students will be prevented from making the same arrangements. I submit to the House that this is an absurd state of affairs. Let me deal with a very serious situation which I believe could arise within this nation if this situation is allowed to pertain. We will see discrimination against the children of Australian families. I believe that that is a very serious situation. A highly undesirable atmosphere could be created. Resentment will be displayed towards overseas students which could well extend to resentment towards our Asian nation friends. We ought not to underestimate the possibility of that situation arising. I had a lot of experience over a number of years dealing with people in this country who are very racist. We must recognise that, apart from those who are openly racist, there is latent racism in this nation. If we prevent the students of Australian families from entering our tertiary institutions and paying for their courses, as we will allow students from overseas to do, I believe that we will create a highly volatile and dangerous situation. It could kindle in the future the fires of hatred and racism. I ask the Government to give serious consideration to what I believe could end up-I hope it will not-as a major problem around our universities and tertiary institutions. We have to be very careful that our actions in this country at all times break down the prejudices of that latent racism that I know is within our communities. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.44) —I have only 30 seconds in which to say that I think the shabby way in which this legislation has been handled has done a great deal of harm to Australia's international relations and in particular our relations with countries in the Association of South East Asian Nations. People ought to be very much aware of the harm that has been done to those relations by the way in which this matter has been processed. There is time for the Government to retrieve the situation, but the way in which the amendment is handled will be very important in dealing with this question. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The time allotted for the second reading debate has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(5.45) —I move: Clause 4, page 1, lines 14 to 16, omit the clause, insert the following clause: Rates of charge ``4. Section 6 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by inserting `before 1 January 1986' after `year'; and (b) by adding at the end the following sub-sections: `(2) The amount of the charge imposed by this Act in respect of the enrolment of an overseas student in a prescribed course for a year after 31 December 1985 is such amount, not exceeding- (a) in the case of an overseas student who is an eligible overseas student in relation to the year, the relevant maximum amount in relation to the year or $4,340, whichever is the less; or (b) in any other case-$4,340, as is applicable under the regulations to that enrolment. `(3) The reference in paragraph (2) (a) to the relevant maximum amount in relation to a year is a reference to- (a) in the case of the year commencing on 1 January 1986-$3,565; or (b) in the case of a subsequent year-the amount calculated by multiplying by 1.15 the relevant maximum amount in relation to the immediately preceding year (including an amount that is the relevant maximum amount in relation to the immediately preceding year by virtue of a previous application, or previous applications, of this paragraph). `(4) For the purposes of sub-section (2), an overseas student is an eligible overseas student in relation to a year (in this sub-section referred to as the `relevant year') if the student- (a) was enrolled in a prescribed course for the year that commenced on 1 January 1985; and (b) is enrolled in either- (i) that prescribed course; or (ii) in a case where the student has, on one or more occasions, transferred his or her enrolment to another prescribed course-that other prescribed course, for- (iii) the relevant year; and (iv) if the relevant year is a year after 31 December 1986-each year after `(5) For the purpose of sub-section (4), where- (a) the enrolment of an overseas student in a prescribed course is or was interrupted by a period of deferment approved by the prescribed educational institution offering the course; and (b) the enrolment is resumed in accordance with the terms of the approval as specified at the time of the giving of the approval, the overseas student shall be deemed to be enrolled in that course during that interruption.'.''. The reason this amendment has been moved is that the Government has reconsidered the level of the charge proposed in the amendment in March 1985. The Government is aware that the proposed increase could place some hardship on students currently enrolled in courses and may result in some students withdrawing from their courses. The Government has therefore decided to modify the original proposal in the form set out in the amendment. Under the new arrangements, the level of the charge in 1986 for students currently enrolled in a course which commenced prior to 1 January 1986 will be increased by 15 per cent to $3,565 for medical, veterinary and dentistry courses and $2,875 for all other courses. In subsequent years the maximum increase in the charge for these continuing students will be 15 per cent of the previous year's charge. This has been the usual rate of increase in past years. For students commencing a course in January 1986 the charge will be $4,340 for medical, veterinary and dentistry courses and $3,500 for all other courses. This is 35 per cent of the average full cost of a place. In 1987 the charges for these students will increase to 45 per cent of the average full cost then applying. The revenue implications of this amendment will result in a reduction of approximately $5m in the amount estimated in the Budget Papers. We have moved this amendment because we were aware of the concerns which had been expressed by institutions and the representatives of the students. We recognise that our original proposals carried with them the risk that students, having enrolled in a course, would have been subjected to an increase the magnitude of which they would not have expected at the time they enrolled. However, they would have anticipated the 15 per cent increase which we are indicating will apply for those continuing students next year and in subsequent years of their courses, as that is the kind of annual increase which applied in earlier years. For new students enrolling next year- Mr Shack —You have only got a minute. Mr DAWKINS —I will conclude to allow the Opposition spokesman to speak. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(5.49) —Under the iniquitous terms of this guillotine it is impossible this afternoon for us in the House of Representatives to sort out this matter. Without apportioning blame and recognising that the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) is the Minister representing the Minister for Education, let me briefly say that the amendment now translated into this House does not properly reflect the draft amendment that the Opposition has been considering over the last couple of days. Without calling for a division, we will vote `no' to this amendment; we will vote `no' to the motion that the Bill be read a third time; and we foreshadow to the Government that this matter will have to be sorted out in the Senate debate. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allotted for the Committee stage of the Bill has expired. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment. Adoption of Report Motion (by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-proposed: That the report of the Committee be adopted. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(5.50) —I take this opportunity to speak as we have obtained some extra time as a result of the fact that we did not divide upon this Bill in Committee. I take the opportunity of putting before the House some of my thoughts in relation to this important piece of legislation, which I was not permitted to do when it was debated earlier. When I was preparing this speech, I had the opportunity of reflecting on some of the approaches that had been taken previously in relation to imposing overseas student charges. When the previous Government introduced these charges and looked at increases in previous years, one of the steps taken by it was to ensure that those students already in courses would not be impacted upon as a result of any new and increased fees that might be imposed upon new students. When the matter was being discussed, I came across a speech by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley). I was impressed with his speech to this House on 23 March 1982, because he emphasised the sorts of thoughts I have about the importance of overseas students being enrolled in Australian institutions and having the opportunity to share with us. He made the point that has been made by many honourable members in this House today that not all those students who come here are from wealthy families. Many families have to sacrifice considerably to ensure that their children are able to study in Australia. He made the point that the fact that those students had come to Australia was important in terms of our relationships with the countries from which those students come. There are enormous benefits to Australia through having such students studying in Australia, but those students who have been impacted upon by these changes in the way the Government has processed them will go home to their own countries with a very nasty taste in their mouths. They will feel, in relation to the way this legislation has been handled, notwithstanding the last minute recanting by the Government in moving an amendment to the legislation, that they have been dealt with harshly, unconscionably and unjustly. One of the matters of which honourable members should be aware and take cognisance is that it was assumed by the Government that this legislation would proceed and be passed, notwithstanding the amendment proposed by the Australian Democrats and the view the Opposition had foreshadowed it might take in relation to this legislation. All foreign students in Australia have received letters from the Department of Education in relation to the changes to the private overseas students program in advance of the legislation passing through the House of Representatives and the Senate. I have before me a letter from Mrs Maber, the Director of the Victorian office of the Department of Education, dated 24 September 1985, indicating the nature of increased charges that students in Australia will have to pay. I regard such a step by officials implementing government decisions before legislation has proceeded through the Parliament as being most undesirable and most improper. I think that somebody will have to write to all the students when there is a change to tell them that a new set of decisions has been reached. It has involved considerable cost and loss to revenue because the matter has been dealt with in this way. In terms of that important element I emphasised at the beginning of my remarks-our relationship with overseas students in Australia-that sort of correspondence has damaged that relationship irreparably. It is to our eternal shame. The short remarks I made earlier arose from the very strong feelings I have about the way the Government has handled this matter, the shabby way students have been treated and the way in which they might view Australia in the future. I apologise on my own behalf for the way they have been treated. I would like to think that the Government would not only advance its case in the way it did today but also would extend to the students an apology. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is: That the report of the Committee be adopted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The question now is: That the Bill be now read a third time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins) read a third time. Debate resumed from 19 November, on motion by Mr West: That the Bill be now read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Student Assistance Amendment Bill concurrently with the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill. If there is no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(5.57) —For the next hour and a half we will be debating the Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1985 and the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill 1985. In my remarks I will deal with them in that order. The Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1985 seeks to rationalise the existing student assistance tribunals into a single tribunal and to achieve minor administrative changes to the operation of it. The coalition views this as essentially a mechanical Bill and we will not oppose it. The principal income support scheme with which the presently existing student assistance review tribunals concern themselves and which the new, rationalised tribunal will also concern itself is a matter of enormous concern to the coalition. I refer, of course, to the tertiary education allowance scheme. Recipients of TEAS have been discriminated against by successive Federal governments year after year. They have been subject to an income test, against their own income as well as that of their parents, which is extremely stringent. They have been subject to that income test while unemployed youth-their own peers-have been subject to an extremely liberal income test and, in fact, no income test at all on parental income if these young unemployed people are living in the family home. This is a glaring inequity of the first order. It has been allowed to continue, despite its gross inequity and inconsistency, year after year, even when we were in government. The Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins) is responsible for a restructuring of income support for young people which was introduced in the Budget under the Priority One banner. The inequity which tertiary students receiving TEAS face in relation to their unemployed peers remains even after the Minister's supposedly sweeping reform of income support for youth. Unemployed youth still receive the unemployment benefit without any parental means test, even if they are living in the lap of luxury in their family home, while tertiary students applying for TEAS face one of the strictest income tests applied by the Commonwealth to any form of income assistance available today. In our view, this is neither fair nor socially productive. It is also hypocritical of the Government to let it remain so in light of its concern to encourage young Australians to pursue tertiary education. What could provide greater encouragement to young Australians to become unemployed and remain unemployed than the existence of an income support system which provides the unemployment benefit more easily and with a far slacker income test than is applied under the tertiary education assistance scheme? I commiserate with the Minister. Because of extensive, indeed, one might say fulsome, leaks of discussions at both the interdepartmental level and at the higher level of Cabinet itself, a blow by blow account of the Government's agonising over reform of youth income support is on the public record. As a result, it is widely known that the Minister strongly advocated reforms which would have made consistent the disparate income tests which are applied to the employment benefit and TEAS. The changes he sought would have largely removed the perverse inequities favouring unemployment over tertiary education which result and persist. I said I commiserate with the Minister for his failure in achieving his goal. I commiserate perhaps much more with the tertiary students in Australia who must continue to suffer this gross inequity because of the failure of the Government to adopt the Minister's recommendations. This is but one of many areas in the education portfolio, as in other portfolios, where the Government's policy approach is internally inconsistent. One would think that in a neat, clearly definable area such as income support for youth the Government could get it right, could straighten things out, instead of perpetuating the errors of previous public policy makers. Alas, it seems that the most the Government can manage when it comes to rationalising policy arrangements is the simple structural revision which is embodied in this Bill. Integrating several student assistance review tribunals into a single equivalent body does attract the support of the coalition. As I have said, we will not oppose it, we will vote for it. But when will the Government successfully tackle larger and more important tasks? I hope it will not let the tortuous internal debate which ensued on reform of income support for youth deter it or the Minister responsible from further attempts. Indeed, I hope that the Minister's failure will be only a temporary failure and will not prevent him from pursuing income support again at the earliest opportunity. He has our support. If the Government is serious about encouraging young people to pursue tertiary education instead of becoming dispirited and disillusioned on the more generously dished out unemployment benefit, the proper rationalisation of income support for them is a minimum requirement. I am happy to tell honourable members that on behalf of the coalition we are well advanced in the task of designing a genuinely equitable reform of income support for young Australians, one which does not discriminate against those pursuing tertiary study. It will provide young people with every incentive to continue study rather than choose to remain unemployed in preference. As a result, tertiary students will be able to look forward to the elimination of the inequity they now face and to the end of the discrimination the Government continues to subject them to. We will be announcing that policy in the first part of next year. I now turn to the other Bill in this cognate debate, the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill 1985. The purpose of this Bill is to repeal the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Act 1982, legislation passed by the previous coalition Government to provide Commonwealth guarantees and interest subsidies in respect of loans for tertiary students. The loans scheme, as it became widely known, was a controversial initiative. The present Government, then in Opposition, whipped up the most dishonest and misleading campaign imaginable on what the scheme was about, the effect it would have on tertiary students, and what the then Government's intentions were. The present Government should take no pride whatever in its determined misrepresentation of and misinformation about the loans scheme. Thousands of Australian students presently have loans from commercial banks and overdraft rates-rates which, I might add, are rising monthly-in order to supplement their finances while studying at universities and colleges of advanced education. Banks will grant loans to students of good standing who have prospects of successfully completing their courses of study. As I said, for their trouble, these loans attract considerable and rising rates of interest, thanks to this Government's economic policies. The Act which this Bill seeks to repeal would have lowered the cost of such borrowings to tertiary students. Had it been implemented instead of being left to lie idle by the present Government when it came to office, thousands of students who had loans then and who have loans now would have benefited from the Commonwealth subsidisation of their interest payments, for which the Act expressly provided. Tertiary students should be well aware that the Government's neglect of the principal Act and the repeal of it today have resulted in students who find it necessary to borrow money in order to complete their courses of study bearing higher costs than they would have had the coalition remained in office or, at second best, had the Government picked up the loans scheme. The coalition continues to support the widest possible range of resources and sources of income support for students, including loans. The Government's failure to give life to this Act and its action this afternoon and tonight to repeal it raises the cost of student borrowings and, therefore, limits many students' access to loans as a source of supplementary finance during study. We oppose the repeal of this Act. At the appropriate time we will be voting against it and dividing. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(6.06) —I was not going to say anything about the Student Assistance Amendment Bill because I think it is a relatively non-controversial piece of legislation. I was going to direct my comments to the other legislation, the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill. This, of course, is part of the ongoing debate we have heard over the last few years about the appropriate form of assistance to students. Quite recently we have heard debate about whether or not it would be equitable to reintroduce tertiary fees. That debate has taken place within the Government and I think it has been reasonably decisively resolved in favour of retaining the existing system, where fees have been generally removed. Mr Slipper —What is your view? Mr BALDWIN —I am strongly in favour of not reintroducing tertiary fees. At the time this legislation was debated-the original legislation, which we are now repealing, was introduced in 1982-there was a major debate about the merits or demerits of this proposal. The Government did not ultimately oppose the legislation simply because, at that time, we saw cutbacks in a range of areas that would serve to disadvantage people seeking education. In those circumstances it was felt that the retention of some form of assistance would be better than none. However, the Government always took the view that the loans scheme was not the optimal form of assistance for people seeking tertiary education and, consequently, the legislation is now being repealed. This is done in the context of the very major revision of all the arrangements relating to educational assistance to students both at the secondary and tertiary levels that has been announced quite recently. We have heard a lot of complaint by the Opposition about the fact that there remains a degree of differentiation in the treatment of young people receiving unemployment benefits and young people undertaking some form of education or training and the different way that the income tests applying to those benefits operate. It is all very well for Opposition members to talk about that, but what has been done by the present Government represents the most comprehensive attempt to rationalise these allowances payable to young people so as to remove or minimise the disincentive to people taking up education or training, as distinct from remaining unemployed. Certainly what has been done far exceeds anything that the Opposition ever contemplated in that area and it is sheer hypocrisy, therefore, for it to complain about the Government not entirely eliminating any differentiation in treatment between the two categories of people-those undertaking education or training and those receiving unemployment benefit. The fact is that if one looks at it in strict equity terms there is a consideration separate from the desirability of encouraging people into education. Those receiving unemployment benefit, if one looks at their long term prospects, are clearly in a worse position than those undertaking education or training. Consequently, I do not believe that there is any great inequity involved in having a more liberal income test applying to those benefits than apply to those people undertaking education or training. That sort of consideration would not weigh with the Opposition at all. As to the loans scheme, I believe that to assist tertiary students in the form of a loans scheme is inequitable. The fact is that if people are being asked to accept a long term financial burden, there is obviously going to be a big difference in the preparedness to do that on the part of people who have wealthy parents who in the final analysis may be able to bail them out as compared to people who have no guaranteed future income stream and no final guarantee that the loan can be repaid. I think it is clearly borne out by experience overseas where such loans schemes have operated that relatively poor people are reluctant to take up those loans for a variety of reasons, particularly those people who are engaged in studies such as the liberal humanities as distinct from professional courses. One can anticipate that somebody undertaking a course in medicine will have a substantial income in future years, but somebody doing an arts degree has no such comparable income guarantee in the future. There is a degree of discrimination between people undertaking highly paid professional courses on the one hand and people undertaking liberal arts courses on the other. There is also obviously a greater reluctance on the part of low income people to accept a long term and substantial financial burden. For that reason, I believe that, as a method of assistance, it is inequitable. The fact is that what we are seeing here is not just the subtraction of a benefit that might otherwise have existed. The argument put forward by Opposition spokesmen, both here and in the Senate, is quite fatuous in this respect. The fact is that the introduction of a loans scheme was part of a long term program of restructuring the form of assistance to people undertaking tertiary education. We could regard it as a precursor to the further erosion of benefits such as those under the tertiary education assistance schemes and the progressive reintroduction of fees. The existence of some sort of scheme like that is, I would suggest, in the eyes of the Opposition a necessary condition for making it politically tenable to go down that track. That is what the whole thing is about. That is the way in which it ought to be perceived. We are all limited in terms of time in this debate, so I will not say anything more. I simply reiterate that the loans scheme was an inequitable form of delivering assistance to people undertaking tertiary studies. The Federal Government has tackled that problem in a vastly more preferable way and has gone far further than any previous government in introducing a uniform system of income support for young people, both unemployed and undertaking education or training. It has certainly gone further than any government of honourable members opposite in this respect. It is sheer hypocrisy for the Opposition to whinge about the fact that there is still some degree of differentiation in the treatment of the two categories of people. Finally, I believe that it is a good idea to get this piece of legislation off the books because, while that legislation is left lying around, it is that much easier politically for a future conservative government to seek to whittle down the existing system of benefits-TEAS and the secondary allowances scheme-and to seek to reintroduce fees in due course. I think that, in fact, that is what that scheme was all about. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(6.15) —The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) made much in his speech of what the intention of the Fraser Government was when it introduced the loans scheme. Several times in his speech he used the words `it is a fact that' and went on to say that the purpose of the loans scheme was to reduce support for students. He is at variance with his colleagues Senator Giles, Senator Hearn and Senator Ray who, as members of the Senator Standing Committee on Education and the Arts inquiring into the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Act, which the Government has moved to repeal today, were co-signatories to a unanimous report which investigated the application of this Act, which was then a proposed Bill. I intend to quote from that report in due course. I also intend to establish some of the facts in relation to student assistance under the Fraser Government. In my time in this chamber I have become very used to Government speakers saying as a standard phrase or standard accusation in their speeches that the Fraser Government did nothing about this or that, or that it let this or that decline. Those are not the facts. It really is time that people such as the honourable member for Sydney were pulled up with a few facts and not just allowed to get up and make the bald assertions that they do. It may be that the honourable member for Sydney investigated some of the rhetoric of his own Party at the time this Act was before the Parliament and about to be debated. The Australian Labor Party certainly ran a very vigorous campaign against the loans scheme in advance of the introduction of the Bill through all sorts of accusations and assertions about what a loans scheme would do. When one looks at the debate in the Senate, where the Bill was debated first, one can see the very great disappointment of the Labor Party that it was not able to sustain its rhetoric on the subject in debate on the actual Bill. It is also very interesting to look at the debate in the House of Representatives, because the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), who is currently at the table and who represents the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), was then the shadow Minister for Education. He led for the then Opposition in the House of Representatives in the debate on this subject. He said of the Senate Committee: The Committee recommended that the Bill should be passed without amendment. The Opposition in the Senate accepted the view of the Senate Committee that the Bill should pass, although it took the opportunity to express some very real reservations about the proposal. I have already indicated that a Labor government would look very closely at this proposal and repeal at least the major aspects of it and replace it with a different form of loans scheme to be administered by the tertiary institutions. That is part of the Labor Party's education policy as then proposed by the now Minister for Trade. The Labor Government has now looked closely at it and after 2 1/2 years it has moved to the second part of what the Minister stated, except that it has gone further than that. He said that the Government would repeal the major apects of it. It is repealing the entire Act, the entire proposal. He further said that it would be replaced with a different form of loans scheme. There is no such substitute loans scheme. The Labor Party therefore acknowledged that there may be some merit in a loans proposal, although there was disagreement between the then Opposition and the Fraser Government as to the effect that the loans scheme proposed by the Fraser Government would have on education. The Senate Committee took submissions on the subject. I refer to the conclusions of the Committee in its report. The first conclusion, under the heading `The Likely Effects (if any) on Other Student Assistance Schemes', reads: The student loans scheme provided for by the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Bill 1982 will not replace or diminish the grants schemes of student assistance, whether the Commonwealth Postgraduate Awards Scheme, the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, the Adult Secondary Education Assistance Scheme, or the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme. The only significant effect of the loans scheme on these four grants schemes will be to supplement the benefits currently available under them. Eligibility under the loans scheme will be considerably wider than under the grants schemes. That is a one-paragraph summary of some material, given at much greater length in the body of the report, in which the facts are outlined. Those three Labor senators, along with the three then Government senators, came to that conclusion which enabled them to put their names to that unanimous report. On the basis of evidence given and referred to in the report, that conclusion was drawn. The second conclusion of the report under the heading `The Proposed Agreements between the Government and Certain Banks' states: Apart from the eligibility provisions set out in the Bill which are to be administered by the Commonwealth Department of Education, the Agreement between the Government and the banks will restrict the banks to take into account only one criterion on which an eligible student's application for a loan can be denied: that is, a prior unsatisfactory repayment record already established by the applicant. Other factors such as future earning capacity, course of study, age, sex, academic record and socio-economic background will not be taken into account when banks are considering applications for loans. The Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Act 1982 provided for loans-through the banks with an interest subsidy by the Government of 5 per cent, and a Government guarantee of repayment. Loans would be means tested for those students who were under 21 years of age and living at home, that is, parents' incomes would be a determinant in eligibility for loans in that circumstance. Thus, children of wealthy parents were actually disadvantaged under this Act. A means test was applied which would have excluded the children of the wealthy from being able to dip into the funds. The loans were meant for needy students and that was guaranteed by the Act. Further, the commitment undertaken under any loan was a commitment by the student, by the applicant. It was not dependent on parental guarantee. Even for those students who were dependent on their parents, when they took out a loan a guarantee was not required from their parents; it was the applicant who was fully responsible for repayment of the loan. The loans were available to full time students who were Australian citizens or permanent residents. It was required that the taxable income of any applicant in the previous year had to be less than $5,000 unless that income was from the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance or a Commonwealth post-graduate award, in which case the limit did not apply, so that students who had other substantial income of their own could not qualify. It was reserved for those who did not have access to other income whatever the source. The Act provided for a ten-year repayment period, and that in no year could repayments amount to more than 15 per cent of the income of the applicant. Thus nobody could financially cripple the applicant through unaffordable repayments if that applicant fell on hard times. As I have said, 5 per cent of the interest rate was subsidised by the Government. There was a condition that a loan must be used for a bona fide educational purpose. That was to prevent applicants from getting the money at what then was probably an interest rate of 11 1/2 per cent which with the 5 per cent subsidy from the Government made an effective interest rate of 6 1/2 per cent and then putting that money on the money market and earning 15 per cent from it. The money had to be used for a bona fide educational purpose. A number of assertions have been made in the debate today that are very similar to the assertions made in the debate in the Senate. It is interesting that those same assertions were not made in the subsequent debate in the House of Representatives in 1982. Assertions were made at the second reading stage in the Senate about support for student schemes under the Fraser Government. They were not raised further at the Committee stage or when the Senate debated the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee) Bill 1982, and they were not raised in the same way in the House of Representatives. I wonder whether that was not to some extent because of the reply given at the second reading stage in the Senate by the then Minister for Education, Senator Peter Baume. I suggest that Government members take a look at some of the figures in that speech. They would find, for example, that under the Whitlam Government, that Government reputed to have a fine reputation in tertiary education-a reputation referred to on numerous occasions today by Government speakers in the various debates on these education Bills-TEAS effectively rose by 25 per cent over the full term of that Government. Mr Cleeland —What was the inflation rate? Mrs SULLIVAN —It was 45 per cent. The honourable member for McEwen anticipated me. TEAS rose by 25 per cent whereas the consumer price index in total over that period rose by 45 per cent. During the time of the Fraser Government, that is up to the 1982 Budget, which was the last Fraser Budget, TEAS rose by approximately 100 per cent and the consumer price index in total by 99 per cent; so, in fact, TEAS kept pace with the CPI. Before the 1982 Budget there was ground for criticism of TEAS levels because there has been some decline in it. In the Budget brought down at the beginning of the parliamentary session in which that Bill was brought in, TEAS was increased by 20 per cent and Commonwealth post-graduate awards by 48 per cent. I was one of a number of Government senators who congratulated the Government on that at the time. It was noticeable that the Labor senators in debate on the Bill chose not to refer to those increases and they certainly did not repeat the rhetoric they had been using earlier on in the year on the subject. Time is short in this debate because we have eight education Bills to debate today as well as other legislation. This is unfortunate because the issues of equity in education-a term Government speakers are so fond of using-involved in this Act which the Government wants to repeal, are very real. This Act was meant to provide needy students with additional assistance. It was designed so that it could not be availed of by students from wealthy parents. It was a supplement. It did not in any way lead to a decline in TEAS and, on the evidence given to the Senate Committee by the Department of Education and detailed in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts to which I have referred, would not have done so. So all of the criticisms were just hot air. As time is short, I will just refer back to a matter raised at the beginning. Presumably the Minister for Trade will reply to this debate. He shakes his head. That is a pity because I was looking forward to further details of this loans scheme that he was talking about back in 1982-the superior loans scheme. This action by the Hawke Government to repeal the Act, without putting in its place a suitable support of the type that it could have provided, is throwing out the baby with the bath water. It may well be that the Australian Labor Party would have preferred a different type of loans scheme, but we are not to have a loans scheme at all. What we are to have is the removal of an opportunity for assistance that students were offered and would have had, if the Fraser Government had not lost office just a couple of months after that Bill passed the Parliament. That prospect has gone and it is not to be replaced. We in the Opposition will vote against the repeal of this Act. We understand that the Government has not funded it because it has chosen not to, but we really do need a better explanation of why it prefers to wipe it off the statute book. Could it be that might remind students at some time in the future of the unfulfilled promise of that other loans scheme? Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(8.00) —Before I speak tonight on the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill I refer to the speech of the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), who acted as if no special student assistance loans schemes existed. It is unfortunate that the honourable member did not acquaint herself with the initiatives the Government has taken in that direction. It has built upon the existing Beazley emergency loans schemes which, as the honourable member should be aware, operated in only some universities and not in colleges of advanced education. The Bill deals with a short-lived experience costing some $600,000 and applying economic rationalism to education. The world has been assaulted by countless economic theories since the Industrial Revolution a couple of centuries ago, and few of them have been tried to the extent that the theorists would wish. I certainly hope the theories about privatisation are dealt with as pragmatically as the other theories have been. This Bill repeals the student loans legislation of the Fraser Government which was never implemented, and it is no wonder as nothing was immune from this great move towards privatisation in the once conservatively liberal Liberal Party. There we saw education singled out. There was not much in the area of privatisation that Malcolm Fraser let his dry colleagues get away with, but education was an exception. Mr Fraser was always a bridge between the dries of the economic desert and the dripping wets from the National Party of Australia rain-forests. In that role he saw that cross-subsidies by Telecom Australia and Australia Post were not stopped. He saw quite rightly that services to this great source of Australian exports-rural Australia-were supported through lower than cost charges by Australia Post and Telecom. However, in the area of education the former Prime Minister gave his dries a little rope. He allowed his Ministers to bring in loans guarantees and subsidies to students which were absolutely dependent on the good will of the banks. But this did not go quite as well as he had hoped. The banks were not very happy. Mr V. E. Martin, Chairman of the Commercial Banking Co. of Sydney Ltd, wrote to the then Treasurer, amid an intensive cross-fire of correspondence, and said: The banks reiterate their view that a high default rate will occur with these loans and they would not favour pursuing recovery beyond making demand on the defaulter. As pointed out earlier the banks would look to the Government to assume direct responsibility for any loans which fell three months in arrears. The banks were not the only unhappy people. Consumers, students, academic staff and university administrators were also unhappy. In fact the Vice-President of the Australian Union of Students said: . . . students around Australia were against the introduction of the new plan which . . . was a potential disaster for Australian education. . . . student loans schemes discriminate against women, country and mature-age students and cause attrition rates to sky-rocket . . . An average student may have to borrow around $2,000 a year to finance their living costs as well as work part time. With an interest rate of 14.5 per cent, after a three-year course that student will graduate with a $14,000 debt. Academic staff pointed out the real aims of the then Government, which were to: . . . tighten eligibility for the TEAS and the Adult Secondary Assistance Scheme; and real level cuts to TEAS allowances were foreshadowed. The Vice-President continued: The `user-pays' package changes tertiary education into a commodity which can be purchased by those who can pay. Those who cannot afford to buy an education (either cash down or by hire purchase with a loan) are left in the same position as those who cannot afford to buy a Mercedes or a house in Monomeath Avenue-they have to do without. A look at what has happened in other countries shows the futility of this type of scheme. Even Mrs Thatcher abandoned this idea and took it from the pigeon holes of privatisation doctrine. In the United States and Europe similar schemes showed all sorts of problems. After graduation students could not be traced for repayment. Poor and middle class students could not provide the security backing which banks seemed to want. Even the Treasury, questioned by a Senate inquiry, admitted that a bank imposed limit on funding meant that only a third of the students eligible for the Federal Government's proposed tertiary student loans scheme were likely to benefit. The Treasury submission stated: It seemed unwise to establish a scheme which would cater for only less than 30 per cent of potential borrowers, particularly as the loans would be available at a very concessional rate and have favourable repayment conditions. Why labour the point? I do so because Liberal Party speakers are still calling for the user-pays principle in education. Let us look at what this attitude did in the United States, where one State had a referendum on lower taxes and lower public spending. Politicians, refusing to take the decisions for which they were elected, referred the matter to the people. The people voted for lower taxes and lower public spending. It was not long before the same people were complaining that they had to pay out far more in school costs and fees. I know that members of the National Party of Australia are not sold on privatisation. In fact, their main preoccupation now is to find an alternative to the word `subsidy' so that they can give tacit support to the privatisation of Telecom Australia and Australia Post. However, I agree with what they really feel, which is that privatisation would be a disaster for country people. The honourable member for Tangney, (Mr Shack) was here today, unrepentent after taking full advantage of free space in the Australian, again advocating the user-pays principle in education. He might like to look at an article in last Saturday's Australian which clearly showed that a decline in productivity in the United States was associated with a decline in the number of scientists in that country. Education had failed to produce enough scientists in the United States compared with other countries which formerly it had outperformed. There can be no doubt that this was because fewer people could afford education. I have no doubt that the aim of the economic dries is to reintroduce the sort of legislation we are repealing tonight. That is why they are voting against the legislation before us. The result of not repealing the legislation would be fewer people enrolling for education, a less skilled work force, fewer ordinary people, fewer women and students from the ethnic communities being able to take advantage of education in our community. I have no hesitation in supporting the legislation. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(8.09) —It is with a very great deal of pleasure that I support the shadow Minister for Education, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), who has provided for this House a very appropriate argument for the Opposition's position on this legislation, the Student Assistance Amendment Bill 1985 and the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill 1985. One thing I should mention is my concern at the way in which this Government decided today, in the early part of the sittings of this House, to gag debate on the important issues confronting our country. We have a mere hour and a half to debate this legislation and the future of thousands of young people. Their future hangs in the balance, yet this Government thinks that a mere 90 minutes is adequate to debate that future. The Bills before the House tonight are not the only Bills on which debate has been restricted. Less than one hour was allocated for debate on the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1985. There are 231 pages in the explanatory memorandum and 118 pages in the Bill itself. What we have seen today in this House is an absolute negation of democracy. Those honourable members who have been given the opportunity to speak have had their allocated time in which to address this House slashed. Many honourable members on both sides, no doubt, had contributions which were worth while and important but, because of the jack-boot tactics of the Hawke socialist Government this morning, we find that honourable members are not able to represent their constituents in the way they ought to be able to. In Queensland, we certainly would not permit similar tactics. The Government's actions attempt to silence this Parliament. The Government's other reason, of course, is its determination to push a huge volume of legislation through at the last minute. This reflects very greatly on the poor organisation of the Government and perhaps on some public servants under its control. It is a matter of great concern, a matter of which the people of Australia should be very much aware. It is the right of members of this Parliament to debate Bills. Some Bills before the House today have been given a mere five minutes for debate. Is this the way in which the people of Australia expect the Australian Labor Party Government to run this House? I think that it is an absolute disgrace. I am certain that the thousands of people listening to this Parliament tonight will know that a travesty of democracy is being imposed on Australia by the Hawke Government. Let us look at the two Bills before us. Thanks to the gag, we have only a very short amount of time in which to discuss those Bills. We have before us the Student Assistance Amendment Bill and the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill. As the shadow Minister, in his usual eloquent fashion, mentioned earlier, the Student Assistance Amendment Bill seeks to rationalise the existing student assistance review tribunals into a single tribunal and to achieve minor administrative changes to its operation. The shadow Minister mentioned that this is a mechanical Bill which has no significant financial implications and that we in the Opposition do not intend to oppose it. But we must remember that a very important sector in Australia is those students who are obtaining tertiary education assistance scheme support. They are the people who have been discriminated against by this Government and by its predecessors over many years. We find that a very stringent income test is imposed on them. Not only their own income but also that of their parents is tested. This Government purports to be a Government which is encouraging education in this country. I think that the Bills before the House tonight indicate what a sham this Government's approach is-a complete sham. We find that unemployed youth-we must look at their situation as well-are subjected to an extremely liberal income test, and that no income test is placed on their parents' income. In many cases the unemployed youth are contemporaries of the students who are going to institutes and universities today. Yet the Government is almost forcing people on to the dole, despite its somewhat hollow announcements made earlier this year. The Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs (Mr Dawkins), to his credit, was opposed to the Government's position. The Government leaks like a sieve, but it always has. The Minister has been overruled, but I hope that he will take the advice of the honourable member for Tangney and continue to try to make sure that young people who are going to universities and institutes of higher education are not discriminated against. Why does this Government, which pretends to be the saviour of Australia and to try to outlaw discrimination, insist upon institutionalising discrimination through legislation? We know about the Government's proposal for restructuring some income supports for young people under the Priority One banner, but this does not address the inequality faced by tertiary students receiving money under the tertiary education assistance scheme in relation to their unemployed peers. So I plead with the Minister for Trade to continue to try to undo this great injustice. The other Bill is one which we in the National Party have no hesitation whatsoever in joining the shadow Minister in opposing. That Bill, the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill, seeks to repeal legislation enacted in 1982 by the Fraser-Anthony Government which provided Commonwealth guarantees and subsidies in respect of loans for tertiary students. In other words, the Fraser-Anthony Government wanted to help young people who wanted to get ahead, who wanted to make a contribution to this country. The Bill was assented to in December 1982, but it is a tragedy that on 5 March 1983 the Hawke socialist Government was elected to office because on that day and since that day the Government has refused to help young people. The Government has ignored young people. The Government has forced many of those young people to seek loans from financial institutions at interest rates very much higher than the interest rates which would have been provided to those students under assistance planned by a Liberal National-Party government in office at the time. Income support for young people is a current issue and we in the Opposition do not shrink in any way, shape or form from our determination to back young people. We want young people to achieve what they are able to achieve and we intend to help them in every way possible. That is why I wish to compliment publicly before the people of Australia the honourable member for Tangney, who is doing a marvellous job as shadow Minister for Education. He is a man who fully understands the great issues confronting the young people of this country. We in the Opposition must continue to develop our policy, as we are doing. We will be announcing our policy to the people in a very short time. You can rest assured, Mr Speaker, that that policy will do away with the discrimination imposed by the socialist Government temporarily in control of Canberra. It will do away with that and it will be a fair and equitable policy. It will assist young people, because we know that education is an investment in our future. The Government has failed to take advantage of the legislation. The Government has denied assistance to thousands of students who would have benefited, who would have been paying less had this Government had some compassion, but the Hawke Labor Government is a government without compassion. It is a government which simply does not care. It is a government on the way out. To refer to the matters raised by the honourable member for Tangney, we in the National Party and the Liberal Party continue to support the widest possible range of sources of income support for students, including loans. In other words, we want to help young people. We do not want to hurt young people in the way the Labor Party is doing. The Government stands condemned before the whole of Australia for its action to repeal this legislation which was to help young people. The Government's failure to put the 1982 Act into practice and its action tonight to repeal it, to give it the chop, raise the cost of student borrowings and, therefore, limits the access of many students to loans as a source of finance during study. The people of Australia will not be conned by this Australian Labor Party Government. The people of Australia realise that the National Party and the Liberal Party wish to help young people. I have no hesitation whatsoever in standing up in this Parliament and supporting the young people of my electorate of Fisher, the young people of Queensland, and indeed the young people of Australia, who will benefit from the progressive and forthright education policy to be brought forward by the National Party and the Liberal Party. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(8.20) —This Bill to repeal the Fraser Government's Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Act 1982 is another promise that has been kept by the Hawke Labor Government. When the former Government introduced this loans subsidy scheme for tertiary students in 1981, it met with a very hostile reaction from the community and from the Labor Party, which was then in opposition. Because of its inherent inequities, Senator Button said at the time that it was a foot in the door job for the eventual abolition of the tertiary education assistance scheme and the reintroduction of tertiary fees. Unlike the Opposition, we on this side of the House do have an education policy and in fact we have an education program. Much of this program has been highlighted today very capably by speakers on this side of the House. I believe that the Government in introducing this legislation is not only fulfilling a commitment to repeal the Act, but also indicating that it has a commitment to the tertiary education assistance scheme and to the right of free tertiary education for all Australians. By contrast, the Opposition's objection to this legislation is a very clear indication of its continuing regressive education policies, as typified by the Fane model whereby essentially only those who can pay for education, especially higher education, will receive it. In other words, the rich get education and the high level and high paid jobs, and the low income background students are lucky even to finish their secondary education. Why did the Fraser Government want this scheme introduced in the first place? Why does the Opposition today oppose the repeal of this Act in relation to a scheme which never operated because of the timely advent of the Hawke Labor Government? The present Opposition and indeed the Fraser Government at the time have abrogated their responsibility to higher education, which is a fundamental right for Australians and a necessity for Australia's continuing economic and social development. It is clear that whatever the Opposition comes up with in the years ahead in its education policy, it will ignore its responsibility to support students who cannot afford to live by other means. Income support for students is just as important a part of education as are the lecturers and the buildings of the institutions. Anyone who wants any further evidence of that does not have to go any further than to look at the way in which the TEAS allowance was degraded and eroded under the Fraser years in the lead-up to this legislation that we are now seeking to repeal. I seek leave of the House to incorporate in Hansard a table which shows the maximum TEAS allowance relative to the poverty line for a single person. Leave granted. The table read as follows- MAXIMUM TEAS ALLOWANCES RELATIVE TO THE POVERTY LINE FOR A SINGLE PERSON IN THE WORK FORCE, ALL COSTS INCLUDING HOUSING Year1 TEAS % of ACOSS poverty line $ per week 1974... 26.90 62.6 1975... 30.70 56.2 1976... 30.70 49.8 1977... 42.90 61.9 1978... 45.15 58.7 1979... 45.15 54.1 1980... 45.15 51.4 1981... 49.67 49.2 1982... 49.67 43.7 19832... 59.62 47.0 1984... 68.67 56.65 Source: Student Budget Claims AUS 1984 (updated to include 1984). 1 March each year unless noted. 2 May 1983. Mr STAPLES —I thank the House. I would point out, for the sake of listeners who will not have the opportunity to read the table in Hansard, that the maximum TEAS allowance fell from 62.6 per cent of the Australian Council of Social Service single person poverty line in 1974 to 47 per cent in 1983. Under this Labor Government, in one leap it moved from the abysmally low figure of 47 per cent of the poverty line to 56.65 per cent in 1984. Obviously we have a long way to go to make TEAS a substantial living income for people, but the degradation of TEAS is one of the major reasons for the poor access of those in low income families and low income groups to higher education over the years of the Fraser Government. A regressive taxation system with two definitions of income that discriminated against the ordinary PAYE worker and student, made it difficult for those on lower incomes to benefit from TEAS compared with many from high income backgrounds-high incomes which are disguised by a very regressive and dishonest taxation system. The Opposition comes into this House quite shamelessly and expects the Australian electorate to accept from the Opposition's lips the same mistakes and inequalities which it forced upon the public during its years in office. We recognise the poverty that exists for many students. In my own electorate there is La Trobe University and the Phillip Institute of Technology. The result of this policy of the Hawke Labor Government in educational initiatives and expenditure will be a new TAFE college in the Diamond Valley to serve the expanding northern suburbs of Melbourne-to serve basically the lower income background families and the students of this area. I am aware of the poverty forced on many students by the current TEAS system. Obviously, in 32 months this Government has shown its commitment to building up TEAS as well as the rest of the public education system, as quickly as possible. In 1983-84 the TEAS allowance was increased by 5 per cent. In 1984-85 it was increased by 10 per cent, along with an increase in the marginally adjusted family income level of 6 per cent. In 1985-86, the last Budget year, TEAS increased by a further 6.7 per cent and MAFI increased by 5 per cent. Now TEAS is indexed to the unemployment benefit. Clearly moving by indexation and general rate increases we will get sooner or later-more sooner than later-an equalisation of TEAS and the unemployment benefit. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the major allowance rates for benefits in 1985 to the expected benefit rates in 1988. Leave granted. The table read as follows- MAJOR ALLOWANCE RATES FOR 1985, 1986, 1987 AND 1988 Actual weekly rates ($) 1985 Second Tertiary UB Expected weekly rates ($) 1986 Second Tertiary UB 1987 Second Tertiary UB 1988 Second Tertiary UB 16-17 Years at home... 23.05 44.51 45.00 35.00 47.50 50.00 40.00 50.00 50.00 53.50 53.50 53.50 (a) (b) (c) (c) (f) Away from home and independent... 68.67 73.28 73.28 76.00 18+ (students) and 18-20 (unemployed) At home... 23.05 44.51 85.20 35.00 47.50 88.20 45.00 50.00 91.20 55.00 60.00 95.00 (d) (b) (d) (c) (d) (c) (d) (e) Away from home and independent... 68.67 73.28 80.00 95.00 Notes: (a) Rate for those unemployed for six months or longer in 1985 is $50 p.w. (b) Family Allowances are absorbed into the secondary allowance from 1986. (c) Young people who are without family support will be eligible for the equivalent of the tertiary student independent rate, under strict conditions. (d) UB rate shown is that for 18-20 year olds. Rate for 21+ unemployed is higher. (e) From May 1986 rent assistance of $10 p.w. will be introduced for persons aged 18-24 who have been in receipt of benefit for at least 6 months and who are not living with parents or guardians. (f) These rates have been chosen for illustrative purposes only. The actual rates will be determined as a result of an indexation adjustment in the light of price movements. Source: Priority One: Young Australia Documents. Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet 1985. Mr STAPLES —I thank the House. At the same time as we have changed the taxation system to produce a greater horizontal and vertical equity we have restored and built up the employment market so that students now have a greater access to additional income. That is something which in the past has discriminated against those from low income backgrounds and those who do not have access to employment. The growth in the economy and the employment market really has been of tremendous benefit to those students, many from low income backgrounds, in allowing them to build up their incomes and to stay in higher education. There is now no need for a student loans scheme. If there ever was a need before, it was only so the Fraser Government-and by its continuing support, this Opposition-could abrogate its full responsibility to TEAS and to student support in general. Obviously, the next step would be to reintroduce tertiary fees. In this situation we must ask who would get the loans from the banks under such proposed legislation-legislation which has never been effected? If we look at the record of our own banks we would certainly get a good indication of that. However, if we look at the United States experience, as the good and honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) did in his contribution to the debate, we would see that such a system is biased against those from low income backgrounds. Certainly those from the low income backgrounds would not have access to those loans. Banks would not grant those people loans because they would not have enough security and collateral and thus would not be considered to have the possibility of repaying the loans. Women of child bearing age would not get a loan from the banks under this scheme. Students embarking on courses leading to those less certain and less highly paid jobs would not have the same access to loans as would budding doctors and lawyers. In the overseas experience, in country after country in which such ridiculous and inequitable schemes operate, it is people from poorer and low income backgrounds who do not take out loans because they do not feel they have the ability to repay the loans and live at the same time, often at the expense of their families who make great sacrifices for them. Of course, what the student loan Act was meant to do was to give further cash transfers to those people who needed them relatively the least. Those are the students who are firmly entrenched in the higher education system. Again, that is biased against lower income people. I reject the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Act of 1982 with all its implications for the higher education system and those people from lower income backgrounds. By voting for the Act's repeal under the legislation before the House tonight I ask honourable members to support those people who are seeking to expand their opportunities by going into the higher education system and to support the legislation to make Australia a far better place in terms of its economic and social development. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(8.29) —At the outset I want to say that education is one area of Federal and State government responsibility in which one can hope always to have a bipartisan approach. Education is terribly important. Its effects will be important throughout eternity, and there is no way of measuring whether that effect will be for good or bad. People usually have only one opportunity of obtaining a tertiary education. It is necessary for them to go into the workforce and earn a living in order to pay for the necessities of life. It is true that occasionally there are professional students, but by and large most people attempt to complete only one degree and then go to work. I hope that as the years go by, in regard to this vitally important area of trying to mould and chisel into shape a better Australia, all parliamentarians, both State and Federal, and people in departments who have the responsibility for putting government policy into action, work together to ensure that there is stability in education and that we give security to our people. As someone who believes in the minimum of government involvement, particularly in the area of tribunals, I support the government initiative in trying to rationalise the various tribunals. It is quite apparent that in the modern era of politics we have far too many tribunals trying to give the same answer to the same problem. I applaud any initiative, whether it comes from my side of politics or from the Government's side of politics, which seeks to rationalise, to bring some common sense to the approach and which certainly limits the drain on the taxpayers' funds. I have absolutely no objection to any move which seeks to rationalise the tribunals, to expedite hearings and to minimise government expenditure. However, it is quite apparent that oppositions and governments can have a different emphasis, particularly when dealing with the availability of funds to students. I deplore any activity of government, any decisions that are made outside government circles, which always seem to boil down to giving priority to rights and placing absolutely negligible emphasis on responsibilities. It appears to me that there would be absolutely nothing wrong with Australian society today-and, in particular, with education-if at all times we gave a priority to responsibilities and placed a lesser emphasis on rights. Consequently, I believe it is appropriate, consistent with my approach to the dignity of the individual, in trying to develop a society in which everyone is responsible, that the opportunities should be made available to people who want to pursue a career in education. If, through an unfortunate set of continuing circumstances, they may not have sufficient money to finance that education, finance should be made available to them by the Government. I believe it is inappropriate, particularly at a time of high interest rates, that these students-who, after all, are trying to improve themselves with the idea of making a better society-are forced to pay very high interest rates. So I support the idea that the Government should make loans available. I believe the initiative of the Fraser Administration was a good one. It is an initiative that should be supported, wherein we try to encourage people to have an independence of mind and frankness of approach. Responsibilities are thrust upon them when they take over the burden of a loan and its repayment. I see nothing wrong with that type of approach. It seems to fit very closely within my own philosophy of life. So let us not talk about not making loans available, with a government guarantee, to students who, because they may want to be independent, must obtain loans because they do not want to impose a burden on their family. There can be very good reasons for this. That family in ordinary, reasonable circustances, could be a large one and the older members of the family would not seek to limit the opportunities of their younger brothers and sisters to pursue tertiary education later. I support a loan scheme because it fits neatly within my philosophy of life, which is to try to develop a responsible society so that each person makes some type of effort and places some emphasis on looking after his own affairs. Of course, I have no objection to the Government's proposal of income support. I just hope that it will spell out in quite clear and unequivocal terms what the income support will be. I appeal to the Government to urge all people in the Department of Education to show a little width of vision when dealing with people who apply for assistance under the tertiary education assistance scheme under the independent student provisions of the appropriate legislation. Too often we find that people who have entered a certain course decide after a while that that course is not appropriate or to their liking and they seek to enter the work force. There can be an excellent argument for their doing that. Educationalists will advance the argument that it is to the advantage of a student to leave the university or the college of advanced education, get out in the world and get a wider experience and then come back when that student is more settled and more disciplined in his approach. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you as a politician, being very close to people, will have had innumerable instances in your electorate of students coming into your office and saying: `Here is this letter I got from the Tribunal. Here is this piece of correspondence I got from the Department. I have worked for X number of years. I have done this and I have done that, but they will not grant me independent status'. This is an area in which we can temper justice with a little charity and concern to encourage people, because it is absoluty necessary. Sometimes the Department exercises the iron-clad fist of toughness, particularly in rural areas. I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the House are experienced in the problems of rural areas, but it is always difficult to get a point across to someone who is an armchair adjudicator, sitting in an office far removed from the realities of practical experience in the drought areas. That person just cannot realise that this year's income can be vastly inferior when compared with the income of the previous year. Yet an enormous quantity of correspondence is cluttering up desks, slowing down the process and creating confusion and doubt in the minds of people as to whether or not they can be assessed on their current year's income rather than that of the previous year. These are the types of administrative processes that I hope can be clarified and speeded up, because, in the final analysis, the greatest chance people have of getting employment is when they have the necessary skills. Australia, with an enormous market in South East Asia, which is very close to our shores, stands poised to enter the race in the high technology areas, but we can enter that race only if people are equipped with the necessary skills to stand up to the tough competition in the international market-place. Let us hope, therefore, that the Government can widen the choice. I get a little concerned at the beginning of each year-I know that all my colleagues from rural areas will have this problem thrust upon them in February or March of next year-about those students who come down to the city from country areas. They have had enormous problems in qualifying at high school and gaining the necessary tertiary education score. They come to a city and they cannot get accommodation. If residential accommodation is available, it is priced well above their means. I was most upset at the decision last year of the Federal Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) wherein she reduced the subsidy allocation to students in residences. I find great difficulty in understanding the sense behind that decision. On the one hand, realising the enormous problems of unemployment and that many people cannot get jobs, we are trying to encourage people to get off the streets and to enter technical and further education courses, college of advanced education courses, or whatever; yet, on the other hand, there is nowhere for them to stay. The Government saw fit to reduce the subsidies to residential students, with the consequence that the cost of staying in a residence was priced well above the means of the people who were trying to find accommodation in the cities. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that if you lived out in western Queensland and your son or daughter came down to a city, you would be very worried if he or she could not get accommodation at a residence, particularly in the first year of his or her entry into tertiary education. It is absolutely essential that they have the back-up of lecturers and tutors and that people with similar backgrounds can give them encouragement to allow them to settle in. It is not easy for students to be plucked from a secondary school where there is a great deal of supervision and placed in an area where they are left on their own, where they are not encouraged personally and where things are just a matter of fact. It is very necessary that residentials be provided on campuses so that students can make the change from secondary education to tertiary education with appropriate ease and to their own educational advantage. I know that Government members were always complaining, when they were sitting on this side of the House, about our duplicity in allowing the unemployment benefit to be an amount greater than that made available under TEAS. I know that one can advance an immaculate argument in support of this arrangement which might be right in logic. But I know too well, as do other members who have been in this place for a few years, that an argument is not necessarily won by logic; sometimes it is won by using sound commonsense and by fitting a necessary action to the appropriate circumstances. So we have to realise that there are problems and that it is necessary to ensure that people are encouraged to get on and further their education. We will not do this by paying them insufficient sums compared with the amount paid by way unemployment benefit. People might say that we are paying an amount to cover tutoring, lecturing and the capital cost of establishing an appropriate tertiary college. However, on balance I believe it is better to spend the dollar in a constructive way rather than in a non-productive way. In summary, I believe we should encourage the Government to try to expedite the hearing of appeals. Let us try to encourage the Government to ensure that people from rural areas are not disadvantaged, particularly in respect of residential accommodation and assessing parents income. Let us encourage people to be assessed in an independent, meaningful and just way, mingled with a little bit of charity. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(8.43) —A great number of education Bills are to be forced through the House today as a result of a government program which is staggering, which has lost its way and which cannot really cope with the pressures of government and the decisions that government needs to make. It is a sad thing for the Parliament that eight important education Bills are to be forced through the Parliament by means of the guillotine in a climate in which young people in Australia are desperate to receive education which they believe holds the very essence of their future employment prospects. The Parliament has not been given the opportunity to give proper attention to the legislation. I regret that the way in which the legislative program has been organised is such that it has not been possible for honourable members to give the attention they would like to give to some of these important Bills. The House has already dealt with the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission Amendment Bill 1985, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985 and the Overseas Students Charge Amendment Bill 1985. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has launched into what she and others have called an export program of education in which our tertiary institutions will be used to attract people to our shores. There are problems with that. The concept is fine and I believe that our tertiary institutions generally are good. However, the full fees that will be set by the Government over a period may be beyond the capacity of our clients to pay and may be uncompetitive by world standards. I would advise the Minister, before she moves completely into this area, to compare the fees that people of intelligence and capacity from South East Asia are asked to pay. She should also find out who our major competitors are, whether they are British, American or even perhaps Japanese universities. I suspect that our main competitors are in Europe and the United States. Can we compete? Do our fees deliver a degree which is equivalent to those that can be gained in the United Kingdom or the United States? Will they stand up, at the price? A student will take more than one factor into consideration. One factor is the quality and the world status of the degree as compared with the cost of the degree. That is the factor which many families in South East Asia are starting to consider. Anybody who has been involved over the last few weeks in the debate on overseas student charges would be aware of the concerns of overseas students. They would also be aware of the way in which decisions are made. I do not intend to spend more time discussing that legislation, although it is a particular interest of mine, because tonight we are debating two Bills cognately. They are the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Repeal Bill and the Student Assistance Amendment Bill. Those two Bills relate to assistance for students in tertiary institutions. I believe that one way we can assist students in Australian institutions is by placing them on the same basis as overseas students as we work towards full cost recovery of courses. That would be very sensible and equitable. I caution the Government lest it should move in a singular way to favour one group or the other, because access is essential in this critical time in Australia. Education opens the doors to opportunity and employment, and every Australian student in our high schools is absolutely aware of that. Our students know that they must gain those tertiary qualifications if they are to have a chance of getting a job. One has to look only at the basic employment studies this Government and other governments have produced to know that education is a critical key and is seen as such. Students who go beyond that last examination at senior high school to obtain tertiary qualifications find that that dramatically increases their prospects. Another way in which students prospects can be increased is to allow those who have not the ability to meet part or all of the cost related to tertiary education to support themselves. I guess that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is at the table, would say that that process is an ideological kick for the Opposition because the legislation which is being repealed tonight was an initiative of the previous Government. The initiative was brought in to allow greater flexibility and opportunity. I have heard a lot said tonight about the Whitlam years and what Whitlam did for free university education. I have not been able to ascertain absolutely and nobody appears to know, but empirical information indicates to me that the Whitlam free education process for tertiary education has continued to create further imbalances. I believe that in my electorate in the western suburbs of Sydney fewer students are going on to obtain tertiary qualifications than was the case in 1972. What is happening is that those young people, who have intelligence and capacity, are chasing identifiable job markets at the earliest opportunity they can leave school. They are accepting a bird in the hand rather than an indefinite tertiary education which they are completely uncertain of gaining. The system of entry and the processes which are adopted by a no fee situation mean that the smarter, the more informed, the better equipped, those who have the support of their parents, can find the places. Places in Newcastle and Wollongong are being taken by students from the North Shore of Sydney and the south of the Harbour areas. Those institutions were not really established for those better informed or more capable students. I notice that the Minister shrugged at my comments. I suggest that the Minister should really have a look at the studies if he is interested in this area and tell me whether he can identify concisely whether the Whitlam program has succeeded. One cannot identify by way of statistics where children went to school or what area they grew up in but one can gain some inkling that free tertiary education has not worked in the way the Whitlam Government thought it would. The current Opposition when in government said: `If young people want sufficiently to adopt a tertiary education, provided they are determined'-their determination was tested by their willingness to enter into a loan guarantee or a subsidy-`they should have that right'. Tonight the Government is taking away that opportunity from those young people with determination and commitment. I think it is sad that the Government feels it has to treat all young people very much the same. It is sad that it does not want to provide encouragement and incentive to our young people. One has only to look at the processes that have been adopted, for instance, in the training of nurses to see what has occurred. There has been poor management of nurses, mainly by State governments. Because of an over supply some years ago, State governments have felt that there would be an endless supply of nurses. Today we are importing scores of nurses from all around the world to fill Australian hospitals. That is a tragedy. Thousands of girls in Australia would welcome the opportunity of becoming a nurse, provided there is stability in employment and sensible administration by State authorities. Yet in these days, when highly educated young people are capable of doing this task, we are denying them that opportunity. That is a decision of State governments, and New South Wales is certainly the worst in that regard. In a hospital near my home, Westmead Hospital, within the past few weeks 80 nurses or more were being sought from overseas to fill jobs that Australians cannot fill. I am the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and I would like to see the opportunity being given to people to come to Australia to take these jobs. Mr Fitzgibbon —That is nonsense. Mr CADMAN —If the honourable member does not believe me, I will show him the files of two nurses here on holiday who were working at the hospital and who were denied the opportunity of continuity of employment. They were forced to return home at the same time as we were advertising for nurses in London and Dublin. I think that process is crazy. The opportunity for young people can be provided by legislative support, such as the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Act-the very legislation that the Government is repealing tonight. It is a tragedy for Australia that excellence and those striving for that excellence are not encouraged; that those people who need so much opportunity and who need to be equipped to find a spot in the work place for themselves are not being given the opportunity. Two of the Government's measures today are going in the wrong direction. Firstly, there is no opportunity for Australian students to pay their fees at Australian universities. Secondly, the Government is knocking off the chance for those who want to work hard to go to university and to be guaranteed assistance by the Commonwealth. It is a shame for tertiary education in Australia today. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(8.53) —It always seems rather ridiculous that governments are prepared, for philosophical reasons, to take from people something which would cost government very little. We know that there was a government commitment to the student assistance loans guarantee arrangement. That meant that those who did not repay loans which were government guaranteed could put a cost burden on government. I do not think that that would have been a substantial amount of money. This Government, having established and got the support of a previous Parliament to give something to tertiary students, wants to take it away because the left wing of the student movement has said that that is the way it should be. We should remember some of the stupidities that occurred when the Fraser Government introduced these particular measures. A group of students disrupted the banking profession because banks had the temerity to line up with the Government and say: `We want to help students'. Mr Snow —Not very many. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, but some did. Some were prepared to help a student. The honourable member obviously did not want to help a student. His philosophy has got the best of him. I say that any form of help for a student is help for a student. I will not have any divisions put into what is help. If money can be attracted for a student to get him through and make him more capable of earning a living and improve his vocational prospects, I say that is a good move. I see no reason because someone has a philosophy- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The time allotted for consideration of the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 November, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 55 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J.Cohen, B. McLeay, LeoCross, M. D. Maher, M. J.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P.Darling, E. E. Mayer, H.Dubois, S. G. Mildren, J. B.Duffy, M. J. Milton, P.Duncan, P. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P.Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Hurford, C. J. Willis, R.Jacobi, R. Wright, K. W.Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S.Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J.Blunt, C. W. MacKellar, M. J. R.Braithwaite, R. A. McVeigh, D. T.Burr, M. A. Macphee, I. M.Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G.Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B.Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S.Cobb, M. R. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C.Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M.Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M.Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C.Katter, R. C. Humphreys, B. C. Aldred, K. J.Price, L. R. S. Coleman, W. P.Bilney, G. N. Sinclair, I. McC.Punch, G. F. Halverson, R. G. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the consideration of the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by Dr Blewett: 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 Bill cognately with the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(9.05) —by leave-In view of the considerable time that has elapsed since the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill 1985 was introduced, I advise the House of further discussions the Government has conducted with the States on the proposed financial arrangements for the transfer of nurse education. Flowing from these discussions, the Government has agreed to provide supplementary assistance to the States. The package of assistance addresses both the difficulties encountered by the States in respect of the transfer and some of the related general work force concerns expressed by the nursing profession. We are committed to the transfer going through on schedule and to assist the States in the achievement of that objective, we have agreed to the following: To provide $2.3m over the next two years to assist with the development of new and expanded basic nurse education courses at colleges of advanced education; to provide over 1986 and 1987 up to $4m extra for retraining of nurses not currently working as nurses; not to seek repayment by the States of the tertiary education assistance scheme student allowances for additional nursing students, at an estimated cost of $1m in 1986 and 1987; to fund basic nurse education after 1993 on the same basis as all other advanced education after appropriate Commonwealth-State financial arrangements; and to Commonwealth officers investigating post-basic nurse education and reporting back in early 1986. Although most States asked for an increase in the level of the basic offer the Government was not convinced by the claims. The level of the Commonwealth's offer of $1,500 per student per year in 1983 prices is now $1,630 in 1985 prices and is estimated to be over $1,710 in 1986. This is in addition to the payment of student TEAS allowances by the Commonwealth at an estimated average cost to the Commonwealth of about $1,000 per student per year. Added to the 1985 State grant this means Federal funding in excess of $2,630 per student in 1985. The provision of $2.3m to the States for new and expanded basic nurse education courses in colleges will be part of the transfer assistance. The allocation of those funds will be on the basis of the advice from the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. This provision of additional funding will require amendment of sub-clause 4 (4) of the Bill which specifies the level of financial assistance payable to the States. As CTEC will need to consult with States on the transfer planning and college needs I am unable at this stage to advise on the apportionment of that $2.3m between the relevant years. I anticipate however being in a position to do so in the autumn session 1986 when the level of funding in sub-clause 4 (4) will also need to be adjusted for changes in price levels. The discussions with the States have, however, made it clear that the shortage of nurses is making the transfer a difficult process. The States have had increasing recourse to overseas recruitment to cope with the recruitment problems. The Government gave its agreement to increased immigration of nurses as a short term measure only, to ensure the minimum disruption to the health care system. At the same time, it was made clear to the States that increased training and retraining efforts were expected. To this end the Commonwealth, through the labour market programs of employment and industrial relations, has already committed some $3.3m to assist the States in providing additional retraining programs for nurses not currently working in nursing. As a result of recent discussions and consultation with the States and the nursing profession, the Government has agreed to provide up to an additional $4m for nurse retraining over 1986 and 1987. This is evidence of the Government's commitment to the orderly transfer of nurse education. The Government is firmly of the opinion that priority should be given to the training and employment of those in our Australian community. We view with concern the tendency of the States tolook overseas before looking to those in their community. The transfer clearly conforms with the Government's educational and training priorities and, we believe, will encourage States to look to their own communities first. I thank the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(9.09) —The purpose of the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill 1985 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 is to provide financial assistance to the States and the Northern Territory for the transfer of basic nurse education from hospitals to colleges of advanced education at diploma level. The States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill empowers the Commonwealth Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) to make agreements with the State Health Ministers on the terms and conditions of that assistance. The second Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2), amends the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984 to clarify the accounting requirements resulting from the first Bill. The issue of transfering nurse education from hospital based training to CAEs has been debated and studied extensively in recent years. The Opposition and, I think, all the States, as well as State and Federal nurse organisations, support the principle of the transfer. As nurse training has traditionally been hospital based, and therefore funded by the States through the health budget, there are important ramifications in this legislation for both the Commonwealth education system and the State health systems. While the transfer of nurse education from hospitals to CAEs is supported by the nursing profession, the Government and the Opposition, there nevertheless remain a number of areas of tension between the States and the Commonwealth regarding financial responsibility during the transition. The process of transferring from hospital based training to colleges of advanced education will necessarily be gradual as a number of factors must be taken into account. Nurse training traditionally has been a State responsibility and there are wide variations in certain aspects of the different State training programs. A major area of difference is the role undertaken by trainee nurses in the hospital work force. Some States rely much more heavily on student nurses in the labour force than do others. The transfer of hospital based nurse training to CAEs will have a significant impact on hospital costs. The States will have to provide replacements for the student workers at their own cost. The level of cost will depend on the extent to which trainee nurses are committed to the work force. Not surprisingly the States are very concerned about the financial implications of the Government's proposal. The first that the States knew of the details of the proposals included in the legislation was when I sent a copy of the legislation to Brisbane, where State Health Ministers were meeting for the Health Ministers Conference on 16 and 17 May. This legislation was introduced into this House on 15 May. So much for consensus and co-operation. The Minister's failure to consult the States has put this proposal at risk. When the States were advised of the Government's proposals without prior consultation they were understandably furious. One of the Labor State Health Ministers said of the proposals during the State Health Ministers Conference: They are not a part of a co-ordinated and co-operative approach or one that is likely to do anything other than exacerbate the problems. Another of the State Ministers said: We were quite shocked to learn that this Bill had been presented to the Parliament yesterday. He went on to say: I think it is offensive that the Commonwealth has introduced such a piece of legislation on the eve of a Health Ministers Conference where the matter is to be discussed. We in this House have grown used to the Health Minister's fertile imagination and constant misrepresentation of the truth. It was therefore not surprising but enlightening to hear one of his own State Labor colleagues refer at that conference to his contribution during the discussion of this proposal as being an exercise in which he `used his formidable skills to rewrite contemporary history'. Beautifully put, I thought, by one of his Labor colleagues. Only after the States registered their objections at the State Health Ministers Conference and the Premiers Conference did the Commonwealth actually agree to meet with the States. Those consultations took the form of meetings between Commonwealth Department of Health officers and representatives from each State. The meetings were held individually in each State so that each State was unaware of the dicussion in other States. The apparent upshot of those consultations was the joint statement issued by the Ministers for Health, Education and Employment and Industrial Relations on Tuesday of this week and, indeed, the Minister's statement to the House tonight reinforcing that Tuesday statement, announcing an additional $7.3m for nurse education and retraining over the next two years. The Government not only blames the States for delaying the passage of this legislation but also makes the fatuous statement that `the Federal Government's commitment to the nurse education transfer had led to the decision to provide further financial assistance to overcome the States' difficulties'. In fact, it was the States' refusal to enter agreements with the Commonwealth under the proposed unnegotiated terms which led the Government to offer this latest carrot. The Government has acknowledged that the present shortage of nurses is making the transfer to colleges of advanced education a difficult process. It then says that difficulties in the nursing labour market are the State's responsibilities, as if the Federal Government's Medicare policies, which have created the overwhelming burden on the public hospitals, are not to blame for the pressure which is causing nurses to resign in droves. With the introduction of Medicare many people gave up their private insurance because the Government told them Medicare would look after them. Many people could not afford the cost of the Medicare levy and private insurance. The result has been a shift of patients from the private sector to the public sector. This has led to a massive growth in queues for public hospital beds. Those queues are growing because the Government has not increased the funding to public hospitals to cope with the increased demand. This year the Government has reduced funding in real terms for recurrent public hospital expenditure, which will further exacerbate and aggravate the nursing situation. The Minister said in this House in October of last year that under the Fraser Government the number of people in Victoria waiting for public hospital admission was between 8,000 and 11,000. Since the introduction of Medicare that number has trebled. The Minister said in May of this year that the reason for that was industrial disputes and a rundown in funding for public hospitals. The industrial disputes are themselves another spin-off of the Medicare-generated frustration in public hospitals. As for the rundown in funding for public hospitals, it is unconscionable that with the increase in demand which is generated by Medicare the Government has cut funding to hospitals. It is little wonder that on 24 April this year the State Labor Health Minister in Victoria called for a revamping of Medicare which he said would `help ease waiting lists'. The indications are that other States are also suffering from substantial increases in Medicare-generated queues. There have been a number of problems for nurses over many years, but in recent months there has been a dramatic change. The chronic problems have suddenly become acute under Medicare because the demands on the public hospital system have exploded without a similar growth in resources to cope. The growing queues for admission mean that patients are now admitted on the basis of medical need. To get to the head of the queue one needs to require urgent surgery, or be an emergency case. The balance of admissions to hospitals between the very sick and the not so sick, or elective, patients has been upset in public hospitals by Medicare. The demand this places on nursing staff is enormous. They are required to meet the need for much more intensive nursing of a much greater number of patients. Nurses find that they are reaching breaking point. The Medicare-induced stress and pressure has had a disastrous result. Ten per cent of nurses in public hospitals in Australia resigned in the six months from last November to April of this year. Such resignations are continuing and strikes are now becoming numerous. The Minister cannot blame this sudden mass resignation of nurses on long term funding shortages. This is a dramatic change which has occurred under Medicare. The nurses have been forced, in the circumstances, to take industrial action to improve their lot under the new Medicare arrangements. They had problems before Medicare. I accept that there was a lack of appropriate career structures and that there was a problem in relation to their pay rates, but Medicare has been the last straw. Medicare, as I said, has forced 10 per cent of nurses to resign in four or five months after its introduction. Medicare has forced nurses into industrial action. Industrial chaos has never been worse in the hospital sector than it is now, since the introduction of Medicare. The Commonwealth and State governments' response to the crisis has been twofold: To recruit nurses from overseas and to offer refresher courses to Australian nurses in an attempt to lure them back to the work force. Both these approaches miss the point entirely. They will ultimately fail to resolve the desperate situation which hospitals are facing. It will do no good to bring overseas nurses into our hospitals so long as the pressures which have caused the resignations are not reduced. How long can we expect the nurses from overseas and those returning to the work force to stay if conditions are not changed? Tuesday's announcement of additional money for retraining programs is no answer. The Minister emphasises the need to retrain nurses who have dropped out of the nursing work force and the need to train additional nurses. But the problem is not a lack of trained nurses in Australia; it is a lack of trained nurses who are willing to work under the conditions which Medicare has generated in our public hospital system. A recent survey in one State has revealed that of the registered nurses who are not presently working as nurses, 60 per cent have trained since 1969 and have been out of the nursing work force for less than seven years. The majority have said that they do not need retraining. Once again, the Government is resorting to quick fix solutions rather than addressing the fundamental problems, so the problem continues to compound. Whilst we support the transfer of nurse education to colleges of advanced education and the provision of training courses to encourage the nurses to return to the work force, those measures are designed to address separate problems. They will not relieve the current crisis in our hospitals. Until the cause of the unreasonable pressure on nurses is addressed, the resignations are bound to continue, more hospital wards will be closed and patient care will continue to deteriorate. The cause of the crisis is Medicare. While many of the problems have been chronic, the current crisis has occurred because Medicare has stressed the system beyond its capacity to cope. Until fundamental changes are made to Medicare, our health system will remain in jeopardy. The present crisis in our public hospitals, which is at the root of the industrial strife with nurses, doctors and other hospital workers, requires that the Government take action regardless of whether there is a transfer of nurse education from hospitals to CAEs. The package which the Government announced on Tuesday has more to do with the urgency of the present crisis than with the long range transfer plan. I suspect that the Minister's statement linking this latest action to the transfer is merely a means of avoiding admitting that the Federal government has created this crisis and now must try to bail the States out. Under the proposed legislation the States will be required to fund the education of nurses in CAEs, and I am advised that the annual net cost per student could be around $4,500. They are figures presented by the States. The Commonwealth proposes to contribute approximately $1,600 per student to offset that cost. The States will have to bear the capital costs of developing CAE facilities to handle the new nurse training courses. Of course, in the interim the States will also have to continue to fund the hospital-based nurse training programs until they are phased out. The Minister stated in his second reading speech: . . . as hospital-based nurse education is currently funded by the State and the tertiary education sector is Commonwealth funded, nurse education, at least over the transfer period to 1993, should involve an element of cost sharing. The States are concerned that they were not consulted about what those cost sharing arrangements would be. There are other implications which also have to be considered. As the States are the major employers of nurses, they are in a position to anticipate the number of nurses which should be trained. It is important to ensure that they will continue to have an input into decisions regarding student intake numbers. Under this Bill the Commonwealth's financial assistance will be approximately $1,600 per student with the total grant to each student being determined by an agreed number of students entering basic nurse education courses at CAEs. It is imperative that the States continue to be involved in that forward planning. The present crisis in our health system, which includes a growing shortage of nurses in the work force, could be exacerbated by the transfer of student nurses from hospitals to colleges. It is therefore extremely important that the transfer be carefully planned with hospital requirements being given top priority. At present there are approximately 1,200 student nurses in college-based programs. This figure will rise to something over 18,000 when the transition is complete in 1993. To make the transition too rapidly would place and unacceptable strain on the tertiary education system. Many hospital trained nurses have expressed concern that the shift to tertiary education of nurses will result in a two-tier nursing system. Support for the principle of college based nurse education should not be interpreted as a denigration of hospital trained nurses. Hospital trained nurses should not be disadvantaged by the transition with regard to their status within the profession, particularly with regard to career opportunities. The impact of this transfer should not be underrated. It is likely to affect some families financially because in-hospital nurse trainees are receiving more than will CAE student nurses who will be eligible only for the tertiary education assistance scheme. It could therefore increase the financial burden on parents of student nurses. As I have already said, this is likely to impact on hospital staffing and there could be serious long term difficulties in finding the balance of personnel required to fill the shoes of nurse trainees. We will therefore keep this transfer under review to ensure that unforseen problems are quickly resolved. Nevertheless, the transfer to college-based nurse education should provide wide scope for the development of a career structure which more closely reflects the expanding roles and the diversity within the nursing profession. This change will have long term benefits for the nursing profession. It is appropriate that nurses receive recognition and education for the role which they play in delivery of health care. Providing tertiary education at a diploma level will place nursing alongside the other health professions. They will no longer be the only health professionals outside the tertiary education sphere. Nursing has undergone significant changes in the past several decades. The nurse's role is no longer confined to the hospital setting. They are now expected to play a part in the delivery of health care in the community, in the workplace and in the home. Nursing is becoming increasingly specialised, in areas such as psychiatric nursing, community health, geriatrics, obstetrics, intensive care and occupational health, to mention only a few. The rapid development of medical technology has had a dramatic impact on the practice of nursing, and the public's expectation of the health system has also placed increased responsibility on nurses. It is important for nurses to receive a broadly-based education which reflects their expanding role. The transfer to CAEs will certainly provide greater depth to nurse education, and nurses will be better prepared to meet the challenges of the future. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(9.32) —It was interesting and pleasing to hear the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) indicate that the Opposition offers bipartisan support for the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill. It is a pity that later in his speech he contradicted himself when he complained that there would be a burden on the parents of those students who would have hospital-based education because the tertiary education assistance scheme support would go only to CAE-based students for nurse education. The only way in which that unfortunate anomaly could be removed would be by a total transfer. This Government and the Opposition do not advocate that course. Secondly, I congratulate the honourable member for making an accurate assessment of some of the issues involved. However, I was disappointed that he strayed from the topic because he could not resist the opportunity to snipe at perhaps what is the greatest achievement of both the Whitlam Government and the present Government, and that is the Medibank and Medicare system of health insurance. He complained that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) had a fertile imagination, somehow finding that a lamentable characteristic. On the contrary, I prefer the Minister for Health on our side to have a fertile rather than sterile imagination because it required fertility of imagination to overcome the backlog and the barriers to having a transfer of nurse education into the CAE system. There was no progress under the previous Government and the Minister is to be congratulated on the way he has precipitated the transfer. Having made those introductory remarks, I promise that I will not stray too far from the Bill. The transfer of nurse education from the hospital system into the tertiary education sector, primarily colleges of advanced education, flows directly from the 1977 Sax report on nurse education and training. Dr Sax recommended that nurse education remain principally with the hospitals, but that about 2,000 or so nurse education places be operating at the colleges by 1985, this year. By 1984, however, only about 1,200 out of 18,000 nurses undertaking education-that is some 7 per cent-received their education at the colleges, about half the number Dr Sax recommended as a sample for the evaluation and comparison of the performance of education at hospitals and the colleges. It was on this small sample that the report of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission for the triennium 1985-87 tabled in this Parliament last year based its conclusion that: . . . on the evidence available there were no significant differences in performance between the two groups in their first year of practice as registered nurses. This lack of conviction of any extra advantages flowing from college-based nurse education, coupled with the cost to the Commonwealth of over $100m per year at that time, led the Commission to recommend no increased transfer of nurse education into the colleges beyond the Sax recommendations. This conservative and cautious recommendation was obviously out of step with the majority of the nursing profession and the intentions of several State governments, particularly New South Wales which had decided to transfer all nurse education into the CAEs during 1985. The tertiary academic unions also supported the accelerated transfer. A more practical and contemporary recommendation came from the interdepartmental committee set up by this fertile minded Minister to consider the rate of transfer of nurse education into the colleges. The committee rightly concluded: . . . it is the consensus amongst health authorities that existing nurse education programs do not adequately meet the needs for an appropriately skilled nursing workforce. Furthermore, the Committee stated that the need to improve the quality of nurse education resulted from: . . . increased emphasis on technology; increased complexity in drugs and medicine; the trend to shorten hospital stays, focusing hospital care on the acutely ill; and an increased demand for community nursing. However the interdepartmental committee recognised that a full and sudden transfer of nurse education into the college system could not occur without-as was pointed out by the honourable member for Barker-major disruption to the supply of nurses and the operation of the hospital system. I applaud this Government for its decision, made around the middle of last year, to support the transfer of nurse education from the State public hospital systems to the colleges of advanced education, phasing in that total transfer over the period up to 1991 in order to avoid dislocation and supply problems. The move is most desirable given the changing pattern of health care needs and delivery services and the rapid extension of knowledge and technology in health care and disease prevention. Moreover, the Government recognises that nursing as a profession has been considerably undervalued in Australia, and believes that the transfer of nurse education to the advanced education system will make a substantial contribution to upgrading the status and credentials of the nursing profession. As nursing is an occupation traditionally dominated by women, this is an important step. The lack of proper recognition of the value and service of nursing among the paramedics, with the consequent under reward for nurses' professional services, is part of the root cause of the series of industrial actions which have been taken by nurses in recent times. While strike action cannot be readily condoned when the health of the community is involved, those authorities charged with the responsibility for education, manpower planning and the negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of nurses must share the blame for the situation where the mild-mannered medical servants of yesteryear have been turned into the industrially minded nurses of today, represented by an articulate union that demands an end to their humiliation and a recognition, professional and financial, on a par with their paramedical colleagues. Florence Nightingale would be pleased to see her fight for proper recognition of the nursing profession and her fight for the better treatment of hospital patients carried on today. All that has changed is that rather than there being a few outspoken champions of the cause of the nursing profession the fight has been taken on in our modern, complex, industrial society by the union and its membership. This Bill ushers in a new phase of nurse education. It is part of the fight for greater recognition of the important work done by nursing staff. I do not wish to become too involved in these industrial relations issues. I will be content to emphasise to the House that the education of nurses is inextricably linked with their terms and conditions. This is recognised by the International Labour Organisation's recommendation 157 which states: . . . where appropriate, basic nursing education should be conducted in education institutions at a level similar to that of comparable professional groups. This Bill will greatly contribute to nurses eventually receiving salaries more in line with comparable professional paramedical groups. It may help to take the heat out of some of the industrial negotiations. It is important that the phasing-in process be planned closely with the academic unions. It is important that funding of the transfer leading to the improvement of terms and conditions for nurses does not directly lead to a threat to or a downgrading of the terms and conditions of the academic profession. Funding, pitched at about $1,600 a student in 1985 terms, must not strain resources by overloading capital and human resources. This has been recognised in other faculties by this Government as marginal cost funding for extra student load experienced during the last triennium, launched by the Fraser Government, has been replaced by more realistic funding aligned with actual costs of extra staff, buildings and equipment as economies of scale in the tertiary education sector have become exhausted. With tertiary education assistance at a rate of about $1,000 a student, the Commonwealth contribution to nurse education will be about $2,600 a student. I entered this debate because, as a pharmacist who graduated under the old apprenticeship scheme at the end of the 1950s, I remember the debate over the transfer of pharmacy education to the college sector some 23 years ago. The arguments and fears held by the more conservative members of my profession have been rehearsed recently in regard to nurse education. I believe the fears that we will have a two-tier system, as has been mentioned by the honourable member for Barker, or an inferior graduate who is out of touch with professional practice, are as groundless now as they were in regard to pharmacists. I wish well the 5,000 students who undertake the college based nurse education course over the remainder of the triennium, and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I call the honourable member for Parkes. Dr Watson —A good member, too. Mr COBB(Parkes)(9.41) —I thank the honourable member for his support. This debate centres on whether nurse education should be transferred from hospitals to colleges of advanced education. I oppose much of this proposed legislation for six main reasons. Firstly, it is unnecessary because it will not make better nurses; secondly, it will mean a substantial extra cost to taxpayers; thirdly, it will cause an acute shortage of nurses in hospitals; fourthly, it will centralise more power with the Commonwealth, whereas the responsibility for nurse education until now has rested largely with the States; fifthly, it will make it harder for those from low income groups to enter the nursing profession; and sixthly, all of these changes have already been tried overseas and found wanting. Before I deal with each of those reasons in detail, I say at the outset that I am not opposed to nurses receiving a tertiary education as such. After all, nurses must now know as much about many aspects of patient health care as doctors, and in some instances they must know more. I believe that if the intention is to provide nurses with a better theoretical education, by all means give them some of their lectures in CAEs. But for goodness sake, let us not throw away the practical side of training that they now enjoy and are paid for by taking them out of the hospitals. If more time is needed for theoretical training, a simple solution would be to leave them in the hospitals and extend the present three-year course to four years. As a preliminary to voicing my objections to this legislation, I would like briefly to outline the nurse education system that we have in our hospitals now, because some people may find the terminology a bit confusing. Basically, there are two groups of nurses in hospitals. There are the nurses' aides or enrolled nurses who have had one year's training and are equipped with basic skills to do jobs like taking temperatures, making beds, assisting patients, helping to feed them, emptying bedpans and the like. Although some of their tasks may sound menial, their role in the hospital system is very important. Of course, all nurses at some stage do these tasks; it is just that enrolled nurses do only these things and not the other more sophisticated tasks. In the year before they become enrolled nurses they are sometimes called student enrolled nurses. However, we are not debating this group of nurses today. Their training takes place in the hospitals. Although there is some talk of switching their training to the technical and further education colleges, for the moment at least their training will remain primarily within the hospitals. The group that this legislation is concerned with is the trainee nurses or student nurses. Under the present system these nurses do three years training. If they are successful in all of their exams they become what are called registered nurses or sisters. Once one becomes a registered nurse or sister, one can upgrade again, if one wishes by doing special courses in obstetrics, operating theatre, intensive care, cardiac care, coronary care, renal care, community care and several other courses. Many registered nurses undertake these courses, although the pay incentives to do so are small. It is proposed that instead of having trainee or student nurses entering the hospitals and being taught both their theoretical and practical experience there, the students will be placed entirely within the CAEs and receive all of their theoretical experience there. It is intended that a more thorough theoretical grounding will be given because of this. Even if one concedes that point-which I do not-it is obvious that the practical training that these nurses are to receive will suffer. At present it is intended that the CAE trained nurses will receive only six weeks or so of practical experience in the teaching hospitals each year for the three years of the course. Even when they are undertaking this few weeks practical experience, much of it will be concerned only with the more menial tasks. Their practical experience of an operating theatre or an obstetrics ward will be strictly limited and often restricted largely to an observing role. There will be no opportunity to follow patients through a stay in hospital from the time they come in until they leave. Of course, unless nurses can do this, they will miss out on so much of the nitty-gritty practical detail that can be learnt only be being with a patient day after day, including things that can never be taught from a text-book or by word of mouth. One must experience these things to appreciate them, to understand them and to retain them in one's memory. I cite as an example an abdominal post-operative patient, lying in bed and complaining of a sore leg. Will a text-book CAE student be able to grasp as readily and as easily as would our present-day hospital-trained nurses what the problem could be? The tummy operation will seem unrelated to a sore leg. However, the soreness could come from the patient's legs inadvertently being left crossed over during the operation, causing deep venous thrombosis, or simply from stasis or many other causes. No doubt the CAE student will be taught about this in theory, but it will have no real meaning until the student sees it in a patient. Our present system of combining both theory and practice every day is excellent and has served us well. I have been through a university veterinary science course. There is no way that I could have learnt everything I did from dummies, models and text-books. The live patient is just so different from the text-book patient. The practical experience we received with live animals always complemented and reinforced our theoretical lectures. By the same token, medical students learn their anatomy from dissecting bodies at least as much as they do from books and lectures. Later, that learning is reinforced by their experience in teaching hospitals. One does not teach a carpenter his trade by showing him only text-book photos of wood and one does not teach jockeys to ride by restricting their access to horses. In these times of talk about placing emphasis on total patient care, I am at a loss to see how this is improved by removing the nurse from the hospital. I do not believe that we will have better nurses at the end of this exercise, and I note that I am not alone in this opinion. The advice of the Advanced Education Council to the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission states on page 174: The evaluative studies commissioned have concluded that there is little difference, within two years of course completion, between the work performance of nurses who have completed either a college-based or a hospital program. Four months later the Advanced Education Council also said to CTEC: No evidence has emerged which would provide a basis for suggesting performance of nurses trained in colleges of advanced education is superior to that of hospital-trained nurses. Evaluations to date have reached the general conclusion that on the evidence available there were no significant differences in performance between the two groups in their first year of practice as registered nurses. This is the lesson that has been learnt from overseas, for example in Great Britain and in the United States of America. There are several other reasons why this legislation is of doubtful value. One very important reason is the shortage of nursing staff that our hospital system will suffer as a result of this new training scheme. We all know that hospitals are short of staff now, as the wages nurses are paid are far too low for the work they have to do and the conditions under which they have to work. Wards in many hospitals have had to close because staff cannot be attracted, despite the high unemployment in the community as a whole. A nurse can walk into any hospital in my electorate of Parkes and not only get a job but also be welcomed with open arms. That applies to the towns of Forbes, Parkes and Coonamble, the city of Dubbo, and many other centres. However, despite this, for the next three years no new trainee nurses can enter a hospital in New South Wales looking for a job. It is now against the law. We will have to wait three years until the new CAE nurses emerge, long on theory but short on practical experience, to start to plug the gap. As if that were not bad enough, unfortunately the story does not end there. The number of places made available in the CAEs is not sufficient to fill the shortfall. Compounding this problem is the fact that most of the positions set aside in these new courses were not filled and, to make matters still worse, the would-be nurses who have enrolled so far are dropping out of the courses like flies. When one remembers that this is only the first year of the three-year course, one wonders how much greater the already alarming shortfall will be by 1988. Let us examine why these would-be nurses are dropping out. Once upon a time, before these grandiose schemes were thought of, students could enter hospitals, learn their profession as they went, and be paid for doing so. All that is now behind us. To attend a CAE costs a student money. Not only is no wage paid but also there are the day-to-day living costs of accommodation, clothing, travel, and many other incidentals. The taxpayer may be picking up the tab for the cost of lectures and materials, but the students still have to eat. These students, who could have formed a considerable part of a hospital's work force and paid taxes for the privilege, are now out of pocket and are a considerable drain on the taxpayer as well. Those from poorer families are placed at a substantial disadvantage under this trendy new scheme. The working party that looked into this aspect and reported to CTEC in April 1984 said: Nurses education and training provided through hospitals is one of the few opportunities traditionally available to women, particularly those in non-metropolitan areas, to earn an income while acquiring an education. So there it is. The poor will be disadvantaged by this scheme. In addition, women will be disadvantaged, as will those who live in non-metropolitan Australia. Under the system that existed up until last year, jobs were constantly available to those groups. All that is now gone. The poor in this country will suffer. At universities close to 50 per cent of the places are filled by students whose parents come from the top 20 per cent of the income spectrum. Under this new scheme we could see a trend towards this situation in the nursing profession. But what of the severe shortfall in the availability of nurses now, a situation which is about to be seriously aggravated by this legislation? Already there is talk of massive imports of nurses from overseas to fill the void. The cost of all this to the taxpayers is substantial. The joint Commission and Department of Health working party, referring to costs associated with the transfer of basic nurse education from hospitals to CAEs, said that the Commonwealth Government would need to provide at least an additional $95m a year. This figure did not take account of capital and equipment costs and the cost of tertiary education allowances such as TEAS, all of which would be substantial and run into several million dollars. The loss of taxes, recruitment training costs of replacement staff to try to fill the shortfall and other incidentals will push the bill higher. I see that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) claims that the cost to the Commonwealth of funding these students in 1993, when we are supposed to be fully geared up with 18,000 CAE students, will be only $30m or so in today's prices. That is a substantial difference in cost from the working party estimate and I would not know the reason for that. However, it is still an unnecessary cost which should be added to extra costs, such as TEAS grants. This taking away of yet another State responsibility and replacing it with a more expensive one funded from distant Canberra goes against my philosophy and is, I believe, a retrograde step. My time is running out, so I will leave my comments on what the New South Wales Government intends to do. However, I think there are difficulties in the way in which CAEs are selected around the State to teach nurse education. I just want to mention very briefly that Dubbo, which drains the north-west and south-west of the State and which has extra facilities for a CAE, was not chosen even though those facilities are only 60 seconds walking distance from the Dubbo Base Hospital. Already girls in Nyngan, Bourke and other distant towns are not going into nursing because they would have to train in more distant places than Dubbo. Some are going onto the dole. Their loss, I am afraid, is our loss. I conclude by saying that the nursing profession is already too seriously short of staff to miss out on this ready source of potential entrants. The CAEs have had such a struggle to get sufficient students to enrol that most have had to lower the Higher School Certificate qualifying entry mark to 240, less than half of the possible 500. Two colleges even admit students with a mark as low as 230. This is hardly a good start to a scheme designed primarily to increase standards and lift the status of the nursing profession in the eyes of the public. We are, after all, told that this is one of the prime aims of this legislation. I believe that the whole Bill is in need of drastic modification and should be redrafted. Ms FATIN(Brand)(9.54) —I would dearly love to answer many of the things that the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) has just said. However, time does not allow me to do so. I simply suggest that he ask the nurses of Australia about his objections to what he calls the trendy new scheme. It is utter nonsense to say that the nurses are going to get only six weeks practical or clinical training each year they spend at colleges of advanced education. I think the honourable member will undoubtedly be approached by a number of nurses to question a number of the things that he said. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) blames Medicare for the shortage of nurses in hospitals. I would suggest that their problems have been growing for many years and certainly well before this Government came to office and, therefore, well before Medicare. In fact, the honourable member was booed last week when he suggested to a group of nurses he was addressing outside this House that the problems were caused by Medicare. It is with great pleasure indeed that I support the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill. I worked very closely with nursing organsations prior to this decision being made in August last year and I want to pay tribute to them for all the work that went into presenting their case. I must also congratulate the Ministers concerned, particularly the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who from the outset realised the importance of implementing this particular promise to the nursing profession. As the Minister has already indicated tonight, there have been major developments since this Bill was first introduced and the Government's recent decision to increase financial assistance to the States by $7.3m is yet another indication of the Government's commitment to completing the transfer on schedule. The transfer of nurse education to colleges of advanced education is one of the most significant events in the entire history of the nursing profession. It will have an impact in both the medical field and the tertiary education sector. It is no exaggeration to say that it will alter the lives and career expectations of many thousands of nurses in this country in a way that has not been seen since Florence Nightingale first introduced training and organisation into nurses' lives. I do not want to go into any of the technical details of this Bill. For those honourable members who want to be informed about the precise arrangements for the transfer and the funding implications for the Commonwealth and the States, I thoroughly recommend the Minister's second reading speech. However, I would like to spend a few minutes explaining to the House just why this decision is so significant for the nursing profession. Like many nurses these days I have been through both systems of nurse education. I started when I was 17 in a large public hospital in Perth, working my way through the different levels of training until I became a State registered nurse, and then spent several years working in various kinds of hospitals in Western Australia. Some years later I returned to nursing and completed a bachelor of applied science degree in nursing at the Western Australia Institute of Technology. These two periods of education gave me first-hand knowledge of the extent to which the nursing profession has changed. Nurses are now expected to assume a range of responsibilities-not just in hospitals, but in the wider community where they can be extremely effective in promoting health care and preventative medicine. As the world of medical technology has grown in complexity, so nurses have been assuming increasing levels of responsibility and autonomy. I think it is worth emphasising the long history of the nurse education debate within the nursing profession. For more than 40 years there has been continuing discussion about the most appropriate and effective way to educate nurses. During all this time the nursing profession has steadily grown in complexity, with the demands on nurses increasing at an unprecedented rate. Ten years ago, when the debate really came to the forefront of nursing issues, feelings within the nursing profession and elsewhere about the desirability of transferring to CAEs were by no means unanimous. There were some who started out with some quite serious reservations about this course of action, but I know that for the vast majority of nurses it became an increasingly vital issue. It became a matter of identifying nursing as a high performance profession requiring not only the human skills demanded by all the caring professions but also a very advanced level of technological abilities, management skills and professional expertise. The problem was that the apprenticeship model was becoming increasingly inappropriate, even for basic levels of nursing activity. Nurses needed education, like the other health professionals alongside whom they worked, rather than training which was, almost by definition, keeping them in a support role across the whole medical field. One of the turning points in the whole debate was the appointment of Dr Sidney Sax to chair the Committee on Nurse Education and Training in 1977. As a result of the Sax report the number of CAE positions was increased and various pilot programs of degree and basic courses were established around Australia. This was followed by several reassessments of the situation and culminated in the decision by this Government to establish an interdepartmental committee to consider the rate of transfer to CAEs. This Committee's conclusions were very straightforward and delighted the nursing profession. The report recognised the consensus in the health profession that existing methods of hospital based training did not adequately meet the needs for an appropriately skilled nursing work force. It identified the various reasons why the quality of nurse education had to be improved. Increased emphasis on technology, increased complexity in drugs and medicine, the trend to shorten hospital stays, focusing hospital care on the acutely ill and the increased demand for community nursing were all cited as developments which militated in favour of the transfer of nurse education to CAEs. At the same time as the interdepartmental committee was preparing its report, I was convening and chairing the Caucus working party on nurse education. At this stage, I pay a very warm tribute to the nurses who attended those working party meetings. Without exception, the written and oral submissions from the peak nursing unions and organisations were presented with a degree of skill and confidence which was extremely impressive. As I have said, nurses started arguing many years ago that the level on which they were being required to function had to be backed up with a tertiary education. As time went by, the nursing organisations became increasingly effective at putting their case. By 1984, we were not just talking about how to get nurse education into CAEs. The issue was couched in terms of the status of women, industrial relations and professional equity. Let me briefly describe the sort of education that nurses will have in the future. The kinds of courses available for nurses at colleges of advanced education in Australia reflect the diversity of the professional skills required today. There are, of course, the clinical specialisations which educate people to a very high level of competence in clinical procedures. There are also the vitally important areas of administration and education. A fourth specialised area relates to community health-a field of growing significance as we move away from the old fashioned ideas of illness and cure towards concepts of health education and illness prevention. I must admit that, when the Minister's decision was finally announced in August 1984, I wondered how many people would realise what a great step forward had been taken. Twenty thousand people, mainly women, had been given access to tertiary education and the entire nursing profession had been given a status and a degree of recognition that had seemed elusive for so long. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the impact was not lost on the representatives of the nursing organisations who came to Canberra that day. Despite all the setbacks they had suffered during nearly 40 years of argument, they recognised that this Government's commitment to improve the quality of nurse education, which has been reaffirmed tonight by the Minister in this House, is being fully honoured. For the nursing profession in Australia the move into tertiary based education is only a beginning. During the run up to the decision, nurses showed that they could function as an effective, articulate force. They showed that nurses can make decisions about nursing. They have now firmly established the nursing profession as a major force in the Australian health sector. I look forward to seeing them maintain their remarkably high standard of research and debate as they contribute to other important areas of this Government's health policies and programs in the future. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.04) —Before commenting on the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill 1985 I pay tribute to the women, and more recently men, who have trained as nurses under the hospital education system and who have looked after Australia's hospitalised patients in such a caring and responsible manner. Their dedication, combined with the devotion and understanding of those staff involved in the training of these young nurses, have made the Australian hospital system one of the most effective in the world. This Bill is the beginning of a new era in nurse training throughout Australia. Historically, nurse training has been conducted on the job in an apprenticeship form with designated teaching hospitals. There is no doubt that the hands on approach to nurse training combined with formal instructions has provided nurses with the necessary skills and capacity to handle their duties of patient care. Technological advancement in health care and a change in professional standards required of nurses has resulted in the view that nurse training should be executed in educational institutions, coupled with exposure to the hospital nursing environment. The Committee on Nurse Education and Training, chaired by Dr Sidney Sax, was established in 1977 to investigate the change in nurse training direction. This Committee recommended that nurse education remain principally hospital based but with tertiary institutions increasing their commitment to nurse education. By May 1984 the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission had also recommended the transfer of nurse training to colleges of advanced education. This report raised the issue of the effectiveness of college versus hospital based nurse training. There has been some controversy amongst hospital educators about this whole issue. This Bill ends the argument in practical terms and provides the mechanism for the Commonwealth to play its part in nurse education via tertiary educational institutions. It should be remembered, however, that this transfer is not without considerable cost to Australian taxpayers. According to the second reading speech of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), the estimated cost for the 18,000 students in 1993 on completion of transfer is $29.5m in June 1985 prices. At a time when there is considerable pressure on tertiary institutions for student places, the effect of this Bill will be to add further pressure to the availability of student places. It is also the case that the blowout in the Medicare budget has put a great strain on the public health system. Currently in Victoria the sick and dying face a crisis in health care. If one is fortunate enough to get to the top of the 25,000-odd queue of semi-acute patients awaiting hospitalisation, one could well be faced with a nurses' strike, borne out of frustration with a system lacking in adequate remuneration and career opportunities. Furthermore, the irresponsible and militant Hospital Employees Federation of Australia has added to patient distress through its unwarranted industrial action. These days when one talks about health care, it is impossible to overlook the problems that have been created by the Labor Government due to its blind commitment to nationalise one of the best health systems in the world. The people of Australia were promised a simpler, cheaper and fairer health system under Medicare. They have received, instead, a complicated, expensive and inequitable system which discriminates particularly against the poor and inarticulate. If a person is not in a life or death situation in any major city he will be denied public hospital treatment. Furthermore, the taxpayers of Australia believed that their one per cent levy entitled them to health care when and if the need arose. But they find that unless they take out private health insurance there is every chance that hospital care, which they have paid for, will not be available. Prior to this move to having the state take control of medical and hospital services, the disadvantaged in our society were cared for without a complicated bureaucratic net and those of more independent means insured themselves against the onslaught of illness. I do not believe that the thousands waiting in hospital queues, the elderly who are bussed from hospital bed to hospital bed, or the people paying twice for their health care believe they have a simpler, fairer or cheaper health. It is within this unstable environment that nurse training will now be undertaken in a new set of conditions. I have no doubt that whilst this Bill may end a practical argument, the debate over nurse training effectiveness with the inherent costs involved will continue. Hopefully we will see, and hospital patients will enjoy, an improved standard of health care delivery resulting from more advanced education and the utilisation of modern equipment. The electorates of Corangamite and Corio are very fortunate to have the excellent hospital facilities of the Geelong Hospital and the first class educational opportunities of Deakin University. Over the past 10 years these two bodies have worked closely to bring about a combined nursing course. There is no doubt that they have the facilities and the expertise to provide educational based nurse training within the Geelong region. The Geelong Hospital, for example, is one of the oldest hospitals in Victoria. It is the third busiest and it has a reputation for attracting high calibre staff and medical practitioners. The board of management, under the leadership of Mrs Patricia Heath, has ensured a high quality of medical services. The hospital currently trains 200 student nurses from within the Geelong region. The pioneer of distance education in Australia-Deakin University-provides quality tertiary teaching for local and interstate students in a wide variety of courses. While I am on the subject of Deakin University, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the foundation Vice-Chancellor, Professor Fred Jevons, who retires from Deakin on 1 December. Professor Jevons has provided a human face in the often daunting area of tertiary education. His contribution to the establishment of distance education in Australia is held in high regard throughout Australia and I am pleased that the Open University in the United Kingdom has awarded him an honorary degree for his work in this relatively new area of education. While this Bill specifies that the education component of nurse training is to be undertaken by colleges of advanced education, it does allow for a university to fulfil the role of a CAE in providing a diploma UG2 course. In this context, I refer the House to clause 3 (1) (b) of the Bill which allows for this substitution. I have made representation to the Minister for Health to request the Government to allow Deakin University and the Geelong Hospital to provide nurse training in the Geelong region. While the Minister has failed to respond to my request, I understand that the Government has seen the logic of the case, which will ensure that nurse training operates in the largest provincial centre outside the metropolitan area. It would be ludicrous if the obvious combination of the Geelong Hospital and the Deakin university were not given the opportunity to provide this training at a local level. Througout my discussions with the management of both the hospital and the university I have been impressed not only by their high standard of professional services but also with their co-operative approach to the whole project. I am confident that the Government could find no finer health and educational facilities to advance its nurse training proposal than these two Geelong institutions. I assure the Minister and this House that the people of Corangamite and Corio look forward to the enrolment of 300 student nurses in February 1988. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.13) —I have an extremely limited time available to me in this part of the debate, but I would like to take advantage of those few minutes in order to make a number of points concerning this important legislation. I have very many substantial and constructive things that I would like to say in the course of this debate. However, there is not time in the circumstances to develop all those arguments, so what I seek to do is to conduct some overview of the way that members of the Opposition have contributed to this debate. I start on a constructive note by congratulating the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) on a sincere and constructive approach to the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill. It is most disturbing that his stand on this issue was not followed by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) because his contribution to the debate consisted of attacking the Medicare system. In my opinion, during his entire contribution to the debate he did not recognise what an historic piece of legislation was before the Parliament. What we have seen is literally a revolution in nurse education-one that for the first time will give nurses in Australia some justice in terms of their training, and that must ultimately be reflected in higher expectations and a greater commitment to nurses by society and by government. I speak in these terms from a very deep commitment. In the course of this year I had the misfortune to see my father become critically ill and ultimately die. I must say that during that very difficult and tragic time neither my mother nor I could have survived without the nursing profession. I pay great tribute to members of that profession and I hope that this Bill delivers some justice to that noble profession. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allotted for the second reading of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(10.16) —by leave-I move: (1) Clause 3, page 2, lines 9 to 16, omit the definition of ``State Health Minister'', insert the following definition: `` `relevant State Minister' means- (a) in relation to a State-the Minister of the Crown for the State who is responsible, or principally responsible, for the administration of matters relating to the education of nurses in the State; and (b) in relation to the Northern Territory-the Minister of the Northern Territory who is responsible, or principally responsible, for the administration of matters relating to the education of nurses in the Northern Territory; ''. (2) Clause 4, page 2, lines 24 and 25, omit ``a State Health Minister'', insert ``the relevant State Minister of a State''. As I said in my statement earlier today concerning the nurse education transfer assistance arrangements, there have been further discussions with the States on these arrangements since the introduction of this Bill. In the course of those discussions the Queensland Government advised that the transfer of nurse education in Queensland is the responsibility of the State Minister for Education instead of the Minister for Health, as envisaged in the Bill. We are quite happy to make this minor drafting change to accommodate the administrative arrangements of the Queensland Government. I commend the amendments to the House. In order to give other members an opportunity to have a brief word, I will not deal with all the fantasies that were produced by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) during his speech; I merely say that he did a considerably good job of rewriting history. Mr SMITH(Bass)(10.17) —There is a quality about the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) that I admire; primarily it is that he was born in Launceston, which is the centre of my electorate. However, since he left he has become rather tarnished. The concentration of nurse education in the colleges of advanced education will not be a simple process, as other members have pointed out tonight, and we cannot afford to deceive ourselves on this point. The Minister is well aware of the situation in Tasmania but I wish to draw it to the attention of honourable members. Currently there is in Tasmania only one college of advanced education, the Tasmanian Institute of Technology in Launceston. The peculiarly decentralised nature of Tasmania has led, however, to a vocal lobby group in Hobart arguing for the establishment of a second nurse education centre in that city. The parochialism of many in the south of my home State is unfortunate in this regard, to say the least. The Institute of Technology in Launceston is of the highest standard and comparable to any institute of its type in the nation. The Institute currently offers a specialist and extremely high standard medical technology degree course. The concentration of nurse education in Tasmania at the Institute will be facilitated by the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill. That is to be welcomed as it is the thrust of this Bill. Tasmania in particular does not possess the population or the resources to support more than one centre for nurse education. After all, we have only one university and that is in Hobart. The centring of nurse education in Launceston will ensure the standard of nurse education in Tasmania will be the equal of any in Australia. I acknowledge that the Royal Hobart Hospital may experience additional pressures on an already short-staffed nursing staff. To offset such a shortage the Commonwealth and State governments are to be commended for their co-operative efforts to attract non-practising nurses back into the profession. Although this Bill may impose some short term hardships on public hospitals, the Opposition supports the legislation, as does the Royal Australian Nursing Federation, because we recognise the benefits that will accrue to the nursing profession as a result of nurses being educated on a basis comparable with others involved in the hospital and health care system. The final point I wish to make is that we are disappointed with the level of funding the Minister has provided. I know that my own State Minister for Health, Mr Cleary, has expressed those concerns to the Minister. I hope that he will keep an open mind on future funding because I am sure it will be needed. Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Motion (by Dr Blewett)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.20) —I would like to make a number of relatively brief remarks in support of the motion before the Chair. I believe it is to the credit of the New South Wales Labor Government that it was in fact the catalyst, in my opinion, that brought about many of the changes that we have seen in this Bill, the States Grants (Nurse Education Transfer Assistance) Bill, today. However, the Federal Labor Government is the government that has taken this very significant step to change the whole basis of nurse education in Australia. It is a tragedy that we have had to wait so long for this reform. The calls were being made during the whole period of office of the Fraser Government, and regrettably nothing happened. This change which is taking place in Australia is mirrored in changes taking place throughout the world. In Sweden the apprenticeship system for training registered nurses was abandoned in 1965 and student nurses in that country are now no longer part of the hospital work force. In the United States of America over 60 per cent of nurses enter the senior grades of registered nurses either by an associate degree course in a community college or a four-year university degree course in nursing. One of the principles underlying the legislation is that nurses are now taking their place as health care professionals. They are no longer thought of as performing some narrow and constrained role in nursing. It is recognised that increasingly health can be taught and promoted by education and that patients should be rehabilitated in their own environment and in the community. We have arrived at the concept of total health care and it is essential, in that changing view of public health, that nurses and nurse education be reformed to keep pace with those changes. A number of very clear criticisms have been made of the current system of nurse education. Firstly, it has been alleged that there has been a lack of correlation between classroom teaching and clinical teaching. This was highlighted by some examples raised by the Sax committee. For example, first year student nurses were sent to work in casualty departments or neurosurgery units for night duty before they had been instructed in the relevant fields of knowledge. A second point of concern is that student nurses have on occasions not been properly prepared to cope with the often strange and traumatic situations that they may face in the wards. A third major problem has been that nursing theory is taught in, as it is referred to, blocks of three to eight weeks. Any member of the Parliament who knows what the lifestyle of student nurses is like will know the tremendous and unnecessary pressure that those nurses are under during that time. Another problem raised in submissions to the Sax inquiry was the lack of qualified nurse educators. A further problem has been the competition for funds in hospitals. There is direct competition for funds between nursing services and nurse education in each hospital. A further problem has been the length and content of nurse education courses in hospitals, which have often varied quite widely. I commend the Bill. I wish there were more time to develop some of the important reasons for supporting the changes. Above all I believe there ought to be a bipartisan approach by the Parliament to this important change. Given the indications during this debate, I hope that there will be bipartisan support for it. It is, however, of grave concern to those of us in the Australian Labor Party that the only honourable member from the National Party of Australia to speak on this Bill strongly opposed the legislation and criticised just about every aspect of the intended change. I must say that it is a very strange coalition opposition indeed which cannot find one speaker to support the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is: That the Bill be now read a third time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 15 May, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.21) —One of the regrettable things about listing Bills for cognate debate is that we often find Bills that are not strictly and directly related to one another being grouped together. That regrettable fact is compounded when we are operating in this chamber under the very strict, rigid and blunt instrument of the guillotine. With only one and a half hours remaining of tonight's deliberations we have before us both the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 dealing with the participation and equity program and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985 dealing with this Government's funding responses to the non-government school sector. It is impossible for me, given my desire to concentrate almost exclusively on the latter Bill, to say much about PEP. Let met advise the House that the coalition will not be opposing the Bill. I will leave it to some of my colleagues who follow me in this debate, principally the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), to outline some of the concerns we have about the fact that the Government is moving away from its extension from the Fraser Government's school-to-work program. I now turn to the States Grants- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I point out to the honourable member that he is speaking to the wrong Bill. Mr SHACK —I was speaking very well and eloquently, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I realise that you were speaking most eloquently. Mr SHACK —Perhaps you could advise me which Bill we are dealing with, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —We are dealing with the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 concurrently with the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.29) —My eagerness to speak in the debate on the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985 and my non-realisation that we were dealing with the preceding Bill is symptomatic of what happens when we operate in an environment where the Government on one single day has seen fit, under the strict, rigid and blunt instrument of the guillotine, to ram through 10 Bills relating to education. To maintain the integrity of my remarks, I repeat without embarrassment what I was saying earlier. It is often a fact that when we deal with legislation cognately-10 Bills have been grouped together to be dealt with in five cognate debates-to save time we group together Bills that are not strictly and directly related to one another. Thus, in the last hour and a half of today's sitting we are dealing with the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill. If the cognate debate restricts one's opportunities fully to debate both Bills, the rules of the guillotine certainly restrict them even further. It is my intention to speak almost exclusively about the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and simply to advise the House that the Coalition will not be opposing the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2), which deals with the Government's funding decisions under the participation and equity program, or PEP. I will leave it to others on this side of the House who will follow me in this debate to outline some of the concerns that the coalition has nevertheless as we witness this Government moving away from its version of the Fraser Government's school-to-work program. I return to where I was five minutes ago, to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill. I say one thing at the outset. I do so in a very calm and rational way in an effort to set the tone and especially the framework of this debate. Let me be crystal clear about it. This coalition looks forward, when next in government, to working in a great partnership with State governments, irrespective of their political complexion, to ensure a properly funded, strong and viable education system in each and every State-State education systems which are attuned to the demands and concerns of parents and to the needs of the primary and secondary students who attend those schools; and which aspire to the highest professionalism of teaching, equality of opportunity for their students, and excellence of outcome for those students. In setting the framework for this debate I say that for as long as I would care to imagine into the future it is likely that state education systems will educate and give a start in life to the majority of young Australians. Nothing I say, and nothing the coalition will say, in the context of this debate or at any time in the future will in any way diminish our commitment, in that great partnership through and with the States, to ensuring strong and viable state education systems. The coalition and I will nail the lie to the wall of anybody who suggests the reverse. The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill is not about State education systems; it is about Commonwealth assistance to non-government schools. As I said earlier, without in any way diminishing our perpetual commitment to ensuring strong and viable State education systems, alongside and in partnership with that commitment this coalition has an unshakable commitment to and belief in ensuring, preserving, promoting and enhancing the freedom of choice of parents who, for whatever reason, choose to send their children to non-government schools. In the light of this unshakable commitment, let me say again in calm and rational terms that this Bill is an outrage. It is a violation and a fundamental departure from Government policy to date on the question of its relationship with non-government schools-its control, management, and funding of those schools. The legislation is to be deplored and those offending clauses especially are deserving of rejection. This debate is being conducted late at night. It is a measure of the Government's native political cunning that that should be so. But let me remind honourable members opposite-and I am pleased that apart from the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes), who is at the table, only one member representing the Government is present-that it is 7.30 p.m. in Western Australia and that the electors of Canning and Stirling, at a reasonable hour of the night, have the opportunity to listen to this debate. It is 9.30 p.m. in Queensland and, at a reasonable hour of the night, the electors of Rankin and Herbert have the opportunity to listen to this debate. Notwithstanding the fact that it is late summer time in the other eastern States, the electors of so many other seats, including Chisholm, Dunkley, Barton, Ballarat, Eden-Monaro, Bendigo, McEwen, Lowe, Hunter, Burke, Streeton and Hawker, will also have the opportunity to listen to this debate. But further than listening to this debate tonight, I will make a commitment: The members for those electorates can rely on it that I will see to it personally that every parent group and every school residing within their electorates will understand the nature of this legislation, will understand this Government's support for it and will understand the support of the members for those electorates for this legislation. This is no brag and no threat; it is just fact. The National Catholic Education Commission, and all its constituent groups in all of those seats, will hear of this legislation. The Australian Parents Council and all the constituent groups of that body will hear of this legislation. The Association of Independent Schools in all of those electorates will hear of this legislation. Parent groups and teachers groups and friends of schools in all of those electorates will hear of this legislation, hear of this Government's promotion of it and hear especially of the support of the members for those seats for this legislation. The changes embodied in this legislation have dire implications for the state of non-government schooling in Australia. They have dire implications for freedom of educational choice for parents and students. They are designed with the scarcely disguised purpose of limiting choice and restricting the growth of non-government schools. As a result of the provisions contained in this Bill, the basic grant is dead. A key element of Commonwealth Government schools policy, the provision of a minimum grant for all school students in Australia, has been tossed out of the window by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). This represents a major break in recent Commonwealth policy on school funding. Previously, as all members of this House would know, all non-government schools have received at least some per student Commonwealth funding support. Yet, from the beginning of 1986 onwards, the Commonwealth will be providing some funding support for all government school students but not for all non-government school students. The Minister for Education, through her recently revised policy on new non-government schools, has introduced a fresh and alarming inequity into school funding policy. Just when the Government and its members thought that they were enjoying a period of relative calm on the schools front, the Minister's outrageous guidelines on the funding of new non-government schools threaten to blow the whole thing up in her face, and with good reason. She has displayed an arrogance and a lack of concern for fairness in school funding policy unmatched by any Minister for Education in recent memory. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has fished this Minister out of hot water once already, stepping in to halt her punitive hit list attack in 1983 on the non-government school sector and helping her to save some face in the process. He may well need to step in and save her neck once again when the effect of her policy on new non-government schools becomes more widely known. Perhaps the Prime Minister will tire of doing so and be wise enough to give somebody else the responsibility for the education portfolio. I recommend the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) as a prime candidate. The Minister based her policy on the Connors report on Planning and Funding Policies for New Non-Government Schools. In March this year she tabled the Connors report in the Senate and announced the Government's adoption of it at the same time. She did so without consulting any of the community groups concerned with policy in this area. She tabled and adopted the report at the same time. She continues in the same vein. I advise the House that as recently as yesterday copies of this legislation were unavailable to interested groups at Commonwealth Government bookshops around Australia. School and parent groups which have been desperate in the short time available to make some input into this legislation have even had extreme difficulty in obtaining a copy and now, as they listen on their radios around Australia, they are treated to this outrage that this most important and vital Bill is being dealt with last today under guillotine conditions. Following the 1983-84 experience and the adoption and tabling of the Connors report, the Minister made decisions on the funding of new non-government schools, even though legislation giving authority to her new policy had been neither presented to Parliament for examination nor approved by it. It displays contempt for Parliament and the parliamentary process and adds to the example brought into this House this afternoon by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) that the Education Department had been writing to overseas students resident in Australia long before the legislation had even been passed. I do not blame the Education Department. I blame the Government which is responsible for the direction. Last month the Minister announced, with much fanfare, that the Government had approved funding for 68 new non-government schools. This cheap exercise is an object lesson in the deviousness and duplicity which some in this business will engage in to further their own ends. Only 31 of the 68 schools which the Minister claimed were new non-government schools approved for Commonwealth funding are in fact new. Because of the scandalously broad definition of `new non-government school' which the Minister has incorporated into this Bill, a school which so much as sneezes automatically becomes classified as a new non-government school. This is no joke. It means that Commonwealth funding for existing non-government schools is jeopardised every time they change location, even in part; every time they offer new levels of education; every time they amalgamate with another school or separate into two or more schools; every time they change from a single sex school into a co-educational school, or vice versa; and every time they change from a day school to a boarding school, or vice versa. This is not a fair way to define what a new non-government school is. A school which has existed for 100 years will, if this Bill is passed unamended, be classified as new if it has moved part of its operations across the road or down the street. Its entitlement to Commonwealth funding support would automatically be drawn into question as a result because of this scandalously broad definition of a new non-government school. The Minister is guilty at the very least of grossly misleading the community about how many new non-government schools she has approved for Commonwealth support in 1986. The plight faced by genuinely new non-government schools is equally serious. As a result of the Minister's new policy, they will have to run the gauntlet of education bureaucrats who decide whether a new non-government school fits into their grand scheme of things. Even if they get past the education bureaucrats operating in accordance with the guidelines, it still does not mean that they would be granted Commonwealth support. Approved schools are ranked by the Government in an order of priority. If a school is not at the top of the list or near to it, bad luck, buddy! Thirty-one genuinely new schools have been granted Commonwealth support for 1986, yet 21 new schools-genuinely new schools accredited by state education systems-were denied support by the Minister. Twenty-one schools out of 52 were knocked out. That is a 40 per cent rejection rate. The Minister has killed the basic grant with one swipe. The certainty of funding which the Government guaranteed the non-government school sector and the harmony which the Minister says exists between them have been wiped out. I am a subscriber to the Bulletin magazine so I was pleased and interested to read a letter written by the Minister to that magazine and published on 19 November 1985. It displayed the sort of arguments the Minister relies on in the course of her political life. In that letter she claimed: In fact, there has been no sudden change in our funding policies. That is simply not true, for the reasons I have outlined. The Minister continued: Far from feeling `uncomfortable', the new funding mechanisms were welcomed by every major non-government school organisation in this country . . . That is absolute rubbish. The telegrams and telephone calls into my office and the interviews I have had are demonstrable proof of that. The Minister's statement may have been true prior to the Government's adoption of the Connors report, but it is certainly not true now. It is thoroughly and typically misleading to make that statement-which may be historically true but which clearly is wrong and misleading-in a letter published on 19 November 1985. It is interesting to look back on the course of events leading up to the so-called historic settlement-the historic settlement that got all those honourable members opposite in marginal seats off the hook-between the non-government school community and the Government. That is the deal which the Prime Minister thought, to give him his due, would bring lasting peace to the school funding issue, but it needs to be put in context. By doing so the Minister's non-government school game plan will be revealed in all its naked and destructive splendour. Firstly, honourable members should be reminded of the Minister's hit-list exercise. The Minister decided to knock off what she regarded as the cream of Australia's non-government school sector from the list of schools receiving Commonwealth recurrent funding support. The community reacted with outrage, and justifiably so. They saw it for what it was-the thin edge of a very large ministerial wedge designed to cut the non-government school sector off at the knees. The scenario then was clear. First, this 40-odd strong group of non-government schools would be cut off; then another group and another group and, further down the track, another group. The Minister's hit-list program was the glorious opening gambit in what she regards as her historic mission to bleed the non-government school sector to death. As I said, there was mass outrage. Huge rallies were held in protest at the Minister's policy and decisions. From Wagga Wagga to the Malvern Town Hall parents gathered to send the Government a powerful message. `We will not buy it', they said. `We will not have a bar of this. We see what you are doing and we are not going to fall for it'. The sense of purpose and unity shown by those Australians, parents who have exercised a free choice in respect of their children, for whatever reason-their children do not all go to Knox or Wesley or Aquinas; some of them go to the most impoverished parish schools one is likely to find in the country- Mr Ruddock —Lady of Lebanon. Mr SHACK —I understand that that school is in the Parramatta electorate. Let the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) understand that in his own electorate a deserving poor school has been denied Commonwealth funding under this new policy. As I was saying, the sense of purpose and unity shown by those Australians concerned for the protection of freedom of choice in the education system was awesome. Indeed, it shook the Government to its very electoral foundations. The story of the so-called historic settlement between the Government and the non-government school sector is an object lesson in pragmatic Australian Labor Party policy. In this case, I am glad it was so because it gave the non-government school community a temporary-I emphasise the word temporary-reprieve from the police directions of the incumbent Minister. A group of Government back benchers-perhaps you were one of them, Mr Deputy Speaker-and need I dare add that they were back benchers who represented marginal seats, approached the Prime Minister and demanded action. Honourable members will remember that it was in the period running up to the 1984 election. The Prime Minister, unless his advisers had had him set in formaldehyde, must already have been aware of the absolutely frenzied outrage which the Minister's hit list policy was creating in the community, in the cities and towns, large and small, rural and urban. That group of Labor back benchers demanded an end to the Minister's victimisation of the non-government school sector. They demanded that the hit list decision be reversed. They demanded, for diverse reasons-no doubt looming large amongst them was their fervent desire to be re-elected, and I do not blame them for that-that the Prime Minister bring the Minister for Education to heel, that he get her back on track. The Prime Minister heeded their advice and he heeded it well. The Prime Minister called Senator Ryan off. He intervened to negotiate a funding policy. He made personal commitments directly to many of the interested groups concerned with this sector. He intervened personally to negotiate a funding policy, the so-called historic settlement with which the non-government school community could live. Coincidentally-I say this advisedly-all of this occurred in proximity to an election, the last Federal election. Need we be surprised? Let there be no mistake about it: The mentality and ideology which led the Minister to embark on this hit list campaign in 1983 have not altered one dot or one iota. The philosophical distaste which the Minister has for the non-government school sector runs deep, and it runs hard and fast. She has not given up. No one who understands her background, no one who understands her politics or allegiances, could doubt for one moment that what we are witnessing now, in this Bill and this amendment, and what we are now debating, is round two of the Minister's campaign to cut off the non-government school sector at the knees. The Minister failed in her direct, full-frontal attack on the system. Her hit list strategy was a disaster, an unmitigated disaster, and the Prime Minister had to intervene personally to pull his Party and Government out of the soup. It was clumsy, so obvious and so patently punitive that she was a fool to think she could get away with it. But what this Minister is now attempting is much more subtle, much more devious and therefore much more dangerous. The Minister has embarked on a clever, covert, sophisticated route to nobbling the non-government school sector. I recognise her as a dedicated and tireless campaigner. She has learnt the lessons of her mistakes in round one and she has learnt them well. She is applying those lessons to a strategy which is so qualitatively superior to her previous hit list attack that it makes the earlier attempt look like the bad example of high school vandalism that it was. I believe that members of the non-government school community and sector may be in a state of shock. I suspect that many of them cannot quite believe that the Government that agreed to the so-called historic settlement on non-government school funding has now adopted the Connors report on planning and funding policies for new non-government schools. I have met many of them in the last weeks. They are honourable people who are simply concerned about promoting, enhancing and preserving their freedom of choice as parents to send their children to the school that they think best meets their social, religious and educational needs. They are not interested in politics; they just want a fair go. They tend to make the fundamental mistake of taking all of us at face value. No wonder they are in a state of shock. They cannot believe that this Prime Minister who has a history of being a man of his word and of integrity, as he timelessly keeps telling us, is the same Prime Minister who would preside over this attack on planning and funding for non-government schools. I receive complaints every day about the impact of the Government's resulting guidelines on new non-government schools. At my most charitable, I must say that it is sad to see the awful realisation dawning on my representatives of parent groups and non-government school groups that the Minister for Education has a new, sophisticated and powerful tool for putting to an end, if she feels like it, any further development of the non-government school sector. The hit list policy was nothing compared with the Government's guidelines on new non-government schools, so ingloriously incorporated in the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, which bring with it a power to bring to a screaming halt the growth of non-government schooling. At the beginning of this debate, I complained about the limitations to which we have been subjected under the guillotine procedure. We will not have a Committee stage debate on these Bills. It will be impossible to do much in the next hour and a half in this place, given the number of outraged members, at least on this side of the House, who wish to speak out in this debate on behalf of their constituents. There will be no opportunity to move into Committee. There will be no opportunity to go through this Bill, line by line and clause by clause. Let me say to this Government, as it contemplates the passage of this Bill, that we will subject it to the most rigorous scrutiny in the other place. We will move amendments and we will point to those clauses and those offending aspects and parts of the Bill which seek to control, monopolise and strangle the expansion and future outlook for growth of the non-government sector. The only opportunity available to us in this debate is to move what is called an in principle amendment. The amendment to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill that I foreshadow is as follows: That all words after ``That'' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ``the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for- (a) the removal of constraints imposed on non-government schools, or on non-government school communities, which will in any way destroy their independence, opportunities for expansion or interfere with the special character of non-government schools, and (b) a basic per pupil grant for each child for the basic necessities of schooling, adequate capital provision, and special additional funds provided for special educational disadvantage''. We will move this amendment. When we have an opportunity in the other place to subject this legislation to the rigorous scrutiny that it demands and that the parents of 30 per cent of Australian school children demand, we will do so. Let me end as I began. As the coalition contemplates its next period of government, let me state two things: We have an abiding, unshakable commitment, in partnership with and through the States, to ensuring a strong and viable State education system in each and every State to cater for the educational, social and personal development needs of nearly 70 per cent of Australia's school children; and along with that commitment, we will not be moved one jot from our unshakable belief in the freedom of parents to exercise educational choice having regard to the personal and social developments and the benefit and enhancement of their children. The Government's policy moves away from allowing and promoting that freedom of choice and, to that extent, we oppose it and we oppose it vigoriously. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(11.00) —I want to make some remarks on the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985 which are being debated cognately. Before I do so I would like to comment that saying loony things in a calm and rational fashion does not make them any less loony. Comparing the school to work transition program with the participation and equity program, as if they were the same thing, is being plain loony. They are totally different programs and they have, to a very large extent, totally different targets. I remind the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) that the participation and equity program is very largely a school based program based on the proposition that schools and communities can work together, given a little assistance, to improve the schools in their own area in their own particular way. I would also like to say that bully-ragging the best Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) that this country has had for decades is no way to demonstrate that one has superior policies. In fact, conspiracy theories are no substitute for the Opposition's still non-existent education policies. One of its policies, as perhaps can be determined from the peculiar amendment that has been moved to this legislation, is simply that government expenditure should run riot. So we still have this same dichotomy-cut government expenditure and increase government expenditure. The Opposition seems to think that if we talk selectively about it we will end up with billions of dollars in all sorts of ways. We are told that this will happen in the very unlikely event that the divided and uncreative lot on the other side-uncreative except in in conspiracy theories which they are very good at-ever get back onto the government benches. I think one of the important things to understand about the education system that is run by the Commonwealth is that when we came to office there was an enormous augean stable created by lazy pork barrelling substitutes for education policy that left things in an absolute mess all over Australia. Action had to be and was taken to improve a situation in which there was totally no planning or consideration for communities and nothing to be gained except the odd vote. In the first instance I want to concentrate on the PEP program. The recently presented consultant's report to the Commonwealth Schools Commission gave a sample of the programs funded by PEP. While the report is not, nor was it intended to be, an in depth evaluation of all PEP funding activities, it is clear that this funding has been immensely valuable in its contribution to precisely targeted improvements in schools. Technical and further education colleges also have been able to mount educational programs of great value for the young people involved and certainly of a much wider variety than those that were possible under the school to work transition program. I would like to quote from the report of a consultant who, when talking about school based change, said: Let me now convey something of the optimism and positiveness that I came across often in PEP targeted schools. It is an encouraging thing to find teachers buoyed up and enthusiastic about the changes that are occurring in their school. Time after time, I was assured that the school was unrecognisably better than it had previously been because of PEP activities. Students were reportedly much happier and more co-operative, staff morale had lifted greatly, community participation had dramatically increased. These were not universal responses to PEP but they were certainly common. The need to restrain expenditure which has caused a stretching of one year's funds over two years has highlighted in this area the reality of cuts in government expenditure. When reductions are made in areas like this, someone is disadvantaged. All the rhetoric in the world cannot hide the reality that when government provided programs are reduced, the beneficiaries of those programs are the people who suffer the consequences. While I have no argument with the responsible action of the Government in restraining expenditure, the reality of the result demonstrates how hollow are the Opposition's windy prescriptions for this Government. These people who want to reduce government revenue, who want tax cuts without tax inputs and who cry `Cut government expenditure' loud, long and in every place they can think of are hypocritically prepared to mope, wring their hands and cry crocodile tears for the very people for whom their policies would bring disaster. Many of the very valuable programs which began with PEP funding will continue even with reduced funding because the people involved have begun a course of action from which they will not readily retreat. PEP has clearly succeeded in its aim to bring about greater participation and improved choices and priorities. I remind honourable members on the opposite side that improved choices and greater participation are very possible within the State government systems, given the opportunity for the people involved in those school communities to make some movement. Whilst I regret that it is a necessity to reduce funding for 1986, I welcome the commitment to continue funding in 1987. I remind people that funding was due to finish in 1986. I know from my own experience that good ideas and programs have their own momemtum and that successful change becomes permanently embedded in the education process. PEP has provided both the incentive and the pump priming for imaginative and creative progress and has demonstrated that, given encouragement and help to get going, schools and their communities can achieve much in the way of improvement to the education system. The two Bills actually have quite differing purposes. The schools assistance legislation sets out conditions under which non-government schools may qualify for and continue to receive funding. It provides a process by which schools can plan for their establishment or substantially change their clientele and character. Whilst one may not believe it from the previous speaker's contribution, schools may apply for establishment and changes to their funding because they wish to change their clientele and character. The Minister can approve those changes and the funding for them. But it is a responsibility of Ministers in the Government to be accountable for the funds which they dispense. It is certainly outrageous to suggest that people can simply change what they are doing, start something new and, because they want to do that, anticipate receiving funding on a continuing basis over a period of years. We are talking not about a bit of money but a lot of money-a billion and a half dollars with which we have to be responsible. The major thrust of the legislation sets in place a system by which the whole education provision in an area is taken into account. Surely that is a rational way to behave. If approval is sought for a new or substantially changed school, the approval is given within the context of the educational offerings in that environment. That responsible provision should moderate the situation, which is presently far too common, of expensive educational assets being under-used because of demographic changes or minor philosophical differences about the most desirable form of education. I remind people that a great many philosophical differences become almost illusory when one realises that all of the students at a particular level at a school will sit for precisely the same examination. The Year 12 examinations in every State are taken by students in every post-primary school. Regardless of whether a student goes to the local high school, the local Church of England grammar school, the local Catholic school, or the local anything school, he or she has the same curriculum content and sits for precisely the same examination. The Minister in her second reading speech said that the policy implemented in the Bill is an important element in the provision of a firm basis for proper educational planning and will promote the most effective and equitable use of Commonwealth financial assistance. That is the key to this Bill. It is an equitable and effective use of taxpayers' money in the educational context, which is the responsibility of the Minister. She has responded in a way which will make educational planning a necessity. The planning will have to be within very clearly understood guidelines so that there is a very clear understanding of what that planning should involve. A specific issue of considerable interest to me is the allocation, detailed in Schedule 16, of $11,255,000 for professional development activities. One of the most important elements in keeping education fitting the needs of the society is the continuing opportunity for teachers to be familiar with new developments and relevant curricula changes. Our information based society demands that teachers refresh their own basic learning and training often; that they remain abreast of new developments in their subject areas and become familiar with new techniques of teaching. There are constant demands on a teacher's own personal resources. The days when the school reader could be the only source of classroom reading and could remain unchanged for 30 years as happened in Victoria, have gone forever. The information content of a teacher's basic degree can be insufficient for teaching needs in a matter of two or three years, particularly in the science and maths disciplines. Contemporary means of storing, retrieving and manipulating information require technical knowledge and theoretical understanding. Better methods of fulfilling the emotional and social needs of individuals in classroom groups are required now of teachers. The interesting thing about this is that it is a relatively new development in the history of teaching. It is only in the last 15 years or so that teachers have been required to take into consideration, and know how to deal with, those emotional and social needs. No teacher can expect any longer to operate solely on the basis of his initial training and subsequent experience. If he tries to do so, he will fail his students miserably. Therefore, the allocation of funds for professional development activities is of great importance in keeping our education system capable of meeting the needs of our society. As demands continue to increase on teachers, regular professional development activities will become even more necessary to ensure that our education system does not fail our young people. Of all the allocations in the Schedules attached to this Bill, the allocation for professional development will be one of the most crucial in maintaining the excellence of our system. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(11.13) —It has been a long day and many things have been said in the education debate, but at the end of the day it must be said for the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) that she earns first prize for raw courage in making the speech she just did on the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill. Those Bills relate to the Government's participation and equity program, and the funding of non-government schools. Whilst the honourable member for Chisholm made a pretty game attempt on the subject of PEP, it was a quite extraordinary speech in substance. I refer to some of the things she said. Firstly, the honourable member for Chisholm made the point that PEP is largely a school based program and chose to ignore the technical and further education implications of it. That is a pity because there are significant matters to be raised in that area which I shall raise. In defending the Government's cutting of funds for the participation and equity program, she said that those who were critical of the Government were saying that government expenditure should run riot. Nobody has said anything of the sort. What we are saying is that in the areas in which the Government has chosen to cut expenditure it is showing its priorities. After all, the education budget has not declined-in fact, some areas have had real expansion-but there is a decline in the area of participation and equity program funds. In looking at what the Government thought about this program, I refer to some earlier speeches in this House. I do remember well my time in the Senate in the 18 months prior to coming into this place- Mr Slipper —You were a good senator too. Mrs SULLIVAN —I thank the honourable member. At that time the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) faced many questions in realtion to her administration of the Education portfolio. The Minister always fell back on the participation and equity program as a justification for the Government's philosophy and her implementation of the Government's philosophy in relation to educational opportunity. I think there would be no argument between the Government and the Opposition that the matter of access to education-that is, opportunity to take advantage of education in Australia-is a key one. There has been reference to the subject of access to education in a number of speeches in other education debates today. The Minister for Education has relied very heavily on the participation and equity program in justification of a number of aspects of the Government's record in education. I recommend to people such as the honourable member for Chisholm and others that they peruse particularly Question Time in the Senate during 1983 and 1984 and pick up the statements made by the Minister for Education in that place in relation to that program. However, I return to what has been said in this House. In November 1983 the Minister representing the Minister for Education in this House, Mr Dawkins, now the Minister for Trade and then the Minister for Finance, was responsible for the introduction and carriage of the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill 1983. He stated: The participation and equity program is designed to encourage a significant increase in participation by young people in education and training, to provide a useful and fulfilling education, and to encourage the achievement of more equal educational outcomes. The program is directed towards bringing about wide-ranging changes in schools- the honourable member for Chisholm referred to that- which will enable them to give all students, and especially those from a disadvantaged background, a rewarding, useful education through to the end of Secondary schooling. The program will be directed particularly to secondary schools with low retention rates. The program will provide support for courses and activities in TAFE colleges which positively enrich and expand the range of options available to youth, particularly for those less academically inclined and those currently unemployed. . . . . The participation and equity program will be a central part of the overall framework of youth policies that the Government is developing. Its twin objectives of increasing participation in education and of introducing greater equity in our overall provision for young people reflect the Government's basic priorities for meeting the needs of young people. There we have it. Just a little further back it stated: The participation and equity program will be a central part of the overall framework . . . Madam Deputy Speaker, I fear the house is about to come tumbling down because the treatment that this program has had, if it is a central part, would indicate that the substance of the Government's education programs is about to be severely undermined. Its handling of the program this year, its cutting back on funds, in whatever phrases it wants to dress it up, show the Government's priorities, those priorities that the Minister for Trade referred to when introducing the original Bill. The participation and equity program does build on the school to work transition programs of the Fraser Government. We have never said they were the entire program. We have said the Government took those programs, took their proven performance over a period, and extended them. We said in debate on that Bill that we welcomed that move. The record will show that we welcomed it. The record will also show that the present Government, when in Opposition, opposed those programs and criticised them. The Minister shakes his head. The record shows it. The record shows that we welcomed the fact that the results of those programs had been demonstrated to the extent that the Government built on them. Time does not permit me to canvass those programs and how far they went, but I recommend that debates on this matter be looked at with some interest because they do reveal what people's priorities in this area are. The second reading speech this year by the Minister representing the Minister for Education has been a little different. It contains these words: The purpose of this Bill is 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 honourable member for Chisholm referred to the fact that the Government has decided to extend the program to 1987. She congratulated the Government on it because she said that it was due to finish in 1986. That is really interesting. I think there might have been a bit of a fuss if the program had finished in 1986. We expect that 1987 will be an election year, so it would be a good idea to have it still going in 1987 if one wanted to continue to say that it is a central part of the overall framework of youth policies. In fact, it is an even better idea to keep it going now, given that the Priority One: Young Australia program-the youth program of the Government-appears to be coming down around its ears. The participation and equity program, of course, was billed as a central part of the Priority One program. If the participation and equity program was not extended, there would be a nasty gap after just a few months in the Priority One program, if indeed it comes into existence. Even so, it is only a spreading over two years of funds that were to be available for one year, so obviously they are to be spread a lot more thinly. I want to touch on the implications for the technical and further education aspect of this legislation. They were, of course, totally ignored by the honourable member for Chisholm. I will quote from volume 3 of the Report for the 1985-87 Triennium of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. It is the most recent report of the Commission and it relates to the Government's current education programs. It says: . . . the Commission was concerned about the Government's decision of May 1985 to reduce the level of TAFE capital funds available for 1986. It considers that the maintenance of the 1985 level of capital grants for TAFE would have been justified in the light of the continuing heavy demand for TAFE courses, the definciencies in existing TAFE buildings, and the skills training and retraining needs associated with the Government's employment objectives, including the development of traineeships. Traineeships, of course, are part of Priority One. The report continues: Similarly, the Commission was disappointed at the decision, also announced in May 1985, to spread the 1986 allocation for the Participation and Equity Program over both 1986 and 1987. The Commission believes that, in addition to having an impact on the availability of opportunities for young people, especially those from disadvantaged groups, a reduction in funding for the Participation and Equity Program at such an early stage in its life disrupts the planning process and brings into question the extent of the Commonwealth's commitment to the Program. Indeed it does. Further in the report, these things are said: . . . the role of TAFE in the traineeship system will have significant implications for resources . . . the Commission believes that the Government's decisions to reduce the TAFE Capital Program by some $12m and to halve the Participation and Equity Program in 1986 may make more difficult its intention to implement the traineeship system . . . . . . . . . . the Commission is concerned that the Government has found it necessary to spread the funds initially available for the Participation and Equity Program (PEP) for 1986 over the two years 1986 and 1987. In particular, it endorses the view of the TAFE Council that the traineeships scheme should not be seen as a replacement of PEP since only a very small proportion of the PEP target groups are likely to be among those selected for traineeships. . . . . . . . the amount available for capital expenditure on TAFE in 1986 will be $11.6 million below the 1985 level. The reduced level of funding in 1986 will have two effects on the program. First, there will be fewer new projects commenced than would otherwise have been possible. This comes at a time when the TAFE system is being called upon to take additional students under the Government's traineeship program notwithstanding the existing backlog of some 50,000 places for vocational and preparatory courses. Secondly, most of the new projects will be commenced in the second half of 1986 and thus significant progress will not be achieved on them until 1987. I reiterate that 1987 will be an election year. The Commission put it fairly kindly when it said, as I quoted earlier, that the Government's actions bring into question the extent of the Commonwealth commitment to the program. To put it in more blunt Australian language, one has to ask: Was the Government ever fair dinkum? One hears much rhetoric from the Government here and outside about its commitment to youth, particularly disadvantaged youth. Its decisions in the education area, in the participation and equity program and in its funding of technical and further education call it into serious question. One does not have just to ascribe that to a political motive. I do not think that the quite stern words used by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in its report to the Government can be ascribed to a political motive. In conclusion, whilst I have not addressed myself at all to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill because of shortage of time, I totally endorse the words of the shadow Minister for Education, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) and I will support his amendment to the motion for the second reading of that Bill. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(11.26) —We are debating tonight the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill which appropriate some $1,495m for the schools programs in 1986. They are two very important Bills appropriating very large amounts of money and yet this Government gives us a little over an hour for debate, late at night, so as to try to get away with this shame-faced act of deception. The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill provides for a real reduction in overall expenditure on schools of 1.3 per cent. We see a real reduction in program expenditure on Government schools of some 2.7 per cent. We see a real reduction of joint government and non-government school programs. In addition, we see a $20m reduction in the capital grants program for government and non-government schools. So much for this Government's commitment to education. Of course, I hold the very strong view, as does my Party, that a government's first priority is to ensure a well-resourced, in both human and capital resources, public or government education system. No responsibility of a government can be more important. But at the same time we believe in the dual system of education and the freedom of choice for all parents and their children. That is not the case with this Government and particularly the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). She has been white-anting this concept, a concept followed by all Australian governments over recent years, despite her denials. What do we have here for the very first time? This Bill gives effect to changes in government programs for the funding of new non-government schools. It represents a major break in recent Commonwealth policy on non-government school funding. Previously, all registered non-government schools have received at least some student Commonwealth funding support. If this Bill is passed, that is, if the Government or the Senate at some other time does not support our amendment, the Commonwealth will be providing some funding support for all government school students but not for all non-government students. The Bill, therefore, gives the Minister enormous latitude for refusing Commonwealth recurrent funding support to new non-government schools. I say to the Minister: If she attempts to chop the tall poppies she had better beware of the sprouting weeds. The definition in this Bill of new non-government schools for the purposes of that section of the Act is very broad and includes schools which relocate even in part. It includes schools changed from single sex to co-educational or vice versa. It includes schools that amalgamate or separate into two or more schools. It includes schools that change from a day school to a boarding school or vice versa. The Government has therefore announced its decision on the funding of new non-government schools for 1986 in anticipation of the passage of this Bill. Over 20 new non-government schools have been told that they will be denied funding assistance. The relevant sections of this Bill create a powerful tool when placed in the hands of the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), who is hostile to the non-government schools sector, enabling her to restrict its growth and therefore to restrict parental choice enormously. There have been numerous representations from principals of new non-government schools who have been denied funding. The non-government school lobby can be expected to press the Government energetically on this matter over the coming few months. It makes me wonder why the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) are not in this House to listen to this debate tonight or to speak on it as the impact on non-government schools in their electorates is quite immense. I turn now to the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Bill which covers the participation and equity program. The PEP program is the follow-up to our school to work transition program. Eighteen months ago the Minister for Education said: The Participation and Equity Program is perhaps the most ambitious education program ever initiated by a Commonwealth Government. Tonight we see the Minister dumping it in the most convoluted statement I have ever seen about the future funding of PEP. It states: The Bill will result in an additional $0.642m for PEP in 1985, a reduction in the amount currently legislated for 1986 by $38.462m, and to provide an additional $42.423m for 1987. Mr McGauran —It is a misrepresentation at best. Mr PETER FISHER —The honourable member for Gippsland is quite right. The Government has tried to misrerpresent this shameful act that is taking place here tonight. The Minister goes on to say that this decision intends: to give effect to the Government's decision in the May Economic Statement to spread funds previously allocated to PEP for 1986 over 1986 and 1987. What the Minister is saying is that this program is being slashed by at least 30 per cent. Of course this is just another failed Ryan initiative, being ousted as quickly as can respectably be achieved, and an admission of the drastic funding cuts for education. According to a Commonwealth document we find that the principles behind PEP were: -it was aimed directly at the ``school drop-out'' syndrome that had been taking many thousands of young Australians out of the education system each year. It sought to keep them within the learning process and enable school-leavers to re-enter education. One of the depressing statistics had been the small percentage-estimated to be no more than 25 per cent-of young people who finish school and universities or colleges of advanced education. . . . The problem appeared to be most severe amongst the disadvantaged groups in the community-youngsters from poorer families; from non-English speaking backgrounds; from the Aboriginal community. However, the concept of PEP goes well beyond simply helping school-leavers to enter the workplace. It aims to stimulate broadly-based changes in secondary education to cater more adequately for the needs of the full range of students, and thus offer them a more useful and rewarding education. PEP in my region has had inequalities, not in its concept but in its application. Not only this Government but all governments in the past have at times failed to extend the benefits of a pilot program to the total system and at the same time to drop its failures. For example, in my electorate there are a number of primary schools conducting PEP programs particularly involved with computer courses. But we find that once the students leave those primary schools they may go to secondary schools in the same town, in the same small community, where PEP programs are not in operation and therefore all the benefits achieved by the earlier training at the primary schools have been totally lost. Good programs therefore should be universal and unnecessary programs should be discarded. I now turn to the operation of PEP within the technical and further education system. In TAFE colleges PEP is designed to improve the ability of the institutions to cater for the education and training needs of young people in the 15-year to 24-year age group, and particularly for the 15-year-olds to the 19-year-olds. This is usually done by courses of between 12 and 36 weeks, with either a vocational or educational bridging emphasis and by support for activities such as staff development, research and publicity. Such courses are intended to expand the range of options for employment or further education, particularly for young people who have suffered educational disadvantage. During 1984, about 17,000 young people took full time PEP courses in TAFE. Typically, they had left school early, lacked vocational skills and had had extended periods of unemployment. They felt powerless and had stereotyped views on the choice of occupations. Yet now we not only see an incredible cut in PEP but also, in the Bill we discussed earlier today we saw a cut of $1.6m in the amount allocated to TAFE in capital and recurrent funding. There have been incredible advances in the application of TAFE benefits throughout Australia. In my area over recent years we have seen very significant Federal Government expenditure in the cities of Mildura and Horsham. At present the citizens of Swan Hill are trying to extend the benefits of these programs to their community. The sort of action this Government has now taken will very seriously restrict their endeavours. I point to one effect of the cuts that already have been made to the programs at the Sunraysia TAFE college in Mildura. It has been advised of a 54 per cent cut in funding for 1986. In 1985 it received $189,000 under PEP. In 1986 it will receive $87,000. Yet it is catering for an Aboriginal program with 30 students, a pre-vocational hospitality program with two groups of 25 students-a program which I believe will make an enormous contribution in the future to the development of the tourist industry as well as providing satisfactory employment for those young people-and a third program for 18 unemployed youths who have been low achievers. It is important that these programs continue to expand into remote areas, not necessarily into buildings but into courses so that they can have flexibility in numbers and so that teachers who are becoming unemployed because of the rundown in enrolments in the primary and secondary school systems can move into the TAFE area. It is no wonder, therefore, that I speak against these two Bills tonight. I support, in particular, the amendment moved to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill. I hope that, if it does not succeed in this place, it will when it reaches the other place. Mr GEAR(Canning)(11.38) —I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate tonight on the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1985 and the State Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985. Unlike many honourable members here tonight, I actually taught in a technical and further education college and therefore have some first hand knowledge of what I am speaking about. It has always been a basic principle of the Australian Labor Party that money should not be able to buy a better education. Certainly we see education as one of those activities in life in which everybody, regardless of income or background, should be given the best opportunity to advance his abilities. That is something I have not heard from the Opposition tonight. I have heard a lot of claptrap about private schools versus public schools. There is no doubt about members of the Opposition. When they can jump into the gutter they will. As soon as they can find division in anything they will. As soon as they can find an opportunity to compare one system with another they will. I will never stand up in this place and say that one educational system is better than another. I will say that it does not matter what system we enrol ourselves in. We should make sure that the system offers the opportunity for children who avail themselves of it to have the best education. Certainly, education is a very emotive issue to parents. A lot of the appeal for parents who opt to put their children into private schools is that there is some perception that private schools do better than public schools. I have never believed that. I am a product of the public schools. Mr Robert Brown —A great product too. Mr GEAR —I thank the honourable member for Charlton. By and large, the public schools turn out the better students-not always the richer students but certainly those who want to advance themselves-and, unlike the private sector, the public schools do not discriminate between one student and another. They take all students. The Bills before us tonight deal with the participation and equity program. Before entering Parliament I worked on the school-to-work transition program, which was a feature of the previous Government's initiatives in the education area. Certainly, from my perspective as a technical and further education teacher working in that area, it was a worthwhile exercise. Many of the kids who could not compete academically came to us in TAFE and were given an alternative. Even though it was just a taster course, at least they experienced something different from the academic course for which they showed no application and in which they had very little interest. I am one member on this side of the House who will say that the school-to-work transition program did some good. The participation and equity program goes one step further. It was set up in an endeavour by this Government to pick up those kids who did not go on to tertiary studies or take on an apprenticeship but found themselves with no formal training. The program was an attempt by this Government to pick up those kids and give them some vocational education that may have been relevant to them when they left the school system. I was critical of the fact that we cut the funding by 50 per cent when we did it, but since that time, and having looked at the initiatives of the Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs (Mr Dawkins) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in their efforts on Priority One, I can see that we are now making the transition from the participation and equity program to Priority One. That is a very much more ambitious scheme in its scope. It takes up many of the focuses of the participation and equity program and will eventually replace that program. Priority One will not come into full force until 1987-88, and the participation and equity program is due to phase out at about that time. As a former TAFE teacher who was involved in trade and technical programs, I can say that we had formal programs set up for people who wanted to participate in that vocational area. We also had, through our tertiary education system, a well entrenched and well placed mechanism for those people who wanted to take on studies that led to professional degrees. But there is that one area where we do not have training, where we have to pick up those kids who do not fall into the categories I have mentioned. Priority One is the best mechanism that I have heard of, as a professional educator of the past, by which to do that. It is a very ambitious program but I am sure, given the effort that the Government has put into it and the briefings that I have had from members of the Public Service, that we can make a go of it. It distresses me somewhat that members of the Opposition cannot make some constructive comments about Priority One, and that all they really want to do is score cheap political points and say that it cannot be done. It shows their lack of application. They would never take on anything as ambitious as this Government has taken on. The Caucus education committee, of which I am a member, has put a lot of work into this program, as have the Ministers involved directly in it. I am sure that by 1987 the 75,000 people we have talked about will be enrolled in that program. We will make it one of the truly great initiatives of the second term of the Hawke Labor Government. I have heard in part talks about the cut in TAFE funding by the Commonwealth Government. What I do not think has been mentioned is the fact that TAFE funding is primarily a responsibility of State governments. While it might be true that in real terms the Federal Government has not kept up its commitment to the recurrent funding of TAFE colleges, it should also be pointed out that the increase in funding from State governments should be taken into account; and what we should be looking at is the total amount of funding going into TAFE colleges, not just one aspect of it. I go back to my earlier comments about private and public schools. I heard the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) talk about poppies and weeds. I think it is simplifying it a lot to talk about tall poppies. Do those opposite really think that this Government wants to cut down initiative? Mr Ruddock —Yes. Mr GEAR —The honourable member might think that we want to cut down initiatives, but we do not. What we really want to do is to make sure that every child in Australia has the opportunity to participate to the best of his ability and to make the best use of his talents, whether in the private sector or the public sector. I am not one of those who advocate that we should cut our private schooling. I think there are significant educational benefits in having two streams of education. What I am advocating is that we should not compare the private and public sectors in favourable and unfavourable lights. They both do great jobs. When we start talking about one being better than the other, we are doing this Parliament a great disservice. I have enjoyed the opportunity to participate in this debate tonight, but certainly one thing we should recognise is that this Government has had the courage and the foresight to take on a program such as Priority One, which will take up a significant area that to date has been overlooked. The previous Government used to blame education for all the failings of market forces. This Government has not done that. It has come up with a very ambitious program. I am sure, given the effort that has gone into it from this side of the House, that it will be a success. Mr MILES(Braddon)(11.47) —The two Bills before us raise the question whether the Hawke Government has any great concern for school children and young people or their parents. The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill will result in education having a smaller slice of the Budget cake. More importantly, this Bill makes provision for the Government not to fund the schooling of some children, places a considerable bureaucratic restraint on the establishment of new schools, and gives enormous latitude to the Minister for Education to refuse recurrent funding support to new non-government schools. Education funding is vastly different from what it was at the time when money was an all-important yardstick for measuring a government's concern for the future generation. Today's parents are still interested in relativities of Budget commitments, but most importantly they are vitally interested in the question: `What education am I getting for my tax dollar?' Parents are no longer happy to accept that more money means better schools, better teachers or better attitudes in young people. Indeed, the time has come when parents are concerned more about the quality of schooling than the quantity of money spent. In fact, over the last four years 320 new non-government schools have been established in Australia, which expresses the interest of parents in having schools which reflect their values. Yet at a time when the community is signalling very strongly that it prefers choice, quality and access at the school gate, this Government is trying to barricade children in schools which significant numbers of parents would prefer not to send their children to. This Bill, if passed without amendment, will put in place the Government's iniquitous policy on new non-government schools. Why does not the Hawke Government want parents to have a wider choice? Why does not the Australian Labor Party want parents to send their children to schools that positively uphold parental value? Why does not the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, encourage schools that will give diversity and competition which, in turn, produce excellence At a time when Australia requires a major thrust forward in education, this Government is stifling initiative. Even though parents of many children are paying their taxes to provide educational opportunities for their children, the Hawke Government believes that it can be selective in distributing those taxes. Is that what this Government calls equity? I do not think it is equity at all. Unfortunately, debate tonight has been cut very short and people have not had the opportunity to debate fully this very important piece of legislation. It is fundamental that parents have the opportunity to chose the education of their choice, but this Government does not want to give parents that opportunity. If parents want to contribute their hard-earned savings to help pay for a non-government education, governments should encourage their involvement and not discourage it. They should welcome and not hinder. They should support their enthusiasm and not suffocate it with bureaucratic procrastination. However, the projected figures of funding and the recent changes in the funding arrangement for a significant number of established and new schools give all the indications that this Government wants to hinder and fob off any enthusiasm and initiative parents of the future would have in maintaining or in establishing a school for their children. I commend to the House the amendment placed before us by the Opposition spokesman so that the situation which is before us will not occur and so that parents will have a genuine choice of education for their children. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(11.53) —There are only a few minutes left before the debate concludes, but I wish to re-emphasise some of the points I made in the adjournment debate on 10 October in discussing the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985. On that occasion I pointed out that a number of schools had been deprived of funding, and one in which I was particularly interested was Our Lady of Lebanon, Harris Park, in Sydney. The importance of emphasising that school was that it is a unique school. It is run by the Maronite sisters for young Lebanese children and they look for a special cultural background. They are pursuing our multicultural objectives here in Australia. They put special emphasis on language, the use of French and Arabic in particular. They assist the more recently arrived children who need that sort of unique environment among children of a similar background. I know from my own experience that that school provides a very important facility in the district and is one I have commended on a number of occasions. Therefore, I was shocked to find that when the school sought to expand its program to include, in addition to its primary curriculum, a secondary school program for children who are not able to go to high schools in the district, it was denied funding. I sought to find out a little more about the matter and I saw in the documents the Government had requested one entitled `Report of Panel of Commonwealth Schools Commissioners: Planning and Funding Policies for New Non-Government Schools of March 1985', which contains some of the reasoning for this decision. I emphasise that in reading that document I noticed that it was not the Commission itself that initiated this. It was in fact the Government. On page 1 it was revealed that the Commonwealth Government in its guidelines to the Commission on 14 August 1984 indicated a number of concerns relating to the funding of new non-government schools. On page 22 of the report I found reference to schools serving students with particular forms of educational disadvantage, namely migrant students, and those schools that assist migrants. What alarms me most is the absence of any recognition among those advising the Government of what a school like the Maronite school in Harris Park would be able to provide to a special group of non-English speaking background children and that a facility in that district could be of such unique character as to need and demand support before other schools and other sorts of programs that might be submitted. I am shocked that within the Government's guidelines there is no capacity to provide for this particular school. I am shocked at the guidelines which served as the basis for that decision. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the consideration of the remaining stage of the Bill has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr SPEAKER —The question now is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Debate resumed from 13 November, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(11.56) —During the second reading debate on the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1985 and cognate Bill I foreshadowed two things. I foreshadowed that at this stage of the debate I would be moving an amendment to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985. I will do that very shortly. Secondly, in consideration of the lack of a Committee debate on this Bill I foreshadowed that in the broader sense in the other chamber we would be subjecting the Bill to the scrutiny that it demands, in other words clause by clause. I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for- (a) the removal of constraints imposed on non-governmental schools, or on non-government school communities, which will in any way destroy their independence, opportunities for expansion or interfere with the special character of non-government schools, and (b) a basic per pupil grant for each child for the basic necessities of schooling, adequate capital provision, and special additional funds provided for special educational disadvantage'. This amendment will be seconded by the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). Mr REITH(Flinders)(11.58) —I have pleasure in seconding the second reading amendment moved in relation to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1985. I take the opportunity to say just a few words in regard to that. I suppose it could be said that there is the good news and bad news. The good news is that I get two and a half minutes to say something in regard to this important piece of legislation. The bad news is that time has been restricted by a Government which does not want to see the sort of measure which it is introducing tonight opposed because it is concerned about the electoral ramifications of the legislation. It might well be concerned about it too. I wish to make two points. Firstly, I want to say something about equality of opportunity. The Government will tell us that in its view it is in favour of equality of opportunity. However, it is not prepared to fund equality of opportunity with Government funds for non-government schools. It is interesting to note that last week we debated the Australian Bill of Rights Bill in this House. We moved an amendment which stated that the Bill of Rights should include a recognition of the rights of parents to choose the sort of education they want for their children. What did honourable members opposite do? One and all of them voted against that motion. Therefore, that puts the lie to the Government's assertion. Secondly, I want to register my protest at the element in this package of Bills which penalises self-help. Basically, what the Bill says is that if a school club raises funds at a fete or dinner or if the school attracts donations building up the school's resources to a level too high for the Labor Government to accept-in other words, if a school breaks out of the rut-Government funding will be cut back. In other words, the Government will rob school communities where the sense of achievement and the commitment of parents is the greatest. I think that is perverse. At schools like Newhaven College or Flinders College in my electorate, which are not elitist and which are not rich, it is that determination to give the children every opportunity, it is that sense of common purpose, that helps to create an atomsphere- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the consideration of the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. Thursday, 21 November 1985 Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Shack's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Child, J. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J.Free, R. V. Scholes, G. G. D.Gayler, J. Scott, J. L. (Teller)Gear, G. Simmons, D. W.Gorman, R. N. J . Snow, J. H.Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. McGauran, P. J.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) MacKellar, M. J. R.Beale, J. H. McVeigh, D. T.Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M.Braithwaite, R. A. Miles, C. G.Burr, M. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B.Cameron, Ewen Porther, J. R.Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K.Carlton, J. J. Robinson, IanCobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C.Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Conquest, B. J. Shack, P. D.Cowan, D. B. Sharp, J.Dobie, J. D. M. Shipton, R. F.Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N.Fife, W. C. Smith, W.Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M.Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.McArthur, F. S. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Mr SPEAKER —The question is: That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. House adjourned at 12.10 a.m. (Thursday) The following notices were given: Mr Young to move- That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the dispatch of business on the following days and at the times specified: Monday, 25 November, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, 26 November, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, 27 November, at 10 a.m. Thursday, 28 November, at 10 a.m. Friday, 29 November, at 10 a.m. Mr Young to move- That standing order 48A (adjournment of the House), as amended by sessional order and standing order 103 (11 o'clock rule) be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings. Mr Beddall to move- (1) That the following matter be referred to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform for inquiry and report: The activities and operation of National Free Enterprise Limited of Queensland as a political donor, its responsibilities under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, its relationship with the National Party of Queensland, and the circumstances which led to its incorporation on 27 September 1984 and the making of a $300,000 donation 8 days later. (2) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 20 November 1985: Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act-Orders-1985- MQ14/85-High Quality Beef to EEC-1986 Quota Administration Scheme. MQ15/85-Sheepmeat and/or Goatmeat to EEC-1986 Quota Administration Scheme. MQ16/85-Buffalo Meat to EEC-1986 Quota Administration Scheme. Defence Act- Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determinations-1985- No. 4-Salary of Permanent Force Members. No. 5-Pay of Reserve Force Members. No. 6-Allowances. Reasons. Determination-1985-No. 67-Overseas Living Out Allowance and other allowances. Fisheries Act- Notice, No. 150. Plan of Management, No. 2-Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery Management Plan (Amendment). Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Variation of plan of lay-out of City of Canberra and its environs, dated 19 November 1985. Telecommunications Act-Australian Telecommunications Commission-by-laws-1985- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 61. Telecommunications (General)-Amendment No. 46. Telecommunications (Staff)-Amendments Nos. 46, 47. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1233) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so: (a) who has been employed (b) for what purpose (c) what working plan was given to them (d) what was the cost of their services (e) when did their services commence and finish; and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so by what amount. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The information requested is set out in the following tables. Australian Audit Office Consultant Purpose of consultancy Cost of ser- vices Commence- ment/ finish of consultancy M. Anderson Educationalist Presentation of Report Writing Course 562.00 15-16 November 198 K. O'Hara Educationalist Presentation of Report Writing Course 562.00 15-16 November 198 S. Maddox Management Consultant Presentation of Report Writing Course 900.00 13-14 November 198 R. McIver Management Consultant Consultant/Presenter on Senior Executive Conference 900.00 16-17 November 1984 Consultant on Development of Audit Office Corporate Plan 1200.00 23-24 January 1985 W. Rome Psychologist Executive Health and Stress Management Session on Management Course 180.00 6 December 1984 M. Brandon Psychologist Communication and Staff Counselling Session 360.00 2 December 1984 Communication and Staff Counselling Session 360.00 18 February 1984 Communication and Staff Counselling Session 480.00 5 May 1985 M. Fern Psychologist Presentation on Communication Skills 480.00 6 May 1985 Executive Health and Stress Session 210.00 8 May 1985 Communication and Staff Counselling Session 360.00 18 February 1985 Stress Management Session 180.00 20 February 1985 Communication and Staff Counselling Session 360.00 2 December 1985 D. Keddie Physiotherapist Consultancy/Training Sessions on Repetitive Strain Injury 240.00 14 January 1985 320.00 21 January 1985 320.00 4 February 1985 320.00 11 February 1985 320.00 18 February 1985 320.00 25 February 1985 320.00 4 March 1985 320.00 11 March 1985 T. Dalmau Management Consultant Training Session on Management Course Organisational Behaviour 600.00 9 May 1985 D. Angeloro Management Consultant Presentation for EDP Courses Presentation for EDP Courses Presentation for EDP Courses 5 500.00 4 500.00 3 900.00 30 May-2 June 1983 21-24 May 1984 19-22 March 1985 R. Collins Management Consultant Consultant/Presenter on Management Courses and/or Conferences 700.00 700.00 1 000.00 700.00 1 000.00 6 June 1984 8 August 1984 16 November 1984 5 December 1984 21 February 1984 C. Richards Management Consultant Presentation of Report Writing Course Presentation of Report Writing Course 1 600.00 1 600.00 13-14 October 1983 10-11 November 1983 G. Magdulski Psychologist Executive Health and Stress Management Session on Management Course Executive Health and Stress Management Session on Management Course 500.00 200.00 6 August 1984 9 August 1984 R. Creyke Academic Presentation on Legislative Process Course Presentation on Legislative Process Course Presentation on Legislative Process Course 300.00 300.00 300.00 5 October 1984 30 October 1984 13 November 1984 C. Cook Academic Presentation on Legislative Process Course Presentation on Legislative Process Course Presentation on Legislative Process Course 300.00 300.00 300.00 5 October 1984 30 October 1984 13 November 1984 The Australian Bicentennial Authority Consultants: 2 March 1983 to 23 May 1985 E. Abranson Purpose: Tall Ships Event-Prepare list of windjammers and related data. Working Plan: Briefing prepared by Authority's naval consultant. Fee Paid: $701.39 Period: May 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil Active Marketing Pty. Ltd., Purpose: Prepare Sponsorship Strategies for Tall Ships, Australian Exhibition and Pedal Australia Projects. Working Plan: Briefing notes objectives and proposed priorities provided by Authority. Fee Paid: $10,000.00 Period: May 1984-March 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil Alexander &Alexander Australia Limited 1. Pupose: Insurance Brokers Working Plan: Based on tender documents and subsequent discussion. Fee Paid: $5,000.00 Period: January 1984-March 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil 2. Purpose: Insurance Brokers Working Plan: Continuation of previous consultancy Fee Paid: Nil (Fee quoted is $5,500.00) Period: April 1985 to March 1986 Excess Over Quote: Not applicable. Alliance Francaise de Sydney Purpose: Interpretation Services Working Plan: Verbal instructions by Authority's senior staff. Fee Paid: $160.00 Period: May 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil Antipodean Productions Purpose: Prepare preliminary report on proposed travelling exhibition Working Plan: Verbal instruction by appropriate Authority staff members. Fee Paid: $600.00 Period: May 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil Anvil Press Purpose: Preparation of audio visual ``Tall Ships'' for presentation in Quebec. Working Plan: Verbal instructions. Fee Paid: $680.00 Period: July 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil G. Appleton Purpose: To assess film and T.V. proposals for pos- sible funding and advise on feasibility of proposed national travelling film retrospective. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $6,412.00 Period: October 1983-January 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil N. Armstrong Purpose: Advise on computer-based displays for travelling exhibition. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $3,021.60. Period: March-April 1985 Excess Over Quote: $10.00 Arthur Andersen &Co. 1. Purpose: To review the Authority's financial operations and advise on the installation of a computerised accounting system. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $11,000.00 Period: June 1984-August 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil 2. Purpose: To design and enhance the Authority's accounting systems with a view to their computerisation. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $25,000.00 Period: March 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil 3. Purpose: To assist in the implementation of a computerised accounting system. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: Nil to date (Fee quoted is $65,000.00). Period: From March 1985 Excess Over Quote: Not applicable. Associated Translators &Linguists Purpose: Translate inwards correspondence. Working Plan: As required. Fee Paid: $681.00 Period: March 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil Australia On The Move Purpose: Prepare a brief for proposed Multicultural Centre. Working Plan: Verbal brief by senior staff. Fee Paid: $500.00 Period: February 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil Bates Smart &McCutchean Purpose: Submit ideas and drawings for proposed travelling exhibition. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $1,000.00 Period: December 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil Besako Pty. Ltd. Purpose: Report on popular music. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $1,500.00 Period: November 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil The Billie Blue Group Purpose: Prepare a series of illustrations of the Australian Exhibition. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $5,000.00 Period: March 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil B. Boekenstein Purpose: Develop elements of sport and recreation program for people with disabilities. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $1,260.00 to date. (Fee quoted $3,240.00 plus expenses). Period: March-April 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil Bruce Hamilton Pty. Ltd. Purpose: Produce three audio visuals to update information about the Bicentennary for Business, Communities and International sectors. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $103,553.13 Period: September 1984-February 1985. Excess Over Quote: $3,553.13 E. Butel Purpose: Report on proposed interviewing program to develop the theme for the Australian Exhibition. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $675.00 Period: August 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil Ceda Consulting Pty. Ltd., 1. Purpose: Advise on the formation of an educational advisory committee. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $1,917.52 Period: March 1983-April 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil 2. Purpose: Prepare a brief on the proposed Bicentennial Schools Involvement Program, and assist the national advisory committee in co-ordinating a national education program. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $6,008.15 Period: May 1983-December 1984. Excess Over Quote: Nil Clearing House on Migration Purpose: Report on Multiculturalism. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $500.00 Period: October 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil Clive Abbott &Associates Pty. Ltd., Purpose: Provide Corporate Liaison Management services. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $20,553.00 to date. (Fee quoted $44,000.00 pa plus expenses). Period: December 1984-December 1987 Excess Over Quote: Nil K. B. Condon Ltd., Purpose: Prepare a marketing strategy to maximise the participation of the sales promotion industry in the 1988 Bicentennial celebrations. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $3,500.00 Period: April 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil Dr. Kay Daniels Purpose: Report on Women and the Bicentenary. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $1,000.00 Period: August 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil Darlison Hobbs Project Management Pty. Ltd., Purpose: To develop elements of sport and recreation program for people with disabilities. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $599.85 to date. (Fee quoted $7,000.00 plus expenses). Period: March-August 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil David Prowse Graphic Design Purpose: To design presentation visuals for various projects Working Plan: Verbal instructions. Fee Paid: $4,600.00 Period: April-September 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil David Varani &Associates Purpose: Submit ideas and drawings for proposed travelling exhibition. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $1,000.00 Period: December 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil Department of Housing &Construction 1. Purpose: Submit ideas and drawings for proposed travelling exhibition. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $1,000.00 Period: December 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil 2. Purpose: Stage II in the development of designs for the travelling exhibition. Working Plan: Written Brief. Fee Paid: $5,000.00 Period: March 1984-June 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil 3. Purpose: Assist in the management of the Australian Exhibition. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $3,500.00 to date. (Fee quoted $140,000.00) Period: March 1985-May 1987 Excess Over Quote: Nil N. Dudgeon Purpose: Prepare detailed proposal outlining content, management and costs of staging a Military Tattoo. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $6,298.23 Period: May 1983-September 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil E.R.U. Research Services Purpose: Prepare feasibility studies covering transport modes and market research for the Australian Exhibition. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $41,450.00 Period: November 1983-January 1984. Excess Over Quote: Nil E. Fell Purpose: Advise on methods of maximising women's involvement in the Bicentenary. Working Plan: Written Brief. Fee Paid: $1,700.00 Period: December 1983-November 1984. Excess Over Quote: Nil Film Australia Purpose: To direct production of Tall Ships film. Working Plan: Verbal and written instructions. Fee Paid: $1,375.68 Period: June 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil R. J. Fitzpatrick 1. Purpose: To advise on international aspects of Arts and Entertainment program and other elements of the Bicentennial program. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $12,816.69 Period: December 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil 2. Purpose: To advise on national Arts and Entertainment program and act as the Authority's North American representative. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: Nil to date (US $24,000.00 fee quoted). Period: March 1985-February 1986 Excess Over Quote: Not applicable. Fitzwater Productions Purpose: Preparation of feasibility study, brief and budget ``Presentation 88''. Working Plan: Verbal instructions. Fee Paid: $500.00 Period: April 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil Forcast Pty. Ltd., Purpose: To advise on Film and Television program. Working plan: Written brief. Fee paid: $2,600.00 Period: March-May 1983. Excess over Quote: Nil Fynley Pty. Ltd., Purpose: Preparation of feasibility report of an exhibition proposal on the theme ``The Australian Search for Spirituality''. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $600.00 Period: February 1985. Excess Over Quote: Nil C. Gardner Purpose: Copy writing for brochure ``Celebrating Australia''. Working Plan: As required. Fee Paid: $160.00 Period: July 1984. Excess Over Quote: Nil R. Gibson 1. Purpose: Submit ideas and drawings for proposed travelling exhibition. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $1,000.00 Period: December 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil 2. Purpose: Stage II in development of designs for travelling exhibition. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $5,275.80 Period: March 1984-June 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil W. Hind Purpose: Assess film and television proposals for possible funding. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $2,625.00 Period: March-April 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil H. Rosemary Hooke Purpose: Provide advice on Bicentennial Teachers' Manual. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $600.00 Period: June 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil A. Hutton Purpose: Advise on elements of film program for Travelling Film Retrospective. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $7,819.23 Period: October 1984-February 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil IFD Pty Ltd Purpose: Prepare a submission on a proposed Futures Project. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $70,000.00 Period: July-October 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil International Cultural Corporation of Australia 1. Purpose: Advise on proposed Exhibitions program. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $14,885.00 Period: August 1983-June 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil 2. Purpose: To conduct feasibility studies on proposed Exhibitions program. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: Nil to date (Fee quote is $100,000.00). Period: April-September 1985 Excess Over Quote: Not applicable. I. Irwin Purpose: to assist in conducting a seminar to discuss ideas for the Bicentennial program for people with disabilities and to report results of that seminar. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $210.00 Period: January 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil D. Jackson 1. Purpose: Submit ideas and drawings for proposed travelling exhibitions. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $1,000.00 Period: December 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil 2. Purpose: Stage II in development of designs for the travelling exhibition. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $5,667.68 Period: March 1984-June 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil M. Kelly Purpose: Advise on publications program. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $120.00 Period: September 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil Kerrie Lee Purpose: Copy Writer/Public Relations Working Plan: As required. Fee Paid: $8,190.00 Period: July 1983-March 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil J. Larkins &D. Sargent Purpose: Provide editorial/media relations services. Working Plan: Written briefs. Fee Paid: $1,750.00 Period: December 1984-March 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil Geoff Law Purpose: Prepare article for publication concerning environmental aspects of Bicentenary. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $400.00 Period: August 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil J. Mackinolty Purpose: Advise on development of Bicentennial re-enactment kits. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $1,360.00 Period: April 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil Mahlab Hobbs Special Project Management Pty Ltd Purpose: Advise on aspects of women's program. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $20,441.75 Period: March-April 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil Massingham Research 1. Purpose: Undertake feasibility studies on attitudes of school children towards potential Bicentenary mementos. Working Plan: Written briefs. Fee Paid: $13,675.00 Period: November 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil 2. Purpose: Conduct further feasibility studies evaluating consumer's attitudes towards national medallion program. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $15,000.00 Period: March 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil J. McCormick Purpose: Submit ideas and drawings for proposed travelling exhibitions Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $1,000.00 Period: December 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil W. Mellor Purpose: To compile a market research brief for proposed Australian Exhibition. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $45.00 Period: September 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil MDA Direct Pty Ltd Purpose: Provide marketing services. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $9,248.00 Period: March-April 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil D. Modjeska Purpose: Advise on proposed Women's publications. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $270.00 Period: September 1984-February 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil C. Mula Purpose: Advise on Historic Records Project. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $7,514.00 Period: March-October 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil National Film &Sound Archive Purpose: Prepare detailed feasibility study on the Travelling Film Retrospective. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $10,000 to date. (Fee quoted $40,000.00) Period: January 1985-September 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil J. North Purpose: Copy Writer/Public Relations Working Plan: As required. Fee Paid: $529.20 Period: February 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil Paladin Scripts Pty Ltd Purpose: Editorial services. Working Plan: As required Fee Paid: $750.00 Period: June-July 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil Porter Eames &Associates Purpose: Provide Public Relations services. Working Plan: Written brief Fee Paid: $1,730.65 to date. (Fee quoted $8,400.00 plus expenses). Period: April 1985 to September 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil R. Pozzer Purpose: Advise on aspects of multicultural program. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $3,130.16 to date. Period: April 1985-March 1986 Excess Over Quote: Nil Proplan Pty Ltd Purpose Provide planning, programming and reporting services. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $17,000.00 to date. (Fee quoted $60,000.00 per annum). Period: December 1984-December 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil PYA Pty Ltd Purpose: Advise on proposed ``Foundation, 88'' project. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $3,476.70 Period: May-June 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil Jill Robb Purpose: Advise on implementation of film &TV program. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $24,652.80 to date. (Fee quoted $30,000.00 per annum plus expenses). Period: August 1984-July 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil Roy Morgan Research 1. Purpose: Undertake awareness survey. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $6,790.00 Period: February 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil 2. Purpose: Conduct omnibus survey. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $7,469.00 Period: February 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil Sail Training Association U.K. Purpose: Advise on proposed Tall Ships project. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $4,191.92 Period: October 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil C. F. Salo 1. Purpose: Provide graphic design services. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $700.00 Period: December 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil 2. Purpose: Provide graphic design services. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: $620.00 Period: July 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil H. M. Saxby Purpose: Advise on publications program. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee paid: $120.00 Period: September 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil W. D. Scott 1. Purpose: Conduct organisation review. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $17,746.00 Period: December 1983-March 1984. Excess Over Quote: $2,784.00 2. Purpose: Advise on management aspects of pro posed touring Australian Exhibition. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $12,900.00 Period: November 1983-January 1984. Excess Over Quote: Nil R. Sharman Purpose: Editing services. Working Plan: As required. Fee Paid: $220.40 Period: May 1984-June 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil Studio 84 Purpose: Artistic services. Working Plan: As required. Fee Paid: $1,200.00 Period: February 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil Telecom Australia Purpose: Advise on proposed PABX installation. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $1,200.00 Period: October 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil Thompson &Butel Purpose: Advise on publications program procedures. Working Plan: Written briefs. Fee Paid: $6,446.85 Period: May-July 1984 Excess Over Quote: Nil Understudies Pty. Ltd., 1. Purpose: Advise on Youth Festival Working Plan: Written briefs. Fee Paid: $2,000.00 Period: August 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil 2. Purpose: Advise on Women's Festival Programs Working Plan: Written briefs. Fee Paid: $350.00 Period: November 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil Virginia Braden Arts Management Purpose: Prepare proposal for Bicentennial Lecture Series (Forum `88). Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $600.00 Period: November 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil Warwick Freeman Productions Purpose: Advise on opening and closing ceremonies. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: $1,700.00 Period: December 1983 Excess Over Quote: Nil Richard White Purpose: Advise on development of theme for Austra lian Exhibition. Working Plan: As instructed. Fee Paid: $1,330.00 Period: March 1985 Excess Over Quote: Nil Consultants appointed but not paid any fees as at 23.05.85: J. Drummond Purpose: Advise on development of proposed Arts &Entertainment Program. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee paid: Nil (Fee quoted $10,000.00 plus expenses). Period: April 1985-March 1986 Excess over quote: Not applicable. Horan Wall &Walker Purpose: Report on development of computerised mailing list. Working Plan: Briefing by senior staff. Fee Paid: Nil (Fee quoted $25.00 per hour) Period: April 1985-July 1985 Excess Over Quote: Not applicable. R. Hughes Purpose: Advise on proposed Exhibitions Program. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: Nil (Fee quoted $4,000.00 plus expenses). Period: 15-20th July 1985 Excess Over Quote: Not applicable. J. Murdoch Purpose: Assist in development of national music, theatre and dance commissionings program of Australian artists, performing arts companies etc. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: Nil (Fee quoted $2,000.00 plus expenses). Period: May-July 1985 Excess Over Quote: Not applicable. Bernice Murphy Purpose: Assist in development of national commissionings program of Australian artists, galleries, museums etc. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: Nil (Fee quoted $2,000.00 plus expenses). Period: May-July 1985 Excess Over Quote: Not applicable. E. Myers Purpose: To conduct a national survey of education resource materials related to Australian Studies. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: Nil (Fee quoted $8,000.00 plus expenses). Period: June 1985 Excess Over Quote: Not applicable V. Plush Purpose: Prepare a report on means of introducing Australian music to overseas audiences, particularly in North America. Working Plan: Written brief. Fee Paid: Nil (Fee quoted $1,820.00 plus expenses). Period: June 1985. Excess Over Quote: Not applicable. Roy Morgan Research Purpose: Conduct omnibus survey for proposed national medallions series. Working Plan: Written instructions. Fee Paid: Nil (Fee quoted $7,720.00). Period: May 1985 Excess Over Quote: Not applicable. Consultants employed prior to March 1983 and retained since March 1983: Goodwin Design Purpose: Provide graphic design services as required. Working Plan: Various. Fee Paid: To March 1983 $91,329.69. Since March 1983 $96,188.66 Period: February 1981 to date Excess Over Quote: Not applicable. Meridan Advertising (Australia) Pty. Ltd., Purpose: Provide advertising agency services, primarily to conceive, develop and produce audio visual, brochure, poster and community kit materials forming part of the Authority's publicity program. Working Plan: Various. Fee Paid: To March 1983 $10,500.00. Since March 1983 $250,576.34 Period: December 1982 to May 1985 Excess Over Quote: Not applicable. Australian Science and Technology Council 1. TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND MIGRANT EMPLOYMENT (a) Dr Roy Kriegler, Research Fellow, National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University of South Australia (b) To carry out a survey and to report on the effects of technological change on the employment of migrants. (c) The consultants prepared a research proposal in response to a consultancy brief. (d) $10,700 (e) Their services began 16.2.83 and finished 15.2.84 (f) The final fee paid was $1,000 in excess of the original quote but was incurred to meet changes to the advantage of the Technological Change Committee. 2. THE PRODUCTIVITY OF NEW OFFICE TECHNOLOGY (a) W.D. Scott and Co. (b) To carry out a pilot study of office productivity which would provide preliminary information to contri- bute to the full study outlined in (c). (c) A brief defining the terms in the study title and listing office functions to be taken into account. The brief also contained instructions that any study determine and quantify expected enhancements in office functions, and to take into account the effect on productivity of attitudes and behaviour in organisations and describe the kinds of organisational changes that are likely as well as desirable. (d) $13,260 (e) 16 February 1984; 30 March 1984 (f) No COMMONWEALTH OMBUDSMAN (a) 1. Management Solutions Pty Ltd. 2. Computer Sciences of Australia Pty Ltd. (b) 1. Following a survey by the PSB of the office's word processing and information retrieval needs, it was recommended by the PSB that a consultant be engaged to perform a feasibility study. 2. Following Cabinet approval of a new policy proposal (based on the Management Solutions consultancy report) panel contractors from DAS period contract PA29 were called (CSA was the successful tenderer) to develop applications software for an integrated word processing and ADP system. (c) 1. Terms of reference prepared in consultation with the Public Service Board. 2. Broad systems specifications developed by Management Solutions and adapted/refined by an ADP working party for implementation purposes. (d) 1. $22 290 2. $75 500. Consultancy is still proceeding on a fixed-price basis with an upper limit of +$5,000 on a total cost. The project is not expected to over-run. (e) 1. Management Solutions commenced their review on November 1983 and presented their final report on 19 April 1984. 2. CSA commenced on 11 March 1985 and are expected to finish by the end of August 1985. (f) 1. No 2. Incomplete but not expected to exceed initial quote. Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Name Purpose and details of working plan Cost Period Excess fee (if any) Dr R. Gregory To provide the Department with assessments and advice in economic fields No payments sought May 83 to Sept 1983 Nil Koranya Data Base Intelligence To give advice in the evaluation of tenders for computer hardware and software and in the acceptance and installation of the system $28,979.06 31/10/83 for maximum of 182 days Nil David Tasker and Associates To advise on the ergonomic suitability of the tendered equipment for the Department's new computer installation $635 April 1984 Nil Ms C. Ronalds To produce a green paper on affirmative action programs and to formulate draft anti-discrimination legislation on affirmative action $8,500 23/5/83 to 23/8/83 Nil Ms C. Ronalds To promote the concepts contained in the paper on affirmative action including speaking at conferences, dealing with the media and undertaking negotiations with major private companies $10,225 24/8/83 to 16/11/83 Nil Ms C. Ronalds To prepare a detailed implementation manual for participants in the voluntary affirmative action pilot program. To prepare a publication surveying Affirmative Action practices in other countries and in Australia $3,860 per month 23/2/84 to 21/12/84 Nil Ms C. Ronalds To complete her report surveying Affirmative Action practices. To provide advice to the Working Party on Affirmative Action Legislation. To undertake public education activities on affirmative action $4,020 per month 4/2/85 to 31/10/85 Nil Ms M. Bickley To assist the Affirmative Action Resource Unit in liaising with educational institutions involved in the Affirmative Action Pilot Program $3,050 per month 5/9/84 to 4/9/85 Nil Ms F. Baldwin To assist the Affirmative Action Resource Unit in liaising with trade unions involved in the Affirmative Action Pilot Program $2,938 per month 14/11/84 to 31/7/85 Nil Dr A. Mant To prepare a position paper on women and drug addiction $800 March 1985 Nil Ms G. Lansbury To assist in the preparation of a position paper on women and drug addiction $500 March 1985 Nil Ms L. Fell To provide expert advice on the Register of Women $760 10-13/7/84 Nil Ms L. Fell To prepare a pamphlet on taxation reform for women for general distribution by the National Women's Consultative Council in advance of the July 1985 Taxation Summit $500 May 1985 Nil Ms P Croft To edit the report of the Aboriginal Women's Task Force $1,795 February 1985 Nil Ms E Savage To draft a submission to EPAC on taxation impacts on women for the National Women's Consultative Council (NWCC) in preparation for NWCC participation at the Taxation Summit in July 1985 $1,424.50 April/May 1985 Nil Mr R Lloyd To provide high level journalistic experience in preparing briefing papers and speeches and the publishing of relevant International Youth Year (IYY) journals $32,634 pa from 11/2/85 and $33,594 pa from 18/4/85 11/2/85 to 10/1/86 Nil Robin Owen and Associates To provide high level public relations expertise for IYY. Liaison with corporate sector to obtain support for IYY projects Fee is $175 per day. $7,580 paid by this Dept. for the period 1/3/85 to 31/5/85 8/10/84 to 31/12/85 Nil Mr M Kau To address at Commonwealth level policy and program issues concerning youth sector training $30,289 pa 3/10/84 to 11/01/85 Nil Mr M Kau To develop training modules and draft manuals for personnel in the IYY Youth Development Project $31,531 pa 21/1/85 to 19/4/85 Nil Mr M Kau To complete work in progress in youth worker training. To continue assistance with IYY project and advance national training strategy $32,351 pa 22/4/85 to 19/7/85 Nil Mr J Freeland To work on several youth-related employment, education and training matters including a proposal to establish a National Employment and Training Authority as part of the administrative changes arising from the Kirby Report $4,888 One day per week for period 1/4/85 to 30/9/85 Nil Mr P Williams Work Resources Centre, ACT To prepare a guide to forming co-operatives, collectives and sustainable communities for the Office of Youth Affairs $11,776.60 including fee of $150 per day, fee for a Research Assistant for eight weeks and administrative expenses 34 days during period January to June 1985 Nil Mr T C Dusseldrop To provide advice on the development and implementation of policies and programs to meet the special needs of youth now and in the foreseeable future $58,195 pa 2/1/85 to 9/4/85 Nil Mr M Ireland To conduct a feasibility study for the Office of Youth Affairs for a co-operative project in Healesville $20,000 June 1984 to May 1985 Nil Messrs Wilkinson and Kelly To examine models of consultancy in the youth sector $9,000 July 1984 to May 1985 Nil Prof D Beswick To obtain information about financial needs and arrangements of TAFE students $40,000 July 1984 to May 1985 Nil Mr W Metcalf To define the social characteristics of alternative lifestyle participants for the Office of Youth Affairs $7,500 March 1984 to May 1985 Nil Co-operative Federation of Australia To prepare options for training young people for self-reliance and co-operation $24,700 May to October 1984 Nil The Office of the Economic Planning Advisory Council DR TOM VALENTINE (Macquarie University) Purpose: To prepare a report on the impact of deregulation and its effect on the structure of the finance industry and on the behavior of financial institutions. Cost: $8,950-no variation on the agreed amount. Time Span: 23 August 1984-24 October 1984 CENTRE FOR POLICY STUDIES (Monash University) Three consultancies as follows: 1. Purpose: To conduct an empirical examination of, and prepare a report on, the interaction between the taxation and social security systems. Cost: $26,400-no variation on the agreed amount Time Span: 23 August 1984-24 October 1984 2. Purpose: To prepare a report on alternative arrangements for the funding and structuring of education. Cost: $23,550-no variation in the agreed amount. Time Span: 23 August 1984-24 October 1984 3. Purpose: To prepare a report on the policy problems and welfare implications of State enterprises and the implications of alternative arrangements for State enterprise. Cost: $10,500-no variation on the agreed amount Time Span: 23 August 1984-24 October 1984. AUSTRALIA/JAPAN FOUNDATION (Australian National University) Purpose: To prepare a report reviewing the impact of Asian/Pacific economic and trade growth on Australia's export and trade prospects Cost: $29,523-no variation on agreed amount Time Span: 23 August 1984-23 October 1984 INSTITUTE OF APPLIED ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH (University of Melbourne) Purpose: To prepare a report on the main features of Australian income distribution and of the way it has changed since 1968-69. Cost: $20,000-no variation on the agreed amount Time Span: 23 August 1984-31 October 1984 MR PETER STUBBS (Australian National University) Purpose: To prepare a report reviewing policy issues concerning domestic research and development and technology transfer. Cost: $2,850-no variation on the agreed amount. Time Span: 23 August 1984-24 October 1984. MR KEITH TRACE (Monash University) Purpose: To prepare a report evaluating the efficiency of the present system of transport from the point of view of the economy as a whole and the likely gains from improvement of present arrangements. Cost: $6,000-no variation on the agreed amount. Time Span: 23 August 1984-24 October 1984 DR HELEN HUGHES (Australian National University) Purpose: To examine and comment on various working drafts prepared in the Office on areas in which there are potentially high payoffs for Australia's economic growth. Cost: $3,600 Time Span: Maximum commitment of 30 days between August 1984-January 1985 DR JOHN PIGGOTT (Australian National University) Purpose: To examine and comment on all aspects of the Australian taxation system and in particular theory relating to Taxation/Welfare. Cost: $3,500 &$4,000 equals $7,500-Two separate ageements both in line with original amounts Time Span: Maximum commitment of 25 days between mid November 1984 and mid January 1985; Maximum commitment of 16 days between 1 February 1985 to 30 April 1985. DR GARY SAMPSON (Centre for Policy Studies, Monash University) Purpose: To prepare a report reviewing matters of policy relevance in the trade area and discussing matters that lend themselves to policy reform. Cost: $6,624 Time Span: Maximum commitment of 23 days, December 1984-February 1985. Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research (University of Melbourne) Purpose: To prepare papers on the tax reform issue and in particular the second and subsequent round economic effects of changes in the mix of direct and indirect taxes. Cost: $26,000-this was $1,000 more than originally agreed to due to unforeseen computer charges. Time Span: January-February 1985 DR NEIL WARREN (University of New South Wales) Purpose: To apply particular expertise to theoretical and applied research on taxation issues and develop and implement an up-to-date version of a model of the distributional consequences of tax change for use in the Office. Cost: $13,385-no variation on agreed amount. Time Span: January 1985-June 1985. Office of National Assessments (a) Three academics-one from the University of Melbourne (used on two occasions) and two from the Australian National University; and one energy consultant from a private consultancy company. (A total of five consultancies.) (b) To prepare specialised reports and analyses on international political, strategic, economic and scientific issues in line with ONA's statutory functions and responsibilities. (c) In each case, formal terms of reference were prepared and agreed, consistent with guidelines issued by the Public Service Board. (d) $1,955. (e) Periods varying between one and three months, during the period from June 1983 to September 1984. (All consultancies were for an agreed task, rather than a specified period.) (f) No. Public Service Board Name: Barbara WALSH, Freelance Writer Purpose: To produce a new edition of the Communicating in Writing Handbook. Cost: $1,165 Length of service: May-June 1985 Workplan: Consultant to submit several chapters approximately every 10 days until work completed. Work to be checked by Training Programs Section. PSB and consultant to check and edit final version for printing. Any excess fee: No Name: COOPERS AND LYBRAND SERVICES Purpose: To present a 1 day computer awareness session. Cost: $1,600 Length of service: 21 November 1984 Workplan: To present a computer awareness seminar. Any excess fee: No Name: Rhonda MCIVER Purpose: EDS 10-Session on Personnel Development and Career Planning Cost: $300 Length of service: 30 January 1985 Workplan: Development Needs and Career Plans for 40 participants. Discussions and guidance. Any excess fee: No Name: Dr T. B. Smith Purpose: EDS 9-2 sessions on `Policy Formulation and Implementation' Cost: $120 Length of service: 30 October 1984 Workplan: 2 hours on government policy, how it works, how to prepare policy papers, how it affects departments and how it is implemented. Any excess fee: No Name: TIM DALMAU AND ASSOCIATES Purpose: Personnel Development Managers Workshop-`Training and Consultancy' Cost: $4,800 for 5 days Length of service: 12-14 November, 6-7 December 1984 Workplan: To prepare material for the conduct of a workshop for personnel development managers aimed at equipping them with the skills and knowledge to undertake management consultancies in their department, in consultation with Workshop Director. Any excess fee: No Name: Phil BOAS Purpose: PMS 9 coursework `People in Organisations' Cost: $1,000 for 2 days Length of service: 1-2 November 1984 Workplan: To present a communication skills workshop. Any excess fee: No Name: Mr David COLLINS, Head of School of Economics, Macquarie University Purpose: EDS 9 Residential Course-Economics segment Cost: $700-2 days presentation and 3 days preparation Length of service: 18-19 June 1984 Workplan: Include use of computer facilities content relevant to public service managers. Covered major economic issues, including fiscal and monetary policy, employment, inflation, taxation and welfare. Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Richard BRADDOCK, Macquarie University Purpose: EDS 9 Residential course-Economics segment Cost: $590-2 days presentation and 3 days preparation Length of service: 18-19 June 1984 Workplan: Assistant to Mr David Collins. Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Clive WILLIAMS, University of Sydney, Counselling Service, and two assistants Purpose: EDS 9-Residential Course-Interpersonal Skills Workshop Cost: $1,500 for 2 days Length of service: 23-24 June 1984 Workplan: Prepare workshop papers, syndicate group sessions. Flexibility to ensure acceptance by whole group. Experiential in nature of work. Any excess fee: No Name: Professor Phillip YETTON, AGSM Purpose: EDS 9 Residential Course-Decision Making Workshop Cost: $600-400 fee and $200 use of computer facilities Length of service: 29 June 1984 Workplan: Leadership style. World-standing expert in contingency decision theory. Individual questionnaires prepared on behaviour, then analysis of replies prepared. Each questionnaire takes 2 hours to complete. Any excess fee: No Name: FILM AUSTRALIA Purpose: EDS 9 Residential Course-Media Workshop Cost: $1,000 for 4 presenters Length of service: 26 June 1984 Workplan: Audio-visual workshop. Need to develop skills. Theories on how to handle film, TV and radio programs. Simulated TV and radio interviews which are taped, played back and analysed. Any excess fee: No Name: Chris RICHARDS, CCAE Purpose: Personnel Development Managers Workshop, `Formulating Personnel Development Strategies' Cost: $300 for half a day Length of service: 25 June 1984 Workplan: To present an address and participative exercises. Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Patrick WELLER, ANU Purpose: PMS 9 Australian Government Administration Course Cost: $105 for 11/2 hours Length of service: 26 June 1984 Workplan: To present an address and lead discussion. Any excess fee: No Name: Ms Gay DAVIDSON, Journalist, `Canberra Times' Purpose: PMS 9-Australian Government Administration Course Cost: $60 for 11/2 hour session Length of service: 29 June 1984 Workplan: Short address. Any excess fee: No Name: Ms D. VAN MEEGEN Purpose: PMS 9-Australian Government Administration Course Cost: $60 for 11/2 hour session Length of service: 29 June 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and participation. Any excess fee: No Name: IMB Australia Purpose: EDS 9-2 day Computer Awareness Course Cost: $3,000-Includes travel and accommodation Length of Service: 24-25 October, 1984 Workplan: Future Directions of Information Workshop. Preparation of syndicate exercises. Biographical information on each participant. Caseworks studies. Extensive documentation provided. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Professor Scott, Queensland University Purpose: EDS 9-Session on `Public Policy, Concepts and Issues' Cost: $80 for 1 1/2 hour session Length of Service: 29th October, 1984 Workplan: Concept of public policy, theoretical issues, significant issues on Australian Public Policy. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Professor Pearce, ANU Purpose: EDS 9-2 sessions on history, basic concepts and current issues relating to administrative law Cost: $200 Length of Service: 8th October 1984 Workplan: Pre-reading an AD(JR)Act, AAT Act, Ombudsman's Act, FOI Act, Judicial Method and Law, Court Remedies and Principles of Review. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Capital Territory Health Commission Purpose: EDS 10-Executive Health Program Cost: $1,015. Length of Service: 1 November, 1984 Workplan: Extensive literature provided, relation exercises, stress management, individual health assessments, heart tests, blood tests, cassette tape exercise program Any Excess Fee: No Name: Mr A. Asher, Australian Consumers Association Purpose: EDS 9-session on `Lobbying Government' Cost: No fee Length of Service: 15 October, 1984 Workplan: How Lobby Groups lobby governments, their effectiveness, how to prepare cases. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Mr Simon Crean, Storeman and Packer's Union Purpose: EDS 9-session on `A Trade Union View' Cost: No fee Length of Service: 10th October, 1984. 1 1/4 hours Workplan: What Trade Unions regard as key issues in industrial relations, what may be changes in the future and what implications they could have on senior managers in the Service. Any Excess Fee: No Name: The Hon. Mr Justice J. T. Ludeke Purpose: EDS 9-session on `An Overview of Current Issues in Industrial Relations' Cost: No fee Length of Service: 10th October, 1984 Workplan: General examination of key issues of industrial relations in Australia and what the industrial relations scene will be in the future. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Ms Robin Creyke, ANU Purpose: PMS 9-`Law and Personnel Administration' Course Cost: $350 Length of Service: 25th February, 1985 Workplan: Design and facilitate coursework and workshops. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Ms Catriona Cook Purpose: PMS 9-`Law and Personnel Administration' Course Cost: $350 Length of Service: 25th February, 1985 Workplan: Design and facilitate coursework and workshop Any Excess Fee: No Name: John McMillan, ANU Purpose: PMS 9-`Law and Personnel Administration' Course Cost: $80 Length of Service: 26th February 1985 Workplan: Design and facilitate coursework. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Dorothy Outram Purpose: Administrative Trainee Introductory Coursework Cost: $375 Length of Service: 1 February 1985 Workplan: Through lectures, discussion and syndicate exercises to provide participants with an understanding of effective written communication in the Public Service. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Dr Bob Spillane, Macquarie University Purpose: Administrative Trainees' Introductory Coursework Cost: $1,000 for 2 sessions Length of Service: 1 February 1985 Workplan: To present 2 training sessions comprising film and discussion exploring the problems and issues associated with the administration of the public sector and the role of individual public servants. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Dorothy Outram Purpose: Administrative Trainees' Recall Day Cost: $330, half a day Length of Service: 11th March, 1985 Workplan: N/A Any Excess Fee: No Name: Alf Lizzio, managing partner in CORE Consultants Purpose: To act as co-facilitator for PMS-8 coursework Cost: $1,000 for 7 days Length of Service: 17th-22nd March 1985 Workplan: To assist in the facilitation of workshop exercises Any Excess Fee: No Name: Patricia Cameron, Woden TAFE Purpose: To write Unit 2 of ``Working with People: a Handbook for Supervisors in the APS'' Cost: $2,500 for 150 hours Length of Service: March-May, 1985 Workplan: Consultant briefed on concept and scope of handbook. Consultant submitted drafts progressively. Tandem consultancy involved regular meetings to ensure that all parts of handbook consistent in matters of style etc. consultant involved in early trialling of handbook on target evidence. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Slade Consultancy Groups (Messrs Stringer and Barrand) Purpose: Personnel Development Managers Conference Cost: $1,050 Length of Service: 23rd and 24th April, 1985 Workplan: To facilitate the consultation process being undertaken regarding a personnel development policy report with the aim of actively involving the Personnel Development managers in the development of strategies for implementing the policies. Any Excess Fee: No Name: The Artworks Purpose: To design and produce a logo for the Executive Development Scheme and for the Personnel Management Scheme Cost: $520 Length of Service: April 1985 (6 hours) Workplan: Produce several designs, 1 of which to be selected for use on Letterheads, covers, compliment slips. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Phil Boas Purpose: 1 day's preparatory Discussions for PMS 9 Workshop Cost: $750 Length of Service: 30th May, 1985 Workplan: To discuss workshop content and format with administrative staff and participants Any Excess Fee: No Name: Tim Dalmau Purpose: EDS 10 Residential Course, Personnel Management Workshop Cost: $3,200 Length of Service: 17th-21st June, 1985 plus 2 days preparation Workplan: Case studies in branch management, performance appraisal, industrial relations, management styles. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Alf Lizzio, Core Consulting Services Purpose: EDS 10 Residential Course-Personnel Management Workshop Cost: $2,500 Length of Service: 17th-21st June, 1985, plus 2 days preparation Workplan: Case studies in branch management, performance appraisal, industrial relations, management styles. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Bob Dick, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of Queensland Purpose: EDS 10 Residential Course-Organisational Behaviour and Change Workshop Cost: $1,100 Length of Service: 23rd-24th June, 1985, plus 1 day preparation Workplan: Organisational workshop around equity in employment issues. Board's EEO Bureau assisted in presentation of workshop. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Film Australia Purpose: EDS 10 Residential Course-Media Workshop Cost: $3,200-6 presenters Length of Service: 25th-26th June, 1985 Workplan: Audio visual workshop. Need to develop skills for public speaking. Simulated TV and radio interviews which are taped, played back and analysed (40 participants) Any Excess Fee: No Name: Coopers and Lybrand Services Purpose: PMS 10-Micro Computer Awareness Seminar Cost: $1,800 ($75 per person) user-pays Length of Service: 11th July, 1985 Workplan: Presentation of ``hands on'' seminar. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Ms Imogen Waering, Price Waterhouse Purpose: Personnel Development Management Workshop Cost: $500 Length of Service: 12th June, 1985 Workplan: To contribute, from practical experience in a major review of the personnel development function in the Department of Health, to a workshop on Reviewing the PD Function. To talk about the external and outline lessons to be learned. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Ms Leila Bailey, ANU Counselling Centre Purpose: Administrative Trainees Course-Communication in the Workplace Workshops Cost: $400 Length of Service: 4th, 5th July 1985 Workplan: Development of participative workshop Any Excess Fee: No Name: Geoff Mortimore, ANU Counselling Centre Purpose: Administrative Trainees Course-Communication in the Workplace Workshop Cost: $400 Length of Service: 4th, 5th July 1985 Workplan: Development of participative workshop Any Excess Fee: No Name: Mr David Solomon, Journalist Purpose: PMS 10-address on `Government, the Public Service and the Media' Cost: $100 Length of Service: 1 1/2 hour session 4 July 1985 Workplan: Short address and question session. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Dr Alistair Crombie, Centre for Continuing Education, ANU Purpose: PMS 10-address on `Job Design' Cost: $200 for half a day Length of Service: 4 July 1985 Workplan: Series of related management questionnaires. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Dr B. Page, Department of Government, University of Sydney Purpose: Personnel Management Scheme 8, Coursework-session on Australian Government Framework Cost: $120 for 2 hours Length of Service: 27th March 1984 Workplan: To present an address and answer questions. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Jack Waterford, Canberra Times Purpose: Personnel Management Scheme 8, Coursework-session on Government and the Media Cost: $120 for 1 1/2 hours Length of Service: 30th March, 1984 Workplan: To present address and lead discussion. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Mr Dennis Hoiberg, Human Resources Management, HMR Pty Ltd. Purpose: Personnel Development Managers Workshop-session on Training Needs Analysis. Cost: $1,000 for 2 days. Length of Service: 29th-30th May, 1984. Workplan: To adapt HMR's workshop on training needs analysis approaches for relevance to APS personnel development managers and conduct workshop. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Mr Dennis Hoiberg, Human Resources Management, HMR Pty Ltd. Purpose: Personnel Development Managers Worshop-session on Training Needs analysis. Cost: $1,000 for 2 days. Length of Service: 31 May-1 June 1984. Workplan: Repeat of above workshop: to cater for demand.. Any excess fee: No. Name: John Martin-Lecturer Grade 1, Australian Centre for Local Government Studies, CCAE. Purpose: Industrial Relations Coursework PMS 9 2nd block. Cost: $800. Length of Service: 6 days. Workplan: To facilitate discussion and lead participative exercises.. Any excess fee: No. Name: Robyn Walmsley, ACT House of Assembly. Purpose: To participate in a panel session on ``The Impact of Government Policies and Decisions on groups in Australian Society'' for the Administrative Trainee Scheme, second block of coursework. Cost: Nil. Length of Service: 2 1/2 hours, 13 May 1985. Workplan: To explore the impact of government policies and decisions on groups in Australian Society.. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Kaye Raymond, Macquarie Consulting. Purpose: To present a 1/2 day session on Career and Lifestyle for the Administrative Trainee Scheme, second block of coursework. Cost: $375. Length of Service: 1/2 day, 14 May 1985. Workplan: To explore with the Administrative Trainees ways of achieving a balance between Career and Lifestyle.. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Jack Waterford, Canberra Times. Purpose: To participate in a panel session on ``Freedom of, or Freedom from, Information'' for the Administrative Trainee Scheme, second block of coursework. Cost: $60. Length of Service: 1 1/2 hours, 15 May 1985. Workplan: To discuss the implications of the Freedom of Information Act from a Consumer's perspective. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Kate Hughes, Welfare Rights Centre. Purpose: To participate in a panel session on ``Freedom of, or Freedom from, Information'' for the Administrative Trainee Scheme, second block of coursework. Cost: $60. Length of Service: 1 1/2 hours, 16 May 1985. Workplan: To discuss the impact of the Freedom of Information Act from the Consumer's perspective. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: John McMillan, Rupert Public Interest Group. Purpose: To participate in a panel session on ``Freedom of, or Freedom from, Information'' for the Administrative Trainee Scheme, second block of coursework. Cost: $60. Length of Service: 1 1/2 hours, 17 May 1985. Workplan: To discuss the impact of the Freedom of Information Act from the consumer's perspective. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Raylee Wilson, ACT Health Authority. Purpose: To participate in a panel session on `The Impact of government policies and decisions on groups in Australian Society' for the Administrative Trainee Scheme, second block of coursework. Cost: Nil. Length of service: 2 1/2 hours, 17 May 1985. Workplan: To explore the impact of government policies and decisions on groups in Australian society. Any excess fee: No. Name: Norm Johnston, National Aboriginal Conference. Purpose: To participate in a panel session on `The Impact of government policies and decisions on groups in Australian Society' for the Administrative Trainee Scheme, second block coursework. Cost: Nil. Length of service: 2 1/2 hours, 17 May 1985. Workplan: To explore the impact of government policieds and decisions on groups in Australian society. Any excess fee: No. Name: Mungo McCallum. Purpose: To participate in a panel session to present a media perspective on the role of journalists in reporting on the government and the administration. Cost: $100. Length of service: 1 hour, 20 May 1985. Workplan: To explore issues which arise in reforming the actions of governments and the bureaucracy. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dorothy Outram. Purpose: To acquaint Administrative Trainees with Australian Public Service requirements in preparing written reports and records of meetings. Cost: $180. Length of Service: 1/2 day 18th April 1984. Workplan: Through use of video and syndicate work to acquaint participants with the principal features of written reports and submissions etc.. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Professor Ralph Sprague. Purpose: To inform secretaries of departments and heads of agencies of the APS on the use of decision support systems in management. Cost: $2,000. Length of Service: 1 day. Workplan: Seminar basis.. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Axbook Systems Pty Ltd. Purpose: To develop guidelines on the role of the user in designing and managing information systems. Cost: $6,000. Length of Service: April 1984-November 1984. Workplan: See purpose. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: W. D. Scott and Co. Pty Ltd Purpose: FMIP Diognostic Study Cost: $80,000 Length of Service: September 1983-February 1984, 5 months Workplan: To improve financial and related management practices throughout the APS so as to achieve more effective and efficient management of Government programs and resources. Any Excess Fee: No Name: David Angeloro Purpose: Personal Computer Guidelines Cost: $5,000 Length of Service: 2 months Workplan: To provide management, operational personnel, data processing personnel and auditors with a reference for the introduction and use of personal computer systems. Any Excess Fee: No Name: P.A. Australia Purpose: To review the activities of the Management Improvement Division of the Public Service Board Cost: $57,465 Length of Service: 4 months from September to December 1984 Workplan: 1. Ascertain departmental and other views on the nature of management improvement activities and services that should be provided by the PSB; 2. To report on the scope and broad direction of management improvement activities to be undertaken by the Board's Management Improvement Division. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Touche Ross Purpose: Review Regional Office and Management Service issues in the Australian Bureau of Statistics Cost: $47,516 Length of Service: April 1984-August 1984, 4 months Workplan: To examine and report on the purpose, functions and activities of management services units in the Central and State offices of the ABS, and on the purpose, functions and activities of top level management in State Offices. The review will focus on the division of responsibilities between Central and State Offices and between management services units and other areas, the efficiency and effectiveness of management systems and procedures, the impact of technology and scope for its further use, and other significant management issues identified. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Spencer Stuart and Associates Purpose: To provide shortlists of candidates considered suitable for the two senior positions in the Public Service Board's Management Improvement Division Cost: $10,350 Length of Service: Commenced June 1985 Workplan: Not applicable Any Excess Fee: No Name: James Martin Purpose: To inform secretaries of departments and heads of agencies of the state of the art of information and technology Cost: $6,000 Length of Service: 1 day Workplan: Seminar basis Any Excess Fee: No Name: Videosonics Pty Ltd Purpose: To film and edit specialist speakers on Internal Audit topics for seminar material Cost: $2,600 Length of Service: 3 days in May/June 1985 Workplan: See `Purpose' above Any Excess Fee: No Name: Disk International Purpose: To review the administration of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act Cost: $48,282 Length of Service: 5 months from May 1984 Workplan: See `Purpose' above Any Excess Fee: No Name: Arthur Anderson and Co. Coopers Lybrand Purpose: To raise the level of awareness of senior executives of the APS in the field of micro-computers Cost: $168,140 Length of Service: 121 one day seminars 1984/85 Workplan: To run a series of ``hands on'' seminars on computer awareness education Any Excess Fee: No Name: IBM Australia Pty Ltd ICL Australia Pty Ltd Purpose: To raise the level of awareness of senior executives of the APS in the field of micro-computers Cost: $162,000 Length of Service: 27 two day seminars 1984/85 Workplan: To run a series of ``hands on'' seminars on computer awareness education. Any Excess Fee: No Name: P.A. Australia Pty Ltd Purpose: To assist with the development of the initial corporate plan for the Office of the Public Service Board Cost: $29,463 Length of Service: January-March 1985 Workplan: See `Purpose' above. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Econsult Pty Ltd Purpose: To develop Financial Management Improvement Program education modules covering corporate management, program management, organisation design, management information systems, and evaluation Cost: $22,389 Length of Service: Three months from April 1985 Workplan: See `Purpose' above Any Excess Fee: No Name: Peat Marwick &Mitchell Services Purpose: To assist the Department of Communications to develop its corporate goals and options for program structures Cost: $32,300 Length of Service: April to June 1985 Workplan: See `Purpose' above. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Management Solutions Pty Ltd Purpose: To help develop an Executive Management Information System within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Cost: $4,099 Length of Service: May/June 1985 Workplan: See `Purpose' above. Any Excess Fee: No Name: KMG Hungerfords Purpose: To undertake a post-implementation evaluation of the implementation of the 1981 Joint Management Review of the effectiveness and operational efficiency of the Bankruptcy Branch, Attorney-General's Department Cost: $9,183 Length of Service: 10 working days during June 1985 Workplan: See `Purpose' above Any Excess Fee: No Name: McKinsey and Co Purpose: To examine the scope for Flatter Structures in the Department of Veterans' Affairs as a pilot project for possible extension to the remainder of the Australian Public Service Cost: $69,600 Length of Service: May/June 1985 Workplan: See `Purpose' above. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Aboriginal Training and Cultural Institute Purpose: Conduct seminar on Aboriginal Middle Management for women Cost: $6,750 Length of Service: 5 days (June 1985) Workplan: Seminar basis Any Excess Fee: No Name: Arthur Young Services Purpose: Examine Bounties Administration Cost: $43,000 Length of Service: February 1984-May 1984, 4 months Workplan: To review the expenditure control systems and the arrangements relating to the administration of Bounty Schemes and to introduce the changes necessary to overcome operational difficulties. Any Excess Fee: No Name: J.P. Young and Associates Purpose: Antarctic Division, Department of Science and Technology (Joint Management Review) Cost: $66,000 Length of Service: September 1983-December 1983, 4 months Workplan: To examine and report on the objectives and functions of the Antarctic Division, the efficiency and effectiveness with which current functions and objectives are met and the changes necessary to ensure that the Division can effectively meet future objectives inherent in the Government's policy of expanded activities in Antarctica. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Disk International Purpose: To provide a prospective statement on Automatic Data Processing in the APS Cost: $41,300 Length of Service: October 1983-January 1984, 4 months Workplan: To examine departmental ADP strategic plans and other source material on the use of ADP in the APS, propose topics for inclusion, prepare the perspective statement and make separate recommendations concerning improvements for future perspective statements. Preparation of annual statement one of recommendations of JMR on ADP Management Issues. Any Excess Fee: No Name: R. V. Goode Management and Consultants Pty Ltd Purpose: Department of Aviation-Management Improvement Plan Cost: $76,200 (shared equally with Department of Aviation) Length of Service: Workplan: To review management strategies and management improvement initiatives; develop options to achieve stated management objectives; to develop chosen option in detail; and to prepare an implementation plan. Any Excess Fee: No Name: P.A. Australia Purpose: Administration and Management in Department of Administrative Services Cost: $58,900 Length of Service: August 1983-November 1983, 4 months Workplan: To review the top level functioning and management of the Department of Administrative Services with particular focus on management strategies and a corporate approach to the discharge of the Department's responsibilities. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Associate Professor Russell Lansbury of Macquarie University Purpose: Executive Development Scheme-session on personnel management Cost: $400 for 1/2 day Length of Service: 6th March 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any Excess Fee: No Name: Professor Alan Fels, Monash University Purpose: EDS 10 Residential Course-Industry Study Workshops. Cost: $575 Length of Service: 22nd June, 1985 Workplan: Preparation of Industry Studies visits in October. Report on areas to visit etc. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Tim Dalmau Purpose: SES Staff Development Programs Cost: $650 Length of Service: 17th October, 1984 Workplan: Preparation of trigger questions for planning group; specification and design of program. Any Excess Fee: No Name: John Baxter, Control Data Corporation Purpose: Executive Development Scheme-2 day workshop on management issues relating to information processing Cost: $600 a day-total $1,200 Length of Service: 21st February 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any Excess Fee: No Name: Mark Harrison, Control Data Corporation Purpose: Executive Development Scheme, 2 day workshop on management issues relating to information processing Cost: $1,200-$600 a day for 2 days Length of Service: 21st February 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any Excess Fee: No Name: Dr Rhonda McIver, part-time Chairperson NSW Water Board. Purpose: Session on `Corporate Planning' SEMP 6. Cost: $300 for 2 1/2 hour session. Length of Service: 22nd March 1985. Workplan: To build on concepts provided by session on Strategic Management, focusing on how corporate planning is actually conducted. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Dr John Onto, Head of Department of Management at David Syme Business School in Melbourne. Purpose: SEMP 6-Role Conflict. Cost: $500 for 3 1/2 session and preparation. Length of Service: 26th March 1985. Workplan: To deal with the avoidance of stress through the management of the different expectations placed on the Senior Executive. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Kaye Raymond-private consultant. Purpose: Session on `Industrial Democracy'-SEMP 6. Cost: $375. Length of Service: 27th March 1985. Workplan: Build on previous sessions on Industrial Democracy, outline the process and outcomes involved in approaches to Industrial Democracy in the Public Sector. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Professor Dexter Dunphy, Australian Graduate School of Management, NSW University. Purpose: Senior Executive Conference and Senior Management Occasional Seminars on Industrial Democracy. Cost: $1,500-2 days coursework, 2 days preparation, 1/2 day coursework and 1/2 day preparation. Length of Service: 6th-18th July 1984. Workplan: To promote an understanding among senior managers in departments and authorities of the key concepts of industrial democracy; stimulate discussion on current developments in industrial democracy in the APS, provide participants with the opportunity to explore in a practical way, the implementation of specific industrial democracy issues in their workplaces. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Dr Prideaux, Head of Department of Administrative Studies, RMIT. Purpose: Senior Management Occasional Seminars on Industrial Democracy. Cost: $200 for 1/2 coursework and 1 day preparation. Length of Service: 25th May 1984. Workplan: Senior Management Occasional Seminars on Industrial Democracy. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Dr Jacqueline Vischer, visiting academic, renowned environmental pychologist. Purpose: Senior Management Occasional Seminar-seminar on `Managing Better Offices'. Cost: $600 for 1 day. Length of Service: 17th September 1984. Workplan: To examine management aspects associated with the planning, acquisition and fitting out of the modern office, promote a better understanding of office accommodation standards and guidelines survey the impact of information technology on people and their workplaces, study a variety of ways of monitoring and evaluating the working environment. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Film Australia. Purpose: 1 day Media Workshop-SEMP 6. Cost: $2,000. Length of Service: 28th March 1985. Workplan: Media overview and Introduction. Radio Workshops. Summary and discussion. TV Workshops. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Don Clayton, Project Development Officer for the Royal Blind Society in NSW. Purpose: SEMP 6. Cost: $80. Length of Service: 1st April 1985. Workplan: To discuss the development of a Commonwealth funded Community Service. The active job centre. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Malcolm Brown, Private Consultant. Purpose: Session on Time Management-SEMP 6. Cost: $400. Length of Service: 2nd April 1985. Workplan: To assist participants to analyse their use of time to better manage time as a scarce resource, avoid time wasters, delegate effectively and use support staff to advantage. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Professor Pat Weller, Griffith University. Purpose: SEMP 6 Ethics in the Public Service. Cost: $350. Length of Service: 1st May 1985. Workplan: Comment on the real ethical dilemmas facing members of the Senior Executive Service and whether the dictates of democracy/efficiency/ethics push in different directions. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Mr Owen Denmeade, Training Manager of Ogilvy and Mather. Purpose: SEMP 6 People, Performance and Work. Cost: $250. Length of Service: 31st March 1985. Workplan: To look at the small things that effect the extent of a person's sense of achievement at work. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Jim Hirsch. Purpose: Session on Interpersonal Skills-SEMP 6. Cost: $450. Length of Service: 28th-30th March 1985. Workplan: To identify interpersonnel skills areas of importance. Develop skills to improve the effectiveness of participants communication. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Celia Roots. Purpose: Session on Interpersonal Skills-SEMP 6. Cost: $450. Length of Service: 28th-30th March 1985. Workplan: Same as above consultant. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Dr John Onto, David Syme Business School. Purpose: SEMP 7. Cost: $1,700 for 2 days session plus preparation. Length of Service: 23rd May 1985. Workplan: To cover the management of `people' resources. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Lee Andreson, NSW University Purpose: `Presentation Skills' component of SEMP 7 Cost: $200 for 3 sessions Length of service: 23rd May 1985 Workplan: To cover the practical difficulties encountered when giving an oral presentation. Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Rhonda McIver, part-time Chairperson NSW Water Board Purpose: Sessions on implementing Change and Corporate Planning-SEMP 7 Cost: $1,200 for 2 five hour sessions Length of service: 28th-30th May, 1985 Workplan: To build on concepts provided by session on stategic management, focusing on how corporate planning is actually conducted. Any excess fee: No Name: Kaye Raymond, Private Consultant Purpose: Session on Industrial Democracy-SEMP 7 Cost: $375 Length of service: 24th May, 1985 Workplan: To outline the concepts of industrial democracy; explore the various forms; discuss the applicability of these forms to a government department; and consider the constraints. Any excess fee: No Name: Film Australia Purpose: 1 day media workshop-SEMP 7 Cost: $2,659, 6-8 presentations Length of service: 29th May 1985 Workplan: Media overview and introduction. Radio workshops. Summary and discussion. TV workshops. Any excess fee: No Name: John Hirsch, Private Consultant Purpose: Session on Interpersonal Skills-SEMP 7 Cost: $500 Length of service: 30th May-1st June 1985 Workplan: To identify interpersonal skills areas of importance. Develop skills to improve the effectiveness of participants communication. Any excess fee: No Name: Celia Roots, Private Consultant Purpose: Session on Interpersonal Skills-SEMP 7 Cost: $500 Length of service: 30th May-1st June 1985 Workplan: Same as for above consultant Any excess fee: No Name: Owen Denmeade, Training Manager of Ogilvy and Mather Purpose: SEMP 7 People. Performance and Work Cost: $250 Length of service: 2nd June 1985 Workplan: To look at the small things that effect the extent of a person's sense of achievement at work. Any excess fee: No Name: Ros Byrne, Lecturer in Secretarial Studies at CCAE Purpose: Session on effective use of Steno-Secretaries and RSI-SEMP 7 Cost: $200 Length of service: 4th June 1985 Workplan: To look at the effective use of keyboard staff in a potentially stressful environment. Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Roy Gilbert, Manager, Melbourne Football Club Purpose: Session on Management Change in Bureaucracy-SEMP 7 Cost: $200 Length of service: 22nd May, 1985 Workplan: To look at the consultant's role as a change agent during his career. Any excess fee: No Name: Dennis Kiellerup, Senior Lecturer in Applied Psychology at Chisholm Institute of Technology Purpose: Session on Career and Life Planning-SEMP 7 Cost: $500 for 1 four hour session Length of service: 27th May 1985 Workplan: To raise an awareness of and encourage participants to examine the opportunity for change in their careers and lives. Any excess fee: No Name: Jillian Moon, Financial Counsellor with NSW Welfare Rights Centre Purpose: Community Perspective on Government Service presentation-SEMP 7 Cost: $200 Length of service: 3rd June 1985 Workplan: Any excess fee: No Name: Vivean Read Purpose: SEMP 8-Session on `Change: Evolution or Revolution' Cost: $250 Length of service: 10th July, 1985 Workplan: To discuss qualities and skills necessary for the manager's role as change agent. To talk about experience of introducing organisational change. Any excess fee: No Name: Peter Timmins and Nick Evers Purpose: SEMP 8-Session on `The Senior Executive Service' Cost: $1,597 Length of service: 2nd July, 1985 Workplan: To address the nature of the governmental decision-making process including: the personal, the political and institutional interests involved; the rational decision-making model; and the essential features of managerial effectiveness within the Public Sector. Any excess fee: No Name: Jerry Winston Purpose: SEMP 8-Session on `Goal Setting' Cost: $600 Length of service: 12th July 1985 Workplan: To provide information on and experience in goal setting, clarification and attainment. To generate data from the exercises undertaken in the session which can be applied to both individuals and groups back in the work place. Any excess fee: No Name: Roy Gilbert Purpose: SEMP 8-Session on `Managing Change' Cost: $350 Length of service: 12th July, 1985 Workplan: To address the practical issues of managing change and reform within a bureaucracy. Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Rhonda McIver Purpose: Semp 8-Session on `Corporate Planning' Cost: $600 Length of Service: 16 July 1985 Workplan: To address the practical skills necessary for corporate planning. Participants to be actively involved in applying these skills to a case study. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Jillian Moon Purpose: Semp 8-Session on `Equity and the Service Delivery Function' Cost: $200 Length of Service: 15 July 1985 Workplan: To raise issues involved with the role of the Public Service in service delivery. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Film Australia Purpose: SEMP 8-Media Workshop Cost: $2,700 Length of Service: 17 July 1985 Workplan: To provide participants with an opportunity to be interviewed by a professional media interviewer in respect of a TV and a radio interview. A critique and a group discussion follow each interview with comments and suggestions for improved techniques. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Dr Di Yerbury Purpose: SEMP 8-Industrial Relations Cost: Nil Length of Service: 1.30-5.00, 21 July 1985 Workplan: Developments concerning white collar employees are examined as a background to identify current trends and issues in industrial relations generally. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Owen Denmeade Purpose: SEMP 8-People, Performance and Work Cost: $250 Length of Service: 21 July 1985 Workplan: Look at the small things which affect the extent of a person's sense of achievement at work. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Rob Skerman and Cathy Sinclair Purpose: SEMP 8-Practical Management Skills Cost: Nil Length of Service: 22 July 1985 Workplan: To encourage participants to identify issued in the staff development/appraisal/counselling areas and to work practically on these issues using a variety of styles and techniques. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Paul Stevens Purpose: SEMP 8-Work Life Planning Cost: $900 Length of Service: 22 and 23 July 1985 Workplan: To provide participants with comprehensive self help exercises and activity guides to assist the ongoing process of career management within the organisation, plus training for managers in effective ways to help their subordinate in career planning and personal development. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Michael Bowen, CCAE Purpose: Personnel Development Managers Workshop `Marketing Personnel Development' Cost: $210 Length of Service: 16 July 1984 Workplan: To prepare and conduct a half day session outlining general marketing principles and concepts as background for developing marketing strategies for personnel development activities in departments. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Kaye Raymond Purpose: Senior Management Occasional Seminar: Industrial Democracy Cost: $750 for 3 1/2 hours Length of Service: 3 October 1984 Any Excess Fee: No Name: Mr N. J. Attwood, Former Deputy Secretary with Department of Defence Purpose: Leading the Senior Executive Development Plan Cost: $800-$200 a day for four days Length of Service: 19 September 1984 Workplan: See Purpose. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Control Data Inc. Management Consultants Purpose: EDS 9-2 day Workshop on Negotiating Skills Cost: $3,200, including travel and accommodation Length of Service: 11/12 October 1984 Workplan: Negotiation Skills, how they relate to everyday issues. Syndicate exercises video tapes. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Arthur Anderson and Co. Management Consultants Purpose: EDS 9-2 day computer Literacy Hands-on Workshop Cost: $2,800, includes travel and accommodation Length of Service: 22-23 October 1984 Workplan: What can be achieved by computers, how to operate, practical use of equipment. Held in Boards Computer Training Room. Any Excess Fee: No Name: John Hoy Purpose: To present a regional office perspective on industrial relations issues being faced by managers in the public sector Cost: Nil Length of Service: 2 hours-9 May 1985 Workplan: Panel discussion of specific cases of `shopfloor' industrial relations matters. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Barry Moore Purpose: To present a State (N.S.W.) Government perspective on public administration/machinery of government issues Cost: Nil Length of Service: 1 hour-14 May 1985 Workplan: To contrast the issues and problems currently facing the Public Sector at the State level and to provide a contrasting view of the Federal/State relationship. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Leslie Fallick Purpose: To participate in panel discussion. To present a session on the role of the ACOA and its current concerns Cost: Nil Length of Service: 3 hours-9 May 1985 Workplan: To familiarise Administrative Trainees with a white collar union perspective on current industrial relations issues. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Professor Patrick Weller. Purpose: To present a lecture session on the role of bureaucrats. Cost: $200. Length of service: One hour plus preparation time-13th May 1985. Workplan: To explore the need for public servants to be responsive to broader community needs and to be innovative in administering government programs. Any Excess fee: No. Name: Robin Creyke. Purpose: PMS 7 Law and Personnel Administration. Cost: $210. Length of service: 1 1/2 days-7th November 1983. Workplan: Devise and facilitate coursework and workshop. Any excess fee: No. Name: Catriona Cooke. Purpose: PMS 7 Law and Personnel Administration. Cost: $210. Length of service: 1 1/2 days-7th November 1983. Workplan: Devise and facilitate coursework and workshop. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr Patrick Weller. Purpose: PMS 7 Australian Government Administration Course. Cost: $160. Length of service: 1 day-27th June 1983. Workplan: Facilitate coursework. Any excess fee: No. Name: Angela Sands (Consultant Psychologist). Purpose: PMS 6 Final Course. Cost: $477. Length of service: 1 1/2 days plus preparation-7th November 1983. Workplan: Devise and conduct workshop. Any excess fee: Extra fee $27.00 (included above). Name: Dr Paul Finn (Law Facility, ANU). Purpose: PMS 8 Law and Personnel Administration Course. Cost: $60. Length of service: 1/2 day-29th August 1984. Workplan: Design and facilitate coursework. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr James Oldham. Purpose: PMS 8 Course-People in Organisations. Cost: $400. Length of service: 2 days-30th July-3rd August 1984. Workplan: To facilitate participative exercises. Any excess fee: No. Name: Ms Ann O'Kelly Oldham. Purpose: PMS 8 Course-People in Organisations. Cost: $400. Length of service: 2 days-30th July-3rd August 1984. Workplan: To facilitate participative exercises. Any excess fee: No. Name: Coopers and Lybrand Services Pty Ltd. Purpose: PMS 8 Course-Management Course. Cost: $1600. Length of service: 1 day-16th November 1984. Workplan: To present a one-day computer awareness seminar. Any excess fee: No. Name: Mr Tim Dalmau, Management Consultant. Purpose: PMS 8-Final Course Cost: $3000. Length of service: 5 days-17th-22nd March 1985. Workplan: To present sessions and to facilitate participative exercises. Any excess fee: No. Name: Mr Tim Dalmau. Purpose: PMS 8-Final Course. Cost: $500-5th March 1985. Length of service: 1 day. Workplan: To discuss workshop content and format with program administrators. Any excess fee: No. Name: Robin Creyke (Law Faculty, ANU). Purpose: PMS 8 Law and Personnel Administration Course. Cost: $225. Length of service: 1 day-29th August 1984. Workplan: Devise and facilitate coursework and workshop. Any excess fee: No. Name: Catriona Cook (Law Faculty, ANU). Purpose: PMS 8 Administration Law Course. Cost: $1225. Length of service: 1 day-29th August 1984. Workplan: Devise and facilitate coursework and workshop. Any excess fee: No. Name: John McMillan, Lecturer in Law, ANU. Purpose: Senior Executive Management Program 1-session on Constitutional Law, Administration Law and FOI. Cost: $360-$120 a day and 2 days preparation. Length of service: 3rd-4th March 1984. Workplan: To address the political and judicial forces that have altered the constitution and the problems that remain, the way it has altered the way we are governed and the options for reform. Review mechanisms for administrative decisions. Impact of FOI and interpretation of it. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Birkett, Professor of Commerce, UNI NSW. Purpose: Senior Executive Management Program, SEMP 1-session on Corporate Strategy. Cost: $400-1 day session and 1 day preparation and 2 hours session planning. Length of service: 5th March 1984. Workplan: The impetus of strategic planning, strategic planning processes, budgeting as an element and as an outcome of strategic planning; and management control systems as mechanisms for providing feedback about strategy implementation. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Dexter Dunphy. Purpose: Senior Executive Management Program SEMP 1-session on Industrial Democracy. Cost: $120 for 2 hour session and 2 hours preparation. Length of service: 14th March 1984. Workplan: To outline the concepts of industrial democracy; explore the various forms; discuss the applicability of these forms to a government department; and consider the constraints. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Phillip Yetton, Australian Graduate School of Management. Purpose: Senior Executive Management Program 1-session on leadership styles and structure of the Management Team. Cost: $400 for 1 day session and 1 days prepararation. Length of service: 8th March 1984. Workplan: To discuss leadership style, feedback, debriefing and a detailed examination of issues arising from the feedback in syndicate groups. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr Andrew Crouch, Australian Graduate School of Management. Purpose: Senior Executive Management Program SEMP 1-session on leadership styles and structure of the Management Team. Cost: $650 for 1 day session and 1 days preparation and processing of questionaires. Length of service: 8th March 1984. Workplan: To give attention to the treatment of issues and implications raised by the feedback in the syndicate groups. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor David Limerick, Griffith University. Purpose: Senior Executive Management Program SEMP 1-session on Organisational Behaviour. Cost $400-1 day session, 1 day preparation time and preparation of hand out material. Length of service: 13th March 1984. Workplan: To look at organisation design, complex organisations; matrix organisations; and power and authority relationships in complex organisations. Any excess fee: No. Name: Film Australia-4 presenters. Purpose: Senior Executive Management Program SEMP 1-one-day media workshop. Cost: $827-4 presenters and equipment. Length of service: 15th March 1984. Workplan: Media Overview and Introduction. Radio Workshops. Summary and Discussion. TV Workshops. Any excess fee: No. Name: Lee Andreson, Lecturer Tertiary Education Research Centre in the University of N.S.W. Purpose: Senior Executive Management Program SEMP 1-2 1/2 hour sessions on Oral Communications. Cost: $100 for 2 1/2 hours. Length of service: 5th March 1984. Workplan: Syndicate Feedback on videotaped presentations. Any excess fee: No. Name: Mr Roger Collins, Senior lecturer in Personnel Management at the Australian Graduate School of Management. Purpose: Senior Executive Management Program SEMP 1-session on Career/Life Planning. Cost: $120 for 2 hour session. Length of service: 17th March 1984. Workplan: To identify recent research findings on career and life developments, and provide optional strategies for individuals to plan in these respects. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr Brennan, Medical Practitioner. Purpose: SEMP 1-session on Executive Health. Cost: No fee. Length of service: 7th March 1984. Workplan: To discuss the factors which predispose people to heart disease, and ways of overcoming these, including life-style issues. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr Birrell, Medical Practitioner. Purpose: SEMP 1-session on Executive Health. Cost: $80 for 2 hour session. Length of service: 13th March 1984. Workplan: To discuss the physical and psychological stresses, the nature of stress response and its effects on mental and physical health. To examine the principles of stress management. Any excess fee: No. Name: Jim Hirsch, employee Queensland State Government. Purpose: SEMP 1-Interpersonal Skills and Negotiating Skills. Cost: No fee. Length of service: 10th-12th March 1984. Workplan: To identify intepersonal skills areas of importance. Develop skills to improve the effectiveness of participants communication. Any excess fee: No. Name: Sister Brigid Hirschfeld. Purpose: SEMP 1-session on Interpersonal Skills and Negotiating Skills. Cost: $120 a day total $360 for 3 days. Length of service: 10th-12th March 1984. Workplan: As for previous consultant. Any excess fee: No. Name: John McMillan, lecturer in Law, ANU. Purpose: SEMP 2-sessions on Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and FOI. Cost: $450 1 1/2 days lecture, 1 days preparation time and 1/2 day travelling time. Length of service: 28th-29th April 1984. Workplan: To address the political and judicial forces that have altered the constitution and the problems that remain, the way it has altered the way we are goverened and the options for reform. Review mechanisms for administrative decisions. Impact of FOI and interpretation of it. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr Preston Bossger, AGSM. Purpose: SEMP 2 1 day session on Leadership Style and Structure of the Management Team. Cost: $400. Length of service: 2nd May 1984. Workplan: To discuss leadership style, feedback, debriefing and a detailed examination of issues arising from the feedback in syndicate groups. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr Andrew Crouch, AGSM. Purpose: SEMP 2-1 day session on Leadership Style and Structure of the Management Team. Cost: $400 and $250 for preparation and analysis of questionnaires. Length of service: 2nd May 1984. Workplan: To give attention to the treatment of issues and implications raised by the feedback from syndicate groups. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor David Limerick, Griffith University. Purpose: SEMP 2-session on Organisational Behaviour. Cost: $400 1 day session plus 1 days preparation. Lenght of service: 11th May 1984. Workplan: To look at organisation design, complex organisations; matrix organisations, and power and authority relationships in complex organisations. Any excess fee: No. Name: Film Australia Purpose: SEMP 2-1 day Media Workshop Cost: $1305.36-4 presenters Length of service: 9th May 1984 Workplan: Media overview and introduction. Radio workshops. Summary and discussion. TV workshop. Any excess fee: No. Name: Lee Andreson, N.S.W. University Purpose: SEMP 2-session on Oral Communication Cost: $200 for 2 1/2 hours Length of service: 1st May 1984 Workplan: The organisation of ideas; the choice of words; the selection of appropriate sounds and images for conveying the presented messages Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Roger Collins, AGSM Purpose: SEMP 2-session on Career/Life Planning Cost: $240-2 hours Length of service: 4th May 1984 Workplan: To identify recent research findings on career and life developments, and provide optional strategies for individuals to plan in these respects. Any excess fee: No Name: Jim Hirsch, employee Queensland State Government Purpose: SEMP 2-session on Interpersonal and Negotiating Skills Cost: No fee Length of service: 7th-8th May 1984 Workplan: To identify interpersonal skills areas of importance. Develop skills to improve the effectiveness of participants communication. Any excess fee: No Name: Celia Roots, private consultant Purpose: SEMP 2-session on Interpersonal and Negotiating Skills Cost: $360 for 3 days Length of service: 7th-8th May 1984 Workplan: Same as for above consultant Any excess fee: No Name: Professor Dunphy Purpose: SEMP 2-session on Industrial Democracy Cost: $120 Length of service: 1 May 1984 Workplan: To outline the concepts of industrial democracy; explore the various forms; discuss the applicability of these forms to a government department; and consider the constraints. Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Malcolm Brown, private consultant Purpose: SEMP 2-Time and Stress Management Cost: $100 Length of service: 4th May 1984 Workplan: To explore the issue of how to create the time to carry out new ideas about management. To examine aspects of stress management. Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Vic Taylor, AGSM Purpose: SEMP 2-session on `Negotiating: a conceptual viewpoint' Cost: $350-2 days preparation and 1 days presentation Length of service: 12th May 1984 Workplan: To examine negotiations using the vehicle of labour management relationships. An emphasis on practical aspects of negotiations which participants can use to develop their own skills. Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Birrell, private medical practitioner Purpose: SEMP 2-session on Executive Health Cost: $80 Length of service: 9th May 1984 Workplan: To discuss the physical and psychological stresses, the nature of stress response and its effect on mental and physical health. To examine the principles of stress management. Any excess fee: No Name: Dennis Turner, Director of Executive Programs. AGSM Purpose: SEMP 2-session on Corporate Strategy Cost: $120 Length of service: 30th April 1984 Workplan: The impetus of strategic planning, strategic planning processes, budgeting as an element and as an outcome of strategic planning; and management control systems as mechanisms for providing feedback about strategy implementation. Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Alan Fels, Senior Lecturer, Monash Uni, member of Prices Commission of Victoria, member of Prices Surveillance Authority Purpose: SEMP 2 Cost: $100 Length of service: 10th May 1984 Workplan: An overview of Australia's longer term economic prospects with respect to inflation, unemployment, economic growth and changes in the structure of industry. Any excess fee: No Name: Professor J. Davis, Director AGSM Purpose: SEMP 2-session on Executive Management Cost: $120 Length of service: 1 May 1984 Workplan: To examine the critical responsibility of senior management to set the long term direction of their organisation. Any excess fee: No Name: Vic Taylor, AGSM Purpose: SEMP 3-session on `Negotiating' a conceptual viewpoint Cost: $100 for 1 session and later plenary discussion Length of service: 7th July and 20th July 1984 Workplan: To examine negotiations using the vehicle of labour management relationships. An emphasis on practical aspects of negotiations which participants can use to develop their own skills. Any excess fee: No Name: John McMillan, ANU Purpose: SEMP 3-sessions on Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and FOI Cost: $450 for 1 1/2 days Length of service: 7th-8th July 1984 Workplan: To address the political and judicial forces that have altered the constitution and the problems that remain, the it has altered the way we are governed and the options for reform. Review, mechanisms for administrative decisions. Impact of FOI and interpretation of it. Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Peter Birrell, Psychology Department, Uni of NSW. Purpose: SEMP 3-session on Stress Management and Relaxation. Cost: $100. Length of service: 8th July 1984. Workplan: To discuss the physical and psychological stresses, the nature of stress response and its effects on mental and physical health. To examine the principles of stress management. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Dennis Turner, AGSM. Purpose: SEMP 3-session on Corporate Strategy. Cost: $120. Length of service: 10th July 1984. Workplan: The impetus of strategic planning, strategic planning processes, building as an element and as an outcome of strategic planning; and management control systems as mechanisms for providing feedback about strategy implementation. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Jeremy Davis, AGSM. Purpose: SEMP 3-session on Corporate Strategy-Long Term Directions. Cost: $120. Length of service: 10th July 1984. Workplan: To examine the critical responsibility of senior management to set the long term directions of their organisation. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr Roger Collins, AGSM. Purpose: SEMP 3-session on Strategic Personnel Management. Cost: $100. Length of service: 10th July 1984. Workplan: To provide insights as to the strategic contributions of the personnel function, how these contributions can be best made in different types of organisations. Any excess fee: No. Name: Mr Lee Andreson, Uni of NSW. Purpose: SEMP 3-session on Oral Communication. Cost: $200 for 3 sessions. Length of service: 10-12th July 1984. Workplan: The organisation of ideas; the choice of words; the selection of appropriate sounds and images for conveying the presented messages. Any excess fee: No. Name: Film Australia. Purpose: SEMP 3-1 day Media Workshop Cost: $1349-4 presenters. Length of service: 11th July 1984. Workplan: Media overview and introduction. Radio workshops. Summary and discussion. TV workshops. Any excess fee: No. Name: Malcolm Brown, private sector consultant. Purpose: SEMP 3-Time/Stress Management. Cost: $100 and $35 for use of a film. Length of service: 13th July 1984. Workplan: To explore the issue of how to create the time to carry out new ideas about management. To examine aspects of stress management. Any excess fee: No. Name: Mr Peter Harley, private sector consultant. Purpose: SEMP 3-session on Industrial Democracy. Cost: $60. Length of service: 13th July 1984. Workplan: Discussion of the different forms of industrial democracy drawing on experiences of the consultant in his work with public and private sector ogranisations. Any excess fee: No. Name: Mr Jim Hirsch. Purpose: SEMP 3-session on Interpersonal Skills. Cost: $300 for 2 1/2 days. Length of service: 13th-15th July 1984. Workplan: To identify interpersonal skills areas of importance. Develop skills to improve the effectiveness of participants communication. Any excess fee: No. Name: Sister Brigid Hirschfeld. Purpose: SEMP 3-session on Interpersonal Skills. Cost: $300 for 2 1/2 days. Length of service: 13th-15th July 1984. Workplan: Same as above consultant. Any excess fee: No. Name: Kaye Raymond, Kaye Raymond &Associates. Purpose: SEMP 3-session on Industrial Democracy case studies. Cost: $100. Length of service: 16th July 1984. Workplan: Build on previous sessions on Industrial Democracy, outline the process and outcomes involved in approaches to Industrial Democracy in the public sector. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr Alan Fels, Monash University. Purpose: SEMP 3. Cost: $100. Length of service: 16th July 1984. Workplan: An overview of Australia's longer term economic prospects with respect to inflation, unemployment, economic growth and changes in the structure of industry. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor David Limerick, Griffith University. Purpose: SEMP 3-session on Organisational Behaviour. Cost: $400. Length of service: 19th-20th July 1984. Workplan: To look at organisation design, complex organisations; matrix organisations; and power and authority relationships in complex organisations. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Phillip Yetton, AGSM. Purpose: SEMP 3-session on Leadership Style and Structure of the Management Team. Cost: $400. Length of service: 17th July 1984. Workplan: To discuss leadership style, feedback, debriefing and a detailed examination of issues arising from the feedback in syndicate groups. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr Andrew Crouch, AGSM. Purpose: SEMP 3-session on Leadership Style and Structure of the Management Team. Cost: $650-$400 for the session and $250 for preparation and analysis of questionnaires. Length of service: 17th July 1984. Workplan: To give attention to the treatment of issues and implications raised by the feedback in the syndicate groups. Any excess fee: No. Name: John McMillan ANU. Purpose: SEMP 4-Constitutional Law, Administrative Law and FOI. Cost: $450. Length of service: 1st-2nd September 1984. Workplan: To address the political and judicial forces that have altered the constitution and the problems that remain, the way it has altered the way we are governed and the options for reform. Review mechanisms for administrative decisions. Impact of FOI and interpretation of it. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr Peter Birrell, Uni of NSW. Purpose: SEMP 4-Executive Health. Cost: $120. Length of service: 2nd September 1984. Workplan: To discuss the physical and psychological stresses, the nature of stress response and its effects on mental and physical health. To examine the principles of stress management. Any excess fee: No. Name: Kaye Raymond. Purpose: SEMP 4-Industrial Democracy. Cost: $200. Length of service: 3rd September 1984. Workplan: To outline the concepts of industrial democracy; explore the various forms; discuss the applicability of these forms to a government department; and consider the constraints. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Dennis Turner, AGSM. Purpose: SEMP 4-Corporate Strategy. Cost: $120. Length of service: 4th September 1984. Workplan: The impetus of strategic planning, strategic planning processes, budgeting element and as an element and as an outcome of strategic planning; and management control systems as mechanisms for providing feedback about strategy implementations. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Jeremy Davis AGSM. Purpose: SEMP 4-Executive Management. Cost: $120 Length of service: 12th September 1984. Workplan: To examine the critical responsibility of senior management to set the long term direction of their organisation. Any excess fee: No. Name: Mr Owen Denmeade, Ogilvy and Nather. Purpose: SEMP 4-Strategic aspects of Personnel Management. Cost: $100. Length of service: 4th September 1984. Workplan: To provide insights as to the strategic contributions of the personnel function, how these contributions can best be made in different types of organisations. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr John Powell, Uni of NSW. Purpose: SEMP 4-session on Oral Communications. Cost: $100. Length of service: 4th September 1984. Workplan: The organisation of ideas; the choice of words; the selection of appropriate sounds and images for conveying the presented message. Any excess fee: No. Name: Sister Brigid Hirschfield. Purpose: SEMP 4-Interpersonal Skills. Cost: $240. Length of service: 8th-9th September 1984. Workplan: To identify interpersonal skills areas of importance. Develop skills to improve the effectiveness of participants communication. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Yetton. Purpose: SEMP 4-Leadership Styles and the Structure of the Management Team. Cost: $400. Length of service: 8th October 1984. Workplan: To discuss leadership style, feedback, debriefing and a detailed examination of issues arising from the feedback in syndicate groups. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr Crouch. Purpose: SEMP 4-same session as for SEMP 3. Cost: $400 and $250. Length of service: 8th October 1984. Workplan: To give attention to the treatment of issues and implications raised by the feedback in the syndicate groups. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Limerick. Purpose: SEMP 4-Organisational Behaviour. Cost: $400. Length of service: 14th September 1984. Workplan: To look at organisation design, complex organisations; matrix organisations; and power and authority relationships in complex organisations. Any excess fee: No. Name: Vic Taylor, AGSM. Purpose: SEMP 4-Negotiating: a conceptual viewpoint. Cost: $228. Length of service: 13th and 15th September 1984. Workplan: To give a theoretical introduction to negotiations. Discuss the various techniques which can be used in negotiating situations. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Robert Parker, ANU. Purpose: SEMP 4-session on Ethics in the Public Service. Cost: $100. Length of service: 15th October 1984. Workplan: Comment on the real ethical dilemmas facing members of the Senior Executive Service and whether the dictates of democracy/efficiency/ethics push in different directions. Any excess fee: No. Name: Kaye Raymond of Kaye Raymond and Associates. Purpose: To conduct sessions on Industrial Democracy in a Senior Management Occasional Seminar. Cost: $750 for 3 1/2 hours (including preparation time). Length of service: 3rd October 1984. Workplan: To promote an understanding among senior managers in departments and authorities of the key concepts of industrial democracy; stimulate discussion on current developments in industrial democracy in the APS provide participants with the opportunity to explore in a practical way, the implementation of specific industrial democracy issues in their workplaces. Any excess fee: No. Name: Mr Phil Boas Purpose: SEC Pilot session on Presentation skills. Cost: $750 a day. Total $6,270 (includes air-fares and accommodation). Length of service: 31.1.85-1.2.85 Workplan: To provide senior executives with an opportunity to develop their presentation skills by identifying what makes presentations interesting, understanding how to use group processes as a presentation tool, selecting and using high quality information for presentation. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr D. Yerbury, General Manager of the Australian Council Purpose: Director-of-Studies for SEMP 5 Cost: No fee Length of service: 16th October, 1984-13th February, 1985 Workplan: N/A Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Bill Birkett, Chairman, School of Accountancy, NSW Uni Purpose: Director of Studies, Senior Executive Conference on ``Corporate Planning''. Cost: $1,960 Length of service: 10th-11th October, 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No. Name: Kaye Raymond Purpose: SEMP 5-session on Industrial Democracy Cost: $200 Length of service: 12th February, 1985 Workplan: To outline the concepts of industrial democracy; explore the various forms; discuss the applicability of these forms to a government department; and consider the constraints. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Dennis Turner, Director of Executive Programs, AGSM, Lecturer on Corporate Management Purpose: SEMP 5-session on Corporate Strategy Cost: $160 Length of service: 31st January, 1985 Workplan: The impetus of strategic planning, strategic planning processes, budgeting as an element and as an outcome of strategic planning; and management control systems as mechanisms for providing feedback about strategy implementations. Any excess fee: No. Name: Mr Owen Denmeade, Training Manager of Ogilary and Marker Purpose: SEMP 5-session on People, Performance and Work Cost: $250 Length of service: 6th February, 1985 Workplan: To look at the small things that effect the extent of a person's sense of achievement at work. Any excess fee: No. Name: Film Australia Purpose: SEMP 5-1-day Media Workshop Cost: $1483-4 presenters Length of service: 7th February, 1985 Workplan: Media overview and introduction. Radio workshops. TV workshops. Summary and discussion. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr John Stamner, Professor AGSM, Partner Chief Economist at Bain &Co. Purpose: SEMP 5-session on an Economic overview Cost: $125 for 1 1/2 hours Length of service: 7th February, 1985 Workplan: An overview of Australia's longer term economic prospects with respect to inflation, unemployment, economic growth and changes in the structure of industry. Any excess fee: No. Name: Jim Hirsch Purpose: SEMP 5-session on Interpersonal Skills Cost: $240 for 2 days and 1 1/2 hours Length of service: 8th-10th February, 1985 Workplan: To identify interpersonal skills areas of importance. Develop skills to improve the effectiveness of participants communication. Any excess fee: No. Name: Ms Celia Roots, Private consultant Purpose: SEMP 5-session on Interpersonal Skills Cost: $360 for 2 days and 1 1/2 hours Length of service: 8th-10th February, 1985 Workplan: Same as previous consultant. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Phillip Yetton, AGSM Purpose: SEMP 5-1 day session on Leadership Style and Structure of the Management team Cost: $400 for 1 day Length of service: 8th February, 1985 Workplan: To discuss leadership style, feedback, debriefing and a detailed examination of issues arising from feedback in groups. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr Andrew Crouch, AGSM Purpose: SEMP 5-1 day session on Leadership Style and Structure of the Management team Cost: $650-$400 for 1 day and $250 for preparation and analysis of questionnaires Length of service: 8th February, 1985 Workplan: To give attention to the treatment of issues and implications raised by the feedback in the syndicate groups. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor David Limerick, Griffith University Purpose: SEMP 5-1 day session on Organisational Behaviour Cost: $560-1 day session and 1 days preparation and 1/2 day preparation of handout material Length of service: 30th-31st January, 1985 Workplan: To look at organisation design, complex organisations; matrix organisations; and power and authority relationships in complex organisations. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Robert Parker, formerly professor in Political Science at ANU Purpose: SEMP 5-session on Ethics in the Public Service Cost: $125 session and preparation Length of service: 11th February, 1985 Workplan: Comment on the real ethical dilemmas facing members of the Senior Executive Service and whether the dictates of democracy/efficiency/ethics push in different directions. Any excess fee: No. Name: Professor Rhonda McIver, part-time Chairperson of the NSW Water Board Purpose: SEMP 5-session on Corporate Planning Cost: $125 for 1 1/4 hours Length of service: 31st January, 1985 Workplan: To build on concepts provided by session on Strategic Management, focusing on how corporate planning is actually conducted Any excess fee: No. Name: Lee Andreson, member of the Tertiary Education Research Centre in the Uni NSW Purpose: SEMP 5-Oral Communication Cost: $200 for 3 sessions Length of service: 31st January-1st February, 1985 Workplan: The organisation of ideas; the choice of words; the selection of appropriate sounds and images for conveying the presented messages. Any excess fee: No Name: Ms Wendy McCarthy, Deputy Chairperson of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Purpose: SEMP 5-session on Achieving Change-Organisations, Policies, People Cost: $125 for 1 1/2 hours and preparation Length of service: 1st February, 1985 Workplan: Case study, focusing on the ABC to discuss strategies for achieving organisational policy, personnel and attitudinal changes Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Phil Boas, private consultant, Precision Communication Purpose: SEMP 5-session on Negotiation Cost: $1,000 for 2 days and $100 cost of book Length of service: 2nd-3rd February, 1985 Workplan: To identify and develop negotiating techniques Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Roger Collins, Senior Lecturer in Personnel Management, AGSM Purpose: SEMP 5-session on Strategic Personnel Management Cost: $100 Length of service: 6th February, 1985 Workplan: Outline concepts of career and life planning, examine the origins and developments of such concepts and the importance of psychology to them Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Tim Dalmau, Managing Director, Tim Dalmau &Associates Purpose: SEMP 5-session on Personnel Management in the APS Cost: $250 for 3 1/2 hours Length of service: 6th February, 1985 Workplan: An overview of the legal policy and procedural contexts and constraints in the APS will form a framework for consideration of the personnel management responsibilities of the individual manager Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Paul Finn, Lecturer of the Law Faculty, ANU Purpose: SEMP 5-session on Confidentiality Cost: $125 Length of service: 11th February, 1985 Workplan: To discuss the laws relating to confidentiality and the public sector, and their relevance to ethics for senior executives Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Eric Barbour, Private Consultant Purpose: SEMP 5-session on Time Management Cost: $350 Length of service: 11th February, 1985 Workplan: To assist participants to analyse their use of time to better manage time as a scarce resource, avoid time wasters, delegate effectively and use support staff to advantage Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Laurie Carmichael, former assistant National Secretary for Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights Union Purpose: SEMP 5 Cost: $125 Length of service: 12th February, 1985 Workplan: To focus on the AMFSU and on its policies, and issues currently facing the union movements Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Tim Dalmau, Dalmau and Associates Purpose: To develop a project brief for the design of a development program for senior executives on Managing People in the APS Cost: $944.45 Length of service: 17th December, 1984 Workplan: See purpose Any excess fee: No Name: Professor C. Margerison Purpose: To facilitate a planning session in the above design process Cost: $500 a day-2 days $1,000 Length of service: 17th December, 1984 Workplan: See purpose Any excess fee: No Name: Professor Birkett Purpose: Director of Studies for Senior Executive Conference `Corporate Planning' Cost: $2,448-8 days preparation and 4 days attendance Length of service: 27th-28th March, 22nd-23rd April, 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Roy Gilbert, Manager Melbourne Football Club Purpose: Session Leader, Senior Executive Conference `Corporate Planning' Cost: $120 Length of service: 27th-28th March, 22nd-23rd April Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Rhonda McIver, management consultant, Rhonda McIver and Associates Pty Ltd Purpose: Session Leader, Senior Executive Conference `Corporate Planning' Cost: $120 Length of service: 22nd-23rd April Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Professor Bowden Purpose: Director of Studies SEMP 6 and 7 Cost: $7,000 for each program Length of service: March 1985-end of June, 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Wayne Bishop, General Manager, HBA Health Management Purpose: Director of Studies-Senior Management Seminar on Healthy Lifestyles Cost: $750 Length of service: 1st May, 1985 Workplan: Recognition of initiatives already being undertaken; information about our proposed strategy and the way it might be implemented in individual departments; and information about certain risk factors eg. fitness and stress and techniques for developing a healthier lifestyle Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Jerry Fitzgerald Purpose: To conduct a Senior Management Seminar: Securing Business Data Communications Cost: $5,000 Length of service: 28 May 1985 Workplan: To discuss the weaknesses in ADP communications systems, and how to secure them Any Excess fee: No Name: Professor Birkett Purpose: Director of Studies-Senior Executive Conference `Corporate Planning' Cost: $1,224-4 days preparation and 2 days attendance Length of service: 12-13 June 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Phil Boas Purpose: To conduct a `Presentation Skills' Workshop Cost: $1,500 for 2 days Length of service: 4-5 June 1985 Workplan: To provide senior executives with an opportunity to develop their presentation skills by identifying what makes presentations interesting, understanding how to use group processes as a presentation tool, selecting and using high quality information presentation Any excess fee: No Name: Jerome Winston, Director of the Applied Research and Development Units, Phillip Institute of Technology, Melbourne Purpose: To advise and train Senior Executive Development Branch staff on training evaluation procedures Cost: $1,100 for 2 days Length of service: 21-22 May 1985 Workplan: Refer Purpose Any excess fee: No Name: Jerome Winston Purpose: To advise Selection and Placement Branch staff on evaluation procedures for SES mobility programs Cost: $600 Length of service: 23 May 1985 Workplan: Not available Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Roy Gilbert Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Executive Conference `Corporate Planning' Cost: $350 Length of service: 12-13 June 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Alice Sargent, Australian Institute of Management Purpose: Senior Management Seminars Cost: $9,000 Length of service: 1 day, 14 June Workplan: (1) A seminar for approximately 250 senior executives, senior Clerical Administrative officers, and EEO co-ordinators (2) A seminar for about eighty senior executives responsible for or with a special interest in EEO (3) A seminar for about eighty EEO co-ordinators (4) A seminar for Secretaries and heads of statutory authorities, by invitation of the Chairman Any excess fee: No Name: Joyce Bleeby Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program Cost: $120 Length of service: 22 February 1984 Workplan: Communications Any excess fee: No Name: Rosemary Martin (South Australian Health Commission) Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program 2 Cost: Nil Length of service: 30 November 1984 Workplan: EEO Any excess fee: No Name: Robin Maslin Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program Cost: $120 Length of service: 22 February 1984 Workplan: Interpersonal Relationships Any excess fee: No Name: Chris Phillips Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program Cost: $500 Length of service: 23 February 1984 Workplan: Leadership Any excess fee: No Name: Warren Jarrett Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program Cost: $150 Length of service: 23 February 1984 Workplan: Problem Solving/Creative Thinking Any excess fee: No Name: Dr A. Parkin Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program Cost: $120 Length of service: 20 February 1984 Workplan: Political Parties Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Neville Owen Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program Cost: $120 Length of service: 21 February 1984 Workplan: Stress Management Any excess fee: No Name: Dr C. Lee Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program Cost: $120 Length of service: 21 February 1984 Workplan: Health/Fitness Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Adrian Geering (Geering Educational Services) Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program Cost: $300 Length of service: 19-24 February 1984 Workplan: Time Management Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Adrian Geering (Geering Educational Services) Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program 2. Cost: $250.00. Length of service: 26 November 1984. Workplan: Management Theory and Alternative Management Styles. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Lois Grant Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program 2. Cost: $400.00. Length of service: 26 November 1984. Workplan: Effective Communications and Motivation. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Trevor Shinnick (SA Health Commission). Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program 2. Cost: Free. Length of service: 27 November 1984. Workplan: Occupational Health and Safety. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Hedley Bachman (SA Department of Labour). Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program 2. Cost: Free. Length of service: 27 November 1984. Workplan: Industrial Relations. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Tony Loan (Sait). Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program 2. Cost: $105.00. Length of service: 27 November 1984. Workplan: Corporate Planning. Any Excess Fee: No Name: Professor Bob Northcote (Sait). Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program 2. Cost: $250.00. Length of service: 29 November 1984. Workplan: Management and Technology. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Lillian Holt (Aboriginal Community College). Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program 2. Cost: $100.00. Length of service: 30 November 1984. Workplan: Aboriginal Culture/EEO. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Mr Fred Grailit. Purpose: Session Leader-Organisation Officers Study Group. Cost: $40.00. Length of service: 17 November 1983. Workplan: Management Theory Session. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Mr Fred Grailit (Sait). Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course. Cost: $100.00. Length of service: 10-14 September 1984. Workplan: Management Theory and Alternative Leadership Styles. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Mr Fred Grailit. Purpose: Sessional Leader-Middle Management Course. Cost: $75.00. Length of service: 10-14 September 1984. Workplan: Managing Conflict and Change. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Mr Fred Grailit. Purpose: Planning and Review Course. Cost: $60.00. Length of service: 28 November-1 December 1984. Workplan: Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Mr Fred Grailit. Purpose: Organisation Officers Study Group. Cost: $90.00. Length of service: 17 November 1983. Workplan: Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Mr Fred Grailit. Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course. Cost: $150.00. Length of service: 29 April 1985. Workplan: Management Theory and Leadership Styles. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Mr Fred Grailit (Sait). Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course. Cost: $150.00. Length of service: 28 May 1985. Workplan: Management Theory and Leadership Styles. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Mr Fred Grailit (Sait). Purpose: Session Leader-Senior Management Development Program 2. Cost: $100.00. Length of service: 27 November 1984. Workplan: Managing Conflict and Change. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Mr Fred Grilhans (Sait). Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course. Cost: $175.00. Length of service: 10-14 September 1984. Workplan: Project Management. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Mr Fred Grilhans (Sait). Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course. Cost: $250.00. Length of service: 12 November 1984. Workplan: Communications and Negotiations. Any Excess Fee: No. Name: Mr Fred Grilhans (Sait). Purpose: Session Leader-SMDP 2 Cost: $250.00 Length of service: 29 November 1984 Workplan: Project Management Any excess fee: No Name: Jan Mitchell Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $105.00 Length of service: 10-14 September 1984 Workplan: Staff Appraisal, Counselling Any excess fee: No Name: Jan Mitchell Purpose: Selection Interviewing Course Cost: $240.00 Length of service: 30 May-1 June 1983 Workplan: Staff Appraisal, Counselling Any excess fee: No Name: Jan Mitchell Purpose: Selection Interviewing Course Cost: $240.00 Length of service: 7-9 March 1983 Workplan: Staff Appraisal, Counselling Any excess fee: No Name: Jan Mitchell Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $60.00 Length of service: 13 November 1984 Workplan: Staff Appraisal, Counselling Any excess fee: No Name: Mr B. Nott (TAFE) Purpose: Introduction to Management Cost: $420.00 Length of service: 9-12 July 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr B. Nott (TAFE) Purpose: Introduction to Management Cost: $480.00 Length of service: 6-9 December 1983 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr B. Nott (TAFE) Purpose: Introduction to Management Cost: $1300.00 Length of service: 11-14 June 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Brian Ford (Marino Relaxation Clinic) Purpose: Stress Management Course Cost: $210.00 Length of service: 11 and 18 March 1983 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Brian Ford (Marino Relaxation Clinic) Purpose: Assertiveness and Communication Cost: $360.00 Length of service: 7 and 8 November 1984 Workplan: Assertiveness Training and Communication Skills Any excess fee: No Name: Brian Ford (Marino Relaxation Clinic) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $120.00 Length of service: 13 November 1984 Workplan: Stress Management Any excess fee: No Name: Brian Ford (Marino Relaxation Clinic) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $105.00 Length of service: 2 May 1985 Workplan: Stress Management Any excess fee: No Name: Brian Ford (Marino Relaxation Clinic) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $105.00 Length of service: 30 May 1985 Workplan: Stress Management Any excess fee: No Name: Brian Ford (Marino Relaxation Clinic) Purpose: Session Leader-SMDP 2 Cost: $90.00 Length of service: 27 November 1984 Workplan: Executive Health Any excess fee: No Name: Keith London Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $200.00 Length of service: 14 November 1984 Workplan: Technology Awareness for Managers Any excess fee: No Name: Keith London Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $200.00 Length of service: 2 May 1985 Workplan: Technology Awareness for Managers Any excess fee: No Name: Keith London Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $200.00 Length of service: 30 May 1985 Workplan: Technology Awareness for Managers Any excess fee: No Name: Cabe de Bruyn (State Department of Labour) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: Free Length of service: 15 November 1984 Workplan: Industrial Democracy Any excess fee: No Name: Cabe de Bruyn (State Department of Labour) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: Free Length of service: 29 April 1985 and 29 May 1985 Workplan: Industrial Democracy Any excess fee: No Name: Kevin Haag (SA Department of Recreation and Sport) Purpose: Healthy Lifestyles Seminar Cost: Free Length of service: 25 February 1985 Workplan: Workplace Fitness-Initiating a Healthy Lifestyles Program Any excess fee: No Name: Tony Sedgewick (Institute for Fitness, Research and Training Inc) Purpose: Healthy Lifestyles Seminar Cost: Free Length of service: 25 February 1985 Workplan: Practical Suggestions Any excess fee: No Name: Tony Sedgewick (Institute for Fitness, Research and Training Inc) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Courses Cost: Free Length of service: 3 May 1985 and 31 May 1985 Workplan: Health for Managers Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Margaret Moody (National Heart Foundation) Purpose: Healthy Lifestyles Seminar Cost: Free Length of service: 25 February 1985 Workplan: Heart Disease Any excess fee: No Name: Warwick Marshall (OCARS) Purpose: Healthy Lifestyles Seminar Cost: Free Length of service: 25 February 1985 Workplan: Employee Assistance Program Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Adrian Geering (Geering Educational Services) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $75.00 Length of service: 10-14 September 1984 Workplan: Time Management Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Adrian Geering (Geering Educational Services) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $150.00 Length of service: 12 November 1984 Workplan: Management Theory and Leadership Styles Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Adrian Geering (Geering Educational Services) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $100.00 Length of service: 16 November 1984 Workplan: Time Management Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Adrian Geering (Geering Educational Services) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $200.00 Length of service: 30 April 1985 Workplan: Time Management Any excess fee: No Name: Cameron Johnson (CCAE) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $200.00 Length of service: 27 May 1985 Workplan: Time Management Any excess fee: No Name: Tony Jacobs (SA Brewing Co.) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $75.00 Length of service: 16 November 1984 Workplan: Organisations and Structures Any excess fee: No Name: Tony Jacobs (SA Brewing Co.) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $75.00 Length of service: 3 May 1985 Workplan: Organisations and Structures Any excess fee: No Name: Tony Jacobs (SA Brewing Co.) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $75.00 Length of service: 31 May 1985 Workplan: Organisations and Structures Any excess fee: No Name: Gene Whitford (Whitford Consultants Pty Ltd) Purpose: Management Seminar Cost: $750.00 Length of service: 23 May 1985 Workplan: Counselling for Managers Any excess fee: No Name: George McGrath Purpose: Management Seminar Cost: $200.00 Length of service: 12-13 February 1985 Workplan: Reading for Speech and Efficiency Any excess fee: No Name: George McGrath Purpose: Management Seminar Cost: $50.00 Length of service: 16 April 1985 Workplan: Reading for Speech and Efficiency Follow-up Any excess fee: No Name: George McGrath Purpose: Management Seminar Cost: $200.00 Length of service: 12-13 August 1985 Workplan: Reading for Speech and Efficiency Any excess fee: No Name: Robert Molloy (R. M. Associates) Purpose: Management Seminar Cost: $190.00 Length of service: 4 June 1985 Workplan: Management Values Any excess fee: No Name: Pauline Cunner Purpose: Selection Interviewing Course Cost: $240.00 Length of service: 7-9 March 1983 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Pauline Cunner Purpose: Selection Interviewing Course Cost: $240.00 Length of service: 30 May-1 June 1983 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: G. Hill (TAFE) Purpose: Repetition Injury course Cost: $30.00 Length of service: 5-6 May 1983 Workplan: Ergonomics Any excess fee: No Name: Ross Harris (Flinders Medical Centre) Purpose: Stress Management Course Cost: $105.00 Length of service: 11 and 18 March 1983 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Allan Stewart (Flinders Medical Centre) Purpose: Stress Management Course Cost: $105.00 Length of service: 11 and 18 March 1983 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Ms E. Beeby (TAFE) Purpose: Assertiveness Training for Women Cost: $420.00 Length of service: 16-19 July 1984 Workplan: 4 x 1/2 day sessions Any excess fee: No Name: Doug Allen (Commonwealth Superannuation Officers Association) Purpose: Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $30.00 Length of service: 27-28 February 1984 Workplan: Superannuation Any excess fee: No Name: Doug Allen (Commonwealth Superannuation Officers Association) Purpose: Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $30.00 Length of service: 13-14 April 1983 Workplan: Superannuation Any excess fee: No Name: Doug Allen (Commonwealth Superannuation Officers Association) Purpose: Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $30.00 Length of service: 26 November 1984 Workplan: Superannuation Any excess fee: No Name: Ron Marsh (Commonwealth Superannuation Officers Association) Purpose: Session Leader-Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $30.00 Length of service: 23 August 1984 Workplan: Superannuation Session (1 hour) Any excess fee: No Name: Ron Marsh (Commonwealth Superannuation Officers Association) Purpose: Session Leader-Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $30.00 Length of service: 26 February 1984 Workplan: Superannuation Session (1 hour) Any excess fee: No Name: Ron Marsh (Commonwealth Superannuation Officers Association) Purpose: Session Leader-Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $30.00 Length of service: 28 February 1984 Workplan: Superannuation Session (1 hour) Any excess fee: No Name: Elizabeth Hutchinson Purpose: Session Leader-Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $105.00 Length of service: 23 August 1984 Workplan: Lifestyle Accommodation and Activities Any excess fee: No Name: Elizabeth Hutchinson Purpose: Session Leader-Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $105.00 Length of service: 13-14 April 1984 Workplan: Lifestyle Accommodation and Activities Any excess fee: No Name: Elizabeth Hutchinson Purpose: Session Leader-Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $105.00 Length of service: 26 February 1984 Workplan: Lifestyle Accommodation and Activities Any excess fee: No Name: Elizabeth Hutchinson Purpose: Session Leader-Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $105.00 Length of service: 28 February 1984 Workplan: Lifestyle Accommodation and Activities Any excess fee: No Name: Elizabeth Hutchinson Purpose: Session Leader-Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $105.00 Length of service: 26 November 1984 Workplan: Lifestyle Accommodation and Activities Any excess fee: No Name: Mr A. Fischer (Commonwealth Superannuation Officers Association) Purpose: Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $30.00 Length of service: 22-23 August 1984 Workplan: Superannuation Session Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Rob Symons (CPS Credit Union) Purpose: Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: free Length of service: 27 February 1985 Workplan: Finance and Investment Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Rob Symons (CPS Credit Union) Purpose: Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: free Length of service: 27 November 1985 Workplan: Finance and Investment Any excess fee: No Name: Mr Rob Symons (CPS Credit Union) Purpose: Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: free Length of service: 1st March 1985 Workplan: Finance and Investment Any excess fee: No Name: Brian Steig Purpose: Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: Free Length of service: 27 February 1985 Workplan: Wills and Estate Planning Any excess fee: No Name: Brian Steig Purpose: Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: Free Length of service: 1 March 1985 Workplan: Wills and Estate Planning Any excess fee: No Name: John Gur (Executive Development Pty Ltd) Purpose: Staff Development Seminar Cost: $400.00 Length of service: 17 September 1984 Workplan: Needs Analysis Any excess fee: No Name: John Gur (Executive Development Pty Ltd) Purpose: Staff Development Seminar Cost: $600.00 Length of service: 14 February 1985 Workplan: Alternative Approaches to Training Any excess fee: No Name: Bill Holdsworth (Sait) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $100.00 Length of service: 15 November 1985 Workplan: Industrial Relations Any excess fee: No Name: Bill Holdsworth (Sait) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $220.00 Length of service: 29 April 1985 and 27 May 1985 Workplan: Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Any excess fee: No Name: Bill Georgion (Australian National) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: Free Length of service: 15 November 1984 and 29 April 1985 Workplan: Corporate Planning Any excess fee: No Name: Mal Hutton (University of Adelaide) Purpose: Stress Management Seminar Cost: $500.00 Length of service: 17 June 1985 Workplan: Regional and Organisational Stress Management Any excess fee: No Name: Mr P. Quarry (Preston TAFE) Purpose: Experimental Learning Workshop Cost: $1500.00 Length of service: April 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr P. Quarry (Preston TAFE) Purpose: Evaluation of Training w/s Cost: $1190.00 Length of service: November 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr P. Quarry (Preston TAFE) Purpose: Experimental Learning Workshop w/s Cost: $1900.00 Length of service: May 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr P. Chandler (Chisolm Institute) Purpose: Marketing Staff Development Cost: $204.00 Length of service: October 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr E. Weiss Purpose: Public Speaking Cost: $600.00 Length of service: March 1983, April 1983 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr E. Weiss Purpose: Public Speaking Cost: $600.00 Length of service: August 1983, September 1983 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr E. Weiss Purpose: Public Speaking Cost: $600.00 Length of service: February 1984, April 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr E. Weiss Purpose: Public Speaking Cost: $300.00 Length of service: June 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Public Contact Cost: $800.00 Length of service: 6-8 November 1984 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Mr H. Aram (Aram Investment Consultants) Purpose: Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $350.00 Length of service: July 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Commonwealth Superannuated Officers Purpose: Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $350.00 Length of service: December 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Commonwealth Superannuated Officers Purpose: Retirement Planning Seminar Cost: $280.00 Length of service: May 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Professor R. Lansbury; Mr N. I. Smith; Mr O. Denmeade; Mr J. Owen; Ms S. Medina Purpose: Management for Senior Managers Cost: $10,060.00 Length of service: 19-21 March 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr M. Crenaune Purpose: Consulting skills for trainers Cost: $1,275.00 Length of service: 13-14 February 1984 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Ms E. Leigh Purpose: Consulting skills for trainers Cost: $150.00 Length of service: 23-25 February 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr R. Hockley Purpose: Group skills for trainers Cost: $1,600.00 Length of service: 23-25 February 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Warwick Hammill &Associates Purpose: Communicating assertively Cost: $3,000.00 Length of service: 13-15 March 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Warwick Hammill &Associates Purpose: Communicating assertively Cost: $3,000.00 Length of service: 22-24 March 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: McIver &Associates Purpose: Organisational behaviour for trainers Cost: $1,000.00 Length of service: 17 April 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Dr R. Collins Purpose: Management for middle managers Cost: $1,064.96 Length of service: 27 May 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr O. Denmeade Purpose: Management for middle managers Cost: $350.00 Length of service: 29 May 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Ms E. Fell Purpose: Women in non-traditional occupations Cost: $1,250.00 Length of service: 13-14 June 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Ms E. Fell Purpose: Women in non-traditional occupations Cost: $1,250.00 Length of service: 29 May 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Precision Communication Purpose: Presentation skills for senior management Cost: $2,240.00 Length of service: 4-5 June 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Bill Donnelly Purpose: Managing the personnel development function Cost: $400.00 Length of service: 6-7 June 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Mr J. Leard Purpose: Essential elements of management for senior managers Cost: Free Length of service: 18 August 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Professor R. Lansbury Purpose: Management for senior managers Cost: $500.00 Length of service: 19 August 1985 Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion Any excess fee: No Name: Barry McMillan (SAIT) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $75.00 Length of service: 15 November 1984 Workplan: Financial Management Any excess fee: No Name: Barry McMillan (SAIT) Purpose: Session Leader-SMDP 2 Cost: $105.00 Length of service: 28 November 1984 Workplan: Financial Management Any excess fee: No Name: Peter Agars (Touche Ross) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $100.00 Length of service: 10-14 September 1984 Workplan: Organisation and Review Session Any excess fee: No Name: Peter Agars (Touche Ross) Purpose: Session Leader-SMDP 2 Cost: $200.00 Length of service: 28 September 1984 Workplan: Organisation, Design and Review Any excess fee: No Name: Margaret Patrickson (SAIT) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $100.00 Length of service: 10-14 September 1984 Workplan: Communications and Negotiations Any excess fee: No Name: Margaret Patrickson (SAIT) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $75.00 Length of service: 16 November 1984 Workplan: Managing Conflict and Change Any excess fee: No Name: Brian Ford (Marino Relaxation Clinic) Purpose: Session Leader-Middle Management Course Cost: $105.00 Length of service: 10-14 September 1984 Workplan: Stress Management Any excess fee: No Name: Brian Ford (Marino Relaxation Clinic) Purpose: Stress Management Course Cost: $180.00 Length of service: 2, 19 October and 16 November 1983 Workplan: In-house Stress Course Any excess fee: No Name: Steve Biddulph (Humanity Training) Purpose: Interpersonal Skills Cost: $360.00 Length of service: 8 May 1984 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline of Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Steve Biddulph (Humanity Training) Purpose: Interpersonal Skills Cost: $360.00 Length of service: 3 June 1985 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline of Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Val Nosa (Personnel and Corporate Training P/L) Purpose: Facilitator-Regional Management Conference Cost: $1600.00 Length of service: 25-27 March 1985 Workplan: Any excess fee: No Name: Val Nosa (Personnel and Corporate Training P/L) Purpose: Job Performance Feedback Cost: $500.00 Length of service: 11 May 1984 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Val Nosa (Personnel and Corporate Training P/L) Purpose: Leadership and Motivation Cost: $500.00 Length of service: 13 June 1985 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Val Nosa (Personnel and Corporate Training P/L) Purpose: Conflict Resolution Cost: $500.00 Length of service: 24 April 1985 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Val Nosa (Personnel and Corporate Training P/L) Purpose: Time Management Cost: $500.00 Length of service: 3 May 1985 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Harry Stanton Purpose: Stress Management Cost: $350.00 Length of service: May 1983 (one day) Workplan: Submission of Outline Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Harry Stanton Purpose: Managing Yourself and Others Cost: $350.00 Length of service: 26 March 1985 Workplan: Submission of Outline Any excess fee: No Name: Kris Foweraker (Affective Training Service) Purpose: Public Contact Cost: $400.00 Length of service: 15 February 1985 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Kris Foweraker (Affective Training Service) Purpose: Time Management Cost: $380.00 Length of service: 22 April 1985 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Kris Foweraker (Affective Training Service) Purpose: Communications Cost: $400.00 Length of service: 18 April 1985 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Kris Foweraker (Affective Training Service) Purpose: Public Contact Cost: $400.00 Length of service: 24 April 1985 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Kris Foweraker (Affective Training Service) Purpose: Session Leading Cost: $600.00 Length of service: 1-3 October 1984 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Brian Palfrey Purpose: Written Communication Cost: $840.00 Length of service: 11, 13, 17 and 20 June 1985 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Clemencia Jones Purpose: Assertiveness Training Cost: $600.00 Length of service: 11, 18, 25 July 1985 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any excess fee: No Name: Judi Brown-Parker Purpose: Informal Negotiating Cost: $250.00 Length of Service: 27 April 1985 (Half day) Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Joyce Redfern Purpose: Career Path Planning Cost: $580.00 Length of Service: 14-15 March 1985, 21-22 August 1984 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Robyn Miller Purpose: Stress Management Cost: $150.00 Length of Service: 9 May 1984 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Michael Griffin Purpose: Stress Management Cost: $150.00 Length of Service: 9 May 1984 Workplan: Acceptance of Course, Outline and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Supervision Cost: $1280.00 Length of Service: 18-20 April 1983 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Public Contact Cost: $800.00 Length of Service: 9-10 May 1983 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Pre-Retirement Cost: $640.00 Length of Service: 6-8 June 1983 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Effective Writing Cost: $800.00 Length of Service: 1-5 May 1983 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Supervision Cost: $1280.00 Length of Service: 5-8 September 1983 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Pre-Retirement Cost: $440.00 Length of Service: 3-5 October 1983 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Public Contact Cost: $640.00 Length of Service: 31 October-1 November 1985 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Effective Writing Cost: $800.00 Length of Service: 27 February-2 March 1983 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Supervision Cost: $1280.00 Length of Service: 13-16 March 1984 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Public Contact Cost: $640.00 Length of Service: 18-19 April 1984 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Pre-Retirement Cost: $650.00 Length of Service: 16-18 May 1984 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Effective Writing Cost: $800.00 Length of Service: 4-8 June 1984 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Public Contact Cost: $800.00 Length of Service: 23-25 July 1984 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Supervision Cost: $1280.00 Length of Service: 27-30 August 1984 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Effective Writing Cost: $800.00 Length of Service: 3-6 September 1984 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Hobart Training Service Purpose: Supervision Cost: $1280.00 Length of Service: 16-19 October 1984 Workplan: Package and Briefing Any Excess Fee: No Name: Ms R. McIver. Purpose: Management for Senior Managers. Cost: $500.00. Length of service: 19 August 1985. Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion. Any excess fee: No. Name: Mr O. Denmeade. Purpose: Management for Senior Managers. Cost: $350.00. Length of service: 19 October 1985. Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion. Any excess fee: No. Name: Ms P. Webster (Advance Consultants). Purpose: Marketing the Personnel Development function. Cost: $1800.00. Length of service: June 1984. Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr R. Spillane. Purpose: Stress Management. Cost: $2000.00. Length of service: April 1985. Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion. Any excess fee: No. Name: Dr R. Spillane. Purpose: Stress Management. Cost: $2000.00. Length of service: 11-12 June 1985. Workplan: Presentation of address and discussion. Any excess fee: No. Name: T. Dalmau &Associates. Purpose: Design and Facilitate Residential for Regional Heads focussing on Management Development. Cost: $1500.00. Length of service: April to June 1984. Workplan: Comprehensive Brief detailing background objectives and possible mechanisms for ensuring maintenance of improvements. Any excess fee: $150.00-For an additional negotiated Fee of $150.00 the consultant prepared a report on design, methods and achievements of intervention. Name: Effective Negotiation Services. Purpose: Develop and apply negotiation skills of Senior Managers in Brisbane. Cost: $5100.00. Length of service: February to August 1985. Workplan: Based on individual needs analysis; written statement of objectives; Brief on requirements of specific groups eg. Industrial Relations Managers. Any excess fee: No. Name: Effective Negotiation Services. Purpose: Develop and apply negotiation skills of Senior Managers in Townsville. Cost: $6290.00. Length of service: February to August 1985. Workplan: Individual Needs analysis; written statement of objectives; Brief on requirements of specific groups eg. Marine Park Authority Negotiators. Compliance Officers (Tax). Property Negotiators (DOLGAS). Any excess fee: No. Name: Bob Dick. Purpose: Design, Facilitate and Evaluate a major segment of the Senior Management Development Program. Cost: $3000.00. Length of service: April to August 1985. Workplan: Background material and frequent personal discussions and negotiations with Regional Working Party. Written statement of objectives. Any excess fee: No. Name: T. Dalmau &Associates. Purpose: Design and Facilitate ``Training as Consultancy'' workshop for Queensland Staff Development Personnel (2 consultants). Cost: $6600.00. Length of service: 25-27 June 1985. Workplan: Background material and frequent personal discussions and negotiations with Regional Working Party. Written statement of objectives. Any excess fee: No. Name: TAFE Division of WA Education Department. Purpose: Staff Development. Cost: $13,390.00. Length of service: March to December 1983 55 days of training courses. Workplan: See Attachment A. Any excess fee: No. Name: TAFE Division of WA Education Department. Purpose: Staff Development. Cost: $22,252.00. Length of service: 1984-81.5 training days. Workplan: See Attachment 1. Any excess fee: No. Name: TAFE Division of WA Education Department. Purpose: Staff Development. Cost: $17,208.00. Length of service: 1985 (to 30/9/85) 54.5 training days. Workplan: See Attachment A. Any excess fee: No. Name: WA Management Development Centre Churchlands' College of Advanced Education Purpose: Staff Development. Cost: $9,500.00. Length of service: March 1983-December 1983. Workplan: See Attachment A. Any excess fee: No. Name: WA Management Development Centre Churchlands' College of Advanced Education Purpose: Staff Development. Cost: $9,500.00. Length of service: 1984-10 training days. Workplan: See Attachment A. Any excess fee: No. Name: WA Management Development Centre Churchlands' College of Advanced Education Purpose: Staff Development. Cost: $9,180.00. Length of service: 1985-13 training days. Workplan: See Attachment A. Any excess fee: No. Name: Wait-Aid Ltd WA Institute of Technology Purpose: Staff Development Cost: $2,210.00 Length of service: 1984-5 training days Workplan: See Attachment A Any excess fee: No Name: Wait-Aid Ltd WA Institute of Technology Purpose: Staff Development Cost: $4,420.00 Length of service: 1985-10 training days Workplan: See Attachment A Any excess fee: No Name: Wait Business Systems Centre, WA Institute of Technology Purpose: Staff Development-Computer Awareness Cost: $18,880.00 Length of service: 1984-25 training days Workplan: See Attachment A Any excess fee: No Name: Wait Business Systems Centre, WA Institute of Technology Purpose: Staff Development-Computer Awareness Cost: $13,920.00 Length of service: 1985-19 training days Workplan: See Attachment A Any excess fee: No Name: Council on Ageing Purpose: Staff Development-Pre retirement Planning Seminars Cost: $2,670.00 Length of service: 1983-6 training days Workplan: See Attachment A Any excess fee: No Name: Council on Ageing Purpose: Staff Development-Pre retirement Planning Seminars Cost: $890 Length of service: 1984-2 training days Workplan: See Attachment A Any excess fee: No Name: Council on Ageing Purpose: Staff Development-Pre retirement Planning Seminars Cost: $800.00 Length of service: 1985-2 training days Workplan: See Attachment A Any excess fee: No Name: TAFE-Division of WA Education Department Purpose: Personnel Management Development Program-Search Conferences (Management Improvement Activity) Cost: $178.00 Length of service: 1985-0.5 training days Workplan: See Attachment A Any excess fee: No Name: Ms Kaye Raymond; Kaye Raymond Associates, Sydney Purpose: Course for women-develop, test and provide material for a course for women in the APS on `Career Planning and Development' Cost: $5000.00 Length of service: 7-9 December 1983; 9-11 May 1984 Workplan: 1. Design and develop course material. 2. Pilot test the course for 3 days each in Sydney and Canberra. 3. Make necessary changes to course. 4. Present a training manual Any excess fee: No Name: Ms Lynne Wenig; Lynne Wenig Associate, Melbourne Purpose: Prepare, present and assess a 3 day seminar on Taking charge: assertiveness techniques for women managers for APS senior women program Cost: $5000.00; $1500.00-re-engagement to conduct course Length of service: 20-22 February 1984 Workplan: 1. Consultancy with PSB, discussions with senior women. 2. Seminar development and 2 pilot presentations. 3. Provide seminar materials. 4. Develop training package manual. 5. Re-engagement and conduct course Any excess fee: No Name: Dr Rhonda McIver; McIver Associates, Sydney Purpose: Prepare training materials for use by staff development officers for 3 PSB training programs (Personnel Management Scheme, Executive Development Scheme, Senior Executive Conferences) Cost: $2200.00 Length of service: May 1983-45 hours; 2 days training (20 July and 26 October 1983) Workplan: 1. Preparation of course outline and material a. Management and Interpersonal Skill b. Supervision and Interpersonal Skills 2. Pilot testing 3. Conduct training Any excess fee: No Name: Margaret Valadian, Natasha MacNamara Purpose: Discuss middle-management knowledge and skills re Aboriginal Women Cost: $8226.00 Length of service: 20-24 May 1985 Workplan: See purpose Any excess fee: None Name: Ms Virginia Navarro; Visiting Research fellow ANU Purpose: To discuss Middle-Management knowledge and skills with Aboriginal women Cost: $1250.00 Length of service: 4 July 1985 Workplan: See purpose Any excess fee: No Name: Merril Cook Purpose: Living with Disabilities Workshop Cost: $375.00 Length of service: 4 July 1985 Workplan: To conduct a Hearing Impairment Workshop. To design and provide necessary equipment as agreed on Any excess fee: No Name: Cass Hawker Associates Purpose: To provide consultancy services associated with the undertaking of an Equal Employment Opportunity Survey of all APS staff. Cost: $50,064.95 Length of service: 60 days-January-April 1985 Workplan: 1. Develop draft questionnaire for services wide EEO survey; 2. Develop draft specification of statistical tables required; 3. Provide advice on conduct of survey and relevant documentation; 4. Revise survey form and other documentation in the light of comments from Departments and staff organisations; 5. Advise on revisions required after a pilot survey; 6. Prepare a report on project results and future priorities. Note: the conduct of the pilot and main surveys have been postponed from the original target dates. Steps 5 and 6 have therefore not been completed Any excess fee: No ATTACHMENT `A' ENGAGEMENT CRITERIA All submissions will be assessed on the following criteria: The extent to which the proposal reveals a proper understanding of the matters involved and outlines a sound approach to their resolution; The experience and demonstrated capabilities of the consultant, and where applicable, the consultancy team (session leaders); Value for money; The proposed time scale for starting and completing the assignment; The capacity for a consultant's locally based resources to provide continuing services at levels likely to be required during the course of the assignment. FORMAT FOR SUBMISSIONS (a) Course title. (b) An outline of the intended approach to the course including session outline. (c) Information on other courses/assignments conducted which are considered to be relevant to your organisation's competence to undertake the proposed assignments. This should include the names and telephone numbers of references. (d) Details of the names, intended extent of involvement, qualifications, experience and other relevant details of the session leaders it is proposed to use. (e) A statement of fees proposed based on your organisation's intended approach. It will assist our consideration of submissions if costings can be separated into consultancy fees (expressed on an hourly rate basis), and any other costs involved. COURSE SPECIFICATIONS 1. Administrative Law: (a) Aims To provide mid-level managers with an understanding of the aims of Administrative Law, and its application to and implications for the workplace. This will include- An understanding of the overall inter-relationship of the segments of Administrative Law; An understanding of the impact of Administrative Law on the participants' duties; The modification of any work related behaviours which will be likely to bring the participant into conflict with administrative Law requirements; An understanding of the Common Law principles underlying Adminstrative Law. (b) Objectives of the course At the end of the course, participants will be able to: Define in general terms, the concepts of `Natural Justice', and `Duty of Care'; List the basic segments of Administrative Law; State the broad aims and methods of operation of each of these segments; Correctly identify the appropriate segment of Administrative Law applicable to any given situation; Direct and counsel subordinates in their duties to ensure that decisions and documentation does not conflict with the requirements of Administrative or Common Law; (c) Content Outline Introduction and outline of the course structure. Concepts including natural justice, duty of care, defamation, etc. Consultant. Merit Protection Review Agency. Australian Public Service Representative. Discrimination-Public Service Board/Human Rights Commission. Speaker. Ombudsman-Representative from the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Common Law duties. Consultant. Freedom of Information, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Administrative Decisions Judicial Review. Consultant. The consultant will be responsible for the development of a referral document for participants to keep. See section on Role of Consultants. Duration of approximately three days. 2. Industrial Relations. (a) Aims To improve the manager's knowledge of the National, State and Australian Public Service industrial relations environments. To develop an understanding of the dynamics of industrial relations, and the appropriate knowledge and skills to operate as a manager. To understand major trends and issues in the national scene of relevance to the short and longer term development of industrial relations in the Australian Public Service. To understand the role of the manager in industrial relations in the Australian Public Service and to learn of the contribution the manager might make. (b) Objectives At the end of the course, participants will be able to: Outline the institutional arrangements of industrial relations in the Australian Public Service; Conduct effective negotiations with staff Associations/union representatives; Define the manager's role in industrial relations in the Australian Public Service; (c) Content outline The course should occupy two-three days. The format will comprise: basic information sessions; contributions from guest speakers; case studies; syndicate exercise; informal exchange between course members. The sequence is organised to progress from the enviroment, through necessary skills and knowledge, to major trends and issue, and then to the contribution expected from the participants in the subject area. (d) Format Session 1 (a) Course introduction-Consultant. (b) Industrial relations-an overview incorporating both National and State perspectives-Consultant. Session 2 (a) Industrial relations-institutional arrangements in the Australian Public Service-Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Session 3 (a) Art of negotiation-consultant. Session 4 (a) Perspectives on industrial relations (guest speaker)-consultant. Session 5 (a) Case Studies/syndicate exercise. Session 6 (a) Longer term trends and issues from a union perspective-Staff Association representatives. Session 7 (a) The industrial relations scene in the private sector-Confederation of Western Australia industry. Session 8 (a) The manager from the union view-Staff Association representative. Session 9 (a) Industrial relations in the Australian Public Service-present and future directions-Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. ROLE OF CONSULTANTS It is envisaged that the consultant would be involved in the assignments in the following manner: Firstly, as a course co-ordinator, to draw the sessions together and ensure continuity, etc.; Secondly, to provide expertise in the general theoretical areas (indicated by asterisks). In regard to the Industrial Relations course, this will also include the provision of a guest speaker on ``Perspectives on Industrial Relations''; The consultant would be expected to liaise closely with other session leaders from Departments and other organisations as outlined to ensure compatability of information presented and the effectiveness of these sessions. The Public Service Board will assist in the Co-ordination of meetings between the consultant and these other organisations. (Question No. 1460) Mr Blunt asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What journals, digests, files, periodicals and the like are produced by instrumentalities within the Minister's portfolio. (2) For each publication (a) when was it established, (b) which section within the Minister's portfolio produces it, (c) how many staff are involved in its production and for what percentage of time are they involved, (d) how often is it produced, (e) by whom is it printed and what is the print run, (f) what is the circulation and to whom, or where is it circulated, (g) who has editorial control, (h) what are its stated objectives and (i) what are the printing, staff and administrative costs associated with its production. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Details of periodicals and other information publications produced by my Department and by instrumentalities within my portfolio for external distribution, are set out in the following table (attached). Publication Established Produced by Staff Involved Frequency Printer and Print Run Circulation Editorial Control Objectives Costs* Status of Women Report December 1984. (Ceased 9/85) Office of the Status of Women in Department About 25% of one Journalist's time spent on this and on Office of the Status of Women Newsbrief 3 monthly intervals Published in the Australian Women's Weekly To Women's Weekly readers Office of the Status of Women and Women's Weekly Editorial staff To disseminate information on issues affecting the status of women Staff about $3,800 p.a. Printing-no charge Office of the Status of Women Newsbrief March 1985 Office of the Status of Women in Department See above 3 monthly intervals Various Canberra printing firms-5,000 per issue Through OSW mailing lists and through Women's Information Services in Queensland and Tasmania Office of the Status of Women As above Staff about $3,800 p.a. Printing-about $500 per issue Youth Affairs Newsletter ``Options'' November 1984 Office of Youth Affais in Department 25% of one person Quarterly Canberra Publishing &Printing Co. 30,000 per issue Through OYA and IYY mailing lists, State Youth Departments, schools, Members of Parliament and interested persons Office of Youth Affairs To disseminate information on youth related issues and to stimulate interest in IYY events/ activities Staff about $5,000 p.a. Printing and layout-about $7,000 per issue for full colour IYY Newsbrief ``Round-up'' December 1984 Office of Youth Affairs 20% of one person Fortnightly Printed within Department. 1,800 per issue All Radio and TV stations, Newspapers, IYY groups, Members of Parliament and interested persons Office of Youth Affairs To give brief information about numerous events to stimulate interest in IYY events and to spread ideas Staff about $4,000 p.a. Printing-about $2,000 p.a. Digest of Inter- governmental Agreements August 1984 Advisory Council for Inter- governmental Relations (ACIR) 3 staff-approx. 10% of their time 3 times per annum AGPS document reproduction service-500 copies Selected libraries and interested government bodies ACIR To update interested bodies on changes in the respective areas of administration Estimated total of $10,000 p.a. Register of Commonwealth/ State Co-operative Arrangements August 1982 ACIR As above Annually Tasmanian Government Printer. 200 copies Premiers' Departments, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, members of ACIR, Parliamentary Libraries and a small number of selected libraries ACIR As above Estimated total of $9,500 p.a. Bicentenary '88 (Newsletter of the Australian Bicentennial Authority) November 1980 The Australian Bicentennial Authority (ABA) One person spends 2 months on each issue and 2 others about 5 days full-time for each issue Quarterly Tenders called each 12 months. Successful tenderer for 1984/85 was Offset Alpine, Silverwater NSW. Print run per issue is now around 55,000 TV and Radio stations, newspapers, parliamentarians, local government representatives, universities and national organisations General Manager, Communications and Community Programs, ABA To keep community committees, politicians and the general public up to date with progress in the development of the Bicentennial program. It aims to encourage participation in the celebrations and to create a cross-flow of ideas Cost of June edition was: Printing-$14,756; Staff-$5,925; Administration (postage)- $10,640.00 PSB Bulletin 1979 Public Service Board (PSB) Class 5 for 25% of time At 2 monthly intervals Various printing firms. 18,000 copies Within the Australian Public Service PSB To advise on conditions of service, pay and allowances, public administration trends Cost p.a.: Staff-$6,000 and Printing-$8,400 Personnel Development News 1976 As above Class 6 for 20% of time and Class 1 for 10% At 2 monthly intervals AGPS-1,400 copies Within the Australian Public Service PSB To facilitate exchange and sharing of information on APS Personnel Development Cost p.a.: Staff-$6,350 and Printing-$4,800 * Costs shown are those that are separately recorded and readily identifiable. (Question No. 1489) Mr Blunt asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. (2) For each major system: (a) What is its principal function, (b) When was it installed, (c) What was the hardware cost, (d) What is its anticipated life and (e) What action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The brands of computer and ADP hardware in use in the Minister's Department and the authorities for which the Minister is responsible, except ASIO, are set out in Table 1 attached. (2) The major systems identified are set out in Table 2 together with their: (a) Principal functions; (b) Installation Date; (c) Hardware cost; (d) Anticipated life; and (e) Notes regarding replacement action. (3) There are three systems which are shared with other computer users. These are the Attorney-General's Department's central computer system, the Australian Legal Aid Office computer system and the National Companies and Securities Commission's system. The Attorney-General's Department provides a service to the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose information retrieval system is supported on the Departments central FACOM computer system. The Attorney-General's Department also operates, on its central computer, a computerised legal information retrieval system that is used by a large number of Commonwealth Departments and Authorities and by private sector organisations who are charged for use of the system. The Australian Legal Aid Office shares a system with the NSW Legal Aid Commission. The figures given in Table 2 for hardware cost represent the Commonwealth's share. The National Companies and Securities Commission in Melbourne from time to time provides temporary processing and storage facilities to the Victorian Corporate Affairs Commission. Table 1. BRANDS OF HARDWARE IN USE Body General Purpose Computer Hardware Dedicated Word Processing Hardware Other ADP Hardware Attorney-General's Department FACOM, IBM, Datapoint, Burroughs, Hewlett-Packard, ICL. WANG. TELEX, FACOM, HARRIS, ICL, Burroughs, Lear-Seigler, EPSON, Tally, Hewlett-Packard. Administrative Appeals Tribunal IBM. Digital Equipment Corporation Australian Institute of Criminology CONTROL-DATA. Wordplex. Hewlett-Packard, Digital Equipment Corporation. Corporate Affairs Commission UNIVAC, FACOM. TELEX Film Censorship Board Burroughs Human Rights Commission IBM. Honeywell Institute of Family Studies PRIME, FACOM. Hewlett-Packard, XL, PRIME, Diblo, Digital Equipment Corporation, Pritronics, OKE. Legal Aid Commission (A.C.T.) IBM. IBM, Remington. NEC, EPSON, IBM. Australian Legal Aid Office NAS, IBM. WANG. NEC, IBM. National Companies and Securities Commission CROMEMCO. Jaquard, QIX. ANADEX, Seimens, Beehive, Hewlett-Packard. Director of Public Prosecutions WANG, FACOM. WANG. TELEX, WANG, Raytheon. Office of Parliamentary Counsel FACOM. TELEX. Trade Practices Commission SIGMADATA. Wordplex. Family Court of Australia IBM. Hewlett-Packard. High Court of Australia CPT8100, Lanier, Digital Equipment Corporation. Hewlett-Packard. Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory Olivetti, Phillips. Hewlett-Packard. Federal Court of Australia Digital Equipment Corporation. Hewlett-Packard. Table 2 MAJOR SYSTEMS DETAILS Body Major System (a) Principal functions (b) Installation date (c) Hardware cost ($,000) (d) Anticipated life (years) (e) Replacement action Attorney-General's Department FACOM M200 Corporate data processing, legal information retrieval systems and statistical analysis. 13 August 1984 1700 7 Not determined Burroughs 9500 (9 systems) Matter management and accounting. Phased June 1983 to October 1984 1100 10 Not determined Hewlett-Packard 3000-42 (6 systems) Bankruptcy Administration Phase November 1981 to November 1983 688 7-10 Not determined Upgraded March 1985 552 Institute of Family Studies PRIME 250 Social science research, family information data base and corporate data processing. August 1981 289 4 Upgrade 1985-1986 Legal Aid commission (A.C.T.) IBM 4331 Registry, legal aid database and corporate data processing. June 1985 150 10 Not determined Australian Legal Aid Office NAS 6000 (shared) IBM (2 systems) Registry, legal aid database and corporate data processing. June 1985 855 10 Not determined National Companies and Securities Commission Cromemco Corporate data processing, registry, library, company surveillance database and litigation support. May 1983 80 7 Not determined Director of Public Prosecutions WANG vs-15 (5 systems) vs90 vs100 Word processing, matter management, data entry and litigation support Staged June 1985 December 1983 September 1983 325 327 505 5-7 Not determined Trade Practices Commission SigmaData FACOM M340R Complaint data processing, annotated evidence management, litigation support and office automation. August 1985 670 7-10 Not determined (Question No. 1522) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) With regard to the study of attitudes of young Australians conducted by Australian National Opinion Polls (ANOP) market research (a) what happened to ANOP's report after it was presented, (b) who considered it and (c) have or will any specific actions or suggestions contained in the report be implemented; if so, in what way. (2) Has his attention been drawn to statements from the survey that (a) for its more important communication messages, the federal Government might consider a communication program which attempts to `persuade' the script writers and directors of popular Australian television serials and soapies to include certain themes of relevance in realistic and natural plot settings and likewise, some key editorial writers in the youth popular print media and (b) without at all suggesting ``a government line'', it may be put to these editorialists of influence that it is in everybody's interests to reflect accurately the aspirations, fears and expectations of young people in some of their scripts and settings. (3) Has the National Media Liaison Service of the Ministerial Media Group or any other agency or section within his portfolio, considered this proposal; if so, have they or are they seeking to implement it. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) The ANOP report was distributed to ministers and departments with responsibilities for youth affairs, to politicians, the media and youth organisations which requested copies. The widest circulation was given to the report to the extent of having it published as `Young Australians Today' and made available through AGPS Bookshops. (c) The findings of the study, along with others, were taken into account in development of the Government's Strategy for Young People and will be considered where appropriate in development of programs for young people. (2) I am aware of the report's conclusions. (3) No. (Question No. 1524) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What was the cost of the Interim Committee of the Australian Sports Commission. (2) What amounts were paid to the chairman and to the members of the interim committee in terms of (a) sitting fees, (b) allowances and (c) any other form of remuneration. (3) What amounts were (a) budgeted and (b) actually spent, on meetings of the interim committee. (4) How many times did the interim committee meet. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In 1983-84 a total of $132,803 was expended by the Interim Committee of the Australian Sports Commission (ICASC). In September 1984, the Interim Committee ceased as such and the Australian Sports Commission was established by the Government. Expenditure for the period 1 July to 30 September 1984 was $42,881. (2) Departmental records indicate that the amounts paid to the Chairman and members of the ICASC for the period 13 September 1983 to 13 September 1984 were as follows: Sitting fees Travel and other allowances $ $ Chairman (P/T)... 798 . . Members (P/T-2)... 1,290 54 Members (F/T-2)... 90,135 *...1,399 * Full time members received an annual salary equivalent to an SES Level 1. (3) (a) and (b)- 1983-84 Budget Expenditure 1984-85 Budget Expenditure $ $ $ $ 33,300 11,449 20,000 Nil full year The budgeted figures represent a nominal breakdown on the ICASC's overall allocation of $274,000. No meetings of the ICASC were held in 1984-85 and the budgeted figure for 1984-85 was subsumed into the budget for the Australian Sports Commission. (4) The ICASC met six times. (Question No. 1546) Mr Duncan asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 August 1985: Is he able to say (a) how many prisoners were killed or seriously injured in Australian gaols in each of the last ten years and (b) what was their ethnic origin. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The States and the Northern Territory have the administrative responsibility for gaols within their jurisdiction. There are no gaols for which the Commonwealth has responsibility. At the Corrective Services Minister's Conference in May 1984 the Ministers asked the Australian Institute of Criminology to conduct a study of `Deaths in Prison' but the Institute's report is not expected to be ready before May 1986. However, at this stage the Institute has been able to provide, from published information, the following statistics for the last 10 years in relation to New South Wales and South Australia. New South Wales Deaths Suicides South Australia Other deaths Self mutilation or attempted suicides 1976-77... 9 nil nil nil 1977-78... 3 nil nil nil 1978-79... n.a. nil nil nil 1979-80... 3 nil 1 nil 1980-81... 6 nil 2 nil 1981-82... 8 nil nil nil 1982-83... 5 3 3 34 1983-84... n.a. nil nil 15 (7, 8) (b) No information is available on the ethnic breakup of these figures. (Question No. 1574) Mr Smith asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 August 1985: (1) Will the Minister provide details of all expenditure within his Department in 1984/85 for compensation and legal expenses as outlined in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1985/86. (2) What was the (a) amount and (b) nature of the expenditure in each case for (i) compensation and (ii) legal expenses. (3) What was the name of each recipient of payment for legal expenses. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Expenditure in 1984/85 on compensation and legal expenses was: Compensation: $10,726 Legal Expenses: $181,256 (2) (i) Expenditure for compensation resulted from determinations by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 and comprised payments totalling $7,659 to a former employee and payment of medical expenses relating to employee compensation determinations in respect to 17 staff and comprised 35 individual transactions totalling $3,067. (3) (ii) Expenditure for legal expenses was as follows: Recipient Service Amount $ Mr S. D. Robb... Counsel fees for representing the Commonwealth re Lennard v Hughes and the Commonwealth... 990 Dr Geoffrey Flick... Counsel fees for representing the Commonwealth re Timothy Edward Anderson v the Department of the Special Minister of State before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under the Freedom of Information Act 1982... 9,375 Mr M. Inglis... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 11,205 Mr R. Sutherland... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 1,236 Mr P. Done... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 13,380 Mr P. Bergin... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 6,405 Mr B. Scully... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 50, 360 Mr N. Cowderey... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 39,721 Mr R. Burbidge... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 2,950 Mr F. McAlary... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 25,000 Mr G. Armitage... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 200 Mr P. Deakin... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 1,455 Mr P. Hastings... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 1,325 Mr T. S. Davidson... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 350 Mr R. Baker... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 6,310 Mr H. Shane... Prosecution counsel fees for prosecution brought under Commonwealth legislation following investigations by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs... 2,930 There were also legal related expenses incurred in respect to prosecutions by the Joint Commonwealth/State Task Force on Drugs as follows: Mr D. Galiungio and Associates... interpreter's fees... 160 Mr Tan-Widyasurya... interpreter's fees... 360 L. Chee... interpreter's fees... 120 Chineses Interpreters and Translators... interpreter's fees... 580 K. Fung... interpreter's fees... 80 Other expenses... witness expenses for accomodation, airfares etc,... 6,764 Total... 181,256 (Question No. 1636) Mr Milton asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Financial Review of 6 August 1985 reporting that his department has negotiated an agreement with representatives of foreign banks which have been licenced to operate in Australia to bring approximately 300 temporary staff to Australia under the Employer Nomination Scheme. (2) Has his Department made such an agreement with foreign banks; if so, what are the details. (3) What percentage of the total projected employment needs of the foreign banks is to be filled under the Employer Nomination Scheme or other migration schemes. (4) What is the numerical breakdown by occupation of the projected overseas staff. (5) Can he state whether representatives of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations were (a) involved in negotiations and (b) will be involved in future negotiations on these matters. (6) Have steps been taken to investigate the possibility of filling these positions from the local labour market; if so, what are the details. (7) Have undertakings been given by foreign banks to train people from the local labour market for the positions; if so, what are the details. (8) Have unions covering bank employees been consulted in negotiations to recruit overseas staff to fill the new positions. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) My Department has reached agreement with 15 of the 16 foreign banks (including 14 who put forward a joint submission) recently granted licenses with regard to their projected overseas staff requirements for the establishment phases of their operations. Arrangements with the other bank have not yet been finalised. The entry of senior managerial and professional staff, in the order of 400 will be permitted. Of these, some 37 will be admitted as migrants under the Employer Nomination Scheme. The balance will be admitted as temporary residents. (3) and (4) It is not possible to provide the details requested as the majority of the banks have not yet finalised their total staffing arrangements. Indeed, more than half have not yet submitted formal applications for the entry of overseas staff. Overseas staff will be sought for foreign exchange dealers and for managers in the following areas: retail banking, marketing, systems and data processing, corporate advice and accounts, accounting, administration and personnel, operations. (5) Yes. (6) Extensive advertising was not considered necessary or desirable in view of the demonstrated shortage of senior experiences banking managerial staff, the likelihood of causing extensive poaching and salary inflation, the desirability of introducing new ideas from international markets and the need for each bank to develop their Australian operations within the corporate policy. (7) Commitments about training were given in the original submission to the Department on behalf of 14 of the 16 banks. The temporary residents will engage in the training programs for Australian staff in each bank's operations, in the expectation that most of these staff members be replaced by local staff in due course. Each bank is required to provide details of their proposed training system by 31/10/85 indicating methods by which Australian staff will be trained to replace expatriate staff and including forecasts for the replacement of overseas staff by locals. (8) No. The arrangements relate to professional and executive staff. (Question No. 2040) Dr Klugman asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: Is he able to say whether there is compulsory military service in (a) the Federal Republic of Germany, (b) the German Democratic Republic, (c) France, (d) the United Kingdom, (e) Italy, (f) Poland, (g) Czechoslovakia, (h) the United States of America, (i) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (j) Vietnam, (k) China and (l) India; if so, what is the length of service in each case. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Yes; 15 months. (b) Yes; Army and Air Force 18 months, Navy 36 months. (c) Yes; 12 months. (d) No compulsory military service. (e) Yes; Army and Air Force 12 months, Navy 18 months. (f) Yes; Army, Air Force and Internal Security Forces 24 months, Navy and Special Services 36 months. (g) Yes; Army 24 months, Air Force 36 months. (h) No compulsory military service. (i) Yes; Army and Air Force 24 months, Navy and Border Guards 24-36 months. (j) Yes; 36 months (specialists 48 months and some ethnic minorities 24 months). (k) Yes; Army 36 months, Navy and Air force 48 months. (l) No compulsory military service. (Question No. 2102) Mr Blunt asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: Is he able to say how many Australian flags were distributed to each Member of the House of Representatives and each Senator in 1984-85. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is contained in the following table: FREE ISSUES TO SENATORS-1/7/84-30/6/85 Senator Flag Total New South Wales Baume, M.... . . Baume, Hon. P. E.... . . Brownhill, D.*... . . Carrick, Hon. J.... 5 Childs, B. K.... 3 Gietzelt, Hon. A. T.... 3 Lajovic, M. E.+... 1 McClelland, Hon. D.... 5 Mason, C. V. J.... . . Morris, J.*... . . Puplick, C. J. G.*... . . Richardson, G. F.... 4 Scott, Hon. D. B.+... 19 Sibraa, K. W.... 1 - Total... 41 Victoria Button, Hon. J. N.... 4 Chipp, Hon. D. L.... . . Cooney, B.*... . . Evans, Hon. G. J.... 1 Guilfoyle, Hon. M.... 2 Hamer, D. J.... 42 Lewis, A. W. R.... 19 Missen, A. J.... 15 Primmer, C. G.+... 6 Ray, R. F.... 10 Siddons, J.*... . . Short, J. R.*... 1 Zakharov, A. O.... . . Total... 100 Queensland Bjelke-Petersen, F. I.... 8 Black, J. R.*... . . Boswell, R. L. D.... 18 Collard, S. J.... 4 Colston, M. A.... 21 Georges, G.... . . Jones, G. N.... 2 MacGibbon, D. J.... 3 Macklin, M. J.... 3 Martin, K.+... 1 Parer, W. R.*... 11 Reynolds, M.... 1 Sheil, G.*... . . Total... 72 Western Australia Chaney, Hon. F. M.... 12 Coleman, R. N.... 1 Cook, P. F. S.... 3 Crichton-Browne, N. A.... 12 Durack, Hon. P. D.... 1 Evans, J. G.+... 5 Giles, P. J.... 7 Knowles, S. C.*... 3 McIntosh, G. D.... . . McKiernan, J. P.*... . . Vallentine, J.*... . . Walsh, Hon. P. A.... 3 Withers, Rt. Hon. R. G.... 6 Total... 53 South Australia Bolkus, N.... . . Crowley, R. A.... 7 Elstob, R. C.... . . Foreman, D. J.... . . Haines, J.... 2 Hill, R. M.... 5 Jessop, D. S.... 1 Maguire, G. R.... 36 Messner, Hon. A. J.... 19 Teague, B. C.... 7 Vanstone, A. E.*... . . Vigor, D.*... . . Total... 77 Tasmania Archer, B. R.... 4 Aulich, T.*... . . Coates, H. J.... 6 Devlin, R.*... 3 Grimes, Hon. D. J.... 5 Harradine, B.... 4 Hearn, J. M.+... . . Rae, P. E.... 1 Sanders, N.*... . . Tate, M. C.... 5 Townley, M.... . . Walters, M. S.... 4 Watson, J. O. W.... 6 Total... 38 Northern Territory Kilgariff, B. F.... 16 Robertson, E. A.... 3 Total... 19 Australian Capital Territory Reid, M. E.... 5 Ryan, Hon. S. M.... . . Total... 5 Total (all Senators)... 405 * New Senator + Retired Senator FREE ISSUES TO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES * New Member ** Retired Member Member 1984-85 Hon. A. E. Adermann... 69 K. J. Aldred... 18 J. N. Andrew... 62 P. J. Baldwin... 13 *J.l Beale... 14 Hon. K. Beazley... 14 D. P. Beddal... 48 G. N. Bilney... 26 C. A. Blanchard... 34 Hon. N. Blewett... 14 C. W. Blunt... 75 Hon. L. F. Bowen... 16 R. Braithwaite... 79 Hon. J. J. Brown... 10 R. J. Brown... 39 *Hon. N. A. Brown... 13 J. M. Brumby... 45 M. A. Burr... 32 A. C. Cadman... 44 D. M. Cameron... 69 E. C. Cameron... 75 I. M. D. Cameron... 72 G. Campbell... 32 Hon. J. Carlton... 21 D. E. Charles... 19 R. Charlesworth... 19 J. Child... 19 R. Chynoweth... 45 *P. Cleeland... 13 *M. R. Cobb... 22 Hon. B. Cohen... 56 W. P. Coleman... 8 D. M. Connolly... 24 *B. J. Conquest... 23 D. B. Cowan... 55 M. D. Cross... 24 B. Cunningham... 33 E. E. Darling... 29 Hon. J. Dawkins... 14 Hon. J. D. Dobie... 27 *A. J. Downer... 51 P. Drummond... 48 *S. C. Dubois... 12 Hon. M. Duffy... 23 *Hon. P. Duncan... 18 Dr H. Edwards... 23 R. F. Edwards... 26 **Hon. D. Everingham... 14 *Hon. P. Everingham... 4 W. Fatin... 31 Hon. W. C. Fife... 62 *T. A. Fischer... 27 P. S. Fisher... 76 *E. Fitzgibbon... 18 R. V. Free... 39 **K. L. Fry... 12 J. Gayler... 45 G. Gear... 18 B. Goodluck... 29 R. Gorman... 24 *E. L. Grace... 7 A. G. Griffiths... 35 **Hon. R. J. Groom... 17 R. S. Hall... 33 *R. Halverson... 7 G. L. Hand... 15 Hon. R. J. Hawke... 10 D. P. Hawker... 55 Hon. W. Hayden... 19 N. J. Hicks... 48 *Hon. J. C. Hodges... 25 Hon. M. Hodgman... 18 Hon. A. C. Holding... 15 C. Hollis... 55 Hon. J. Howard... 27 Hon. B. L. Howe... 16 B. Humphreys... 34 Hon. R. J. Hunt... 41 Hon. C. Hurford... 16 R. Jacobi... 26 *C. A. Jakobsen... 67 Hon. Dr H. Jenkins... 24 Hon. B. O. Jones... 30 *D. F. Jull... 37 Hon. R. C. Katter... 37 Hon. P. J. Keating... 12 R. J. Kelly... 28 L. Kent... 32 L. J. Keogh... 34 Hon. J. C. Kerin... 20 Dr R. Klugman... 20 *A. H. Lamb... 15 *J. V. Langmore... 4 *M. Lee... 31 E. J. Lindsay... 68 B. Lloyd... 87 **S. A. Lusher... 36 F. S. McArthur... 42 P. J. McGauran... 72 J. McHugh... 25 Hon. M. MacKellar... 18 L. B. McLeay... 16 Hon. D. T. McVeigh... 47 Hon. I. Macphee... 10 M. J. Maher... 22 *S. P. Martin... 20 H. Mayer... 23 J. B. Mildren... 41 *C. G. Miles... 21 P. C. Millar... 50 P. Milton... 39 Hon. J. C. Moore... 34 A. A. Morris... 31 Hon. P. F. Morris... 33 **Hon. W. Morrison... 8 J. G. Mountford... 11 *G. B. Nehl... 25 **Hon. K. Newman... 12 **F. L. O'Keefe... 28 *N. P. O'Keefe... 11 L. R. O'Neil... 27 Hon. A. Peacock... 16 J. R. Porter... 52 *L. R. Price... 12 G. F. Punch... 12 **J. E. Reeves... 2 *P. Reith... 23 Hon. I. Robinson... 63 A. C. Rocher... 25 P. Ruddock... 20 J. Saunderson... 11 Hon. G. Scholes... 24 J. L. Scott... 21 P. D. Shack... 16 *J. Sharp... 37 R. F. Shipton... 16 D. Simmons... 44 Rt Hon. I. Sinclair... 55 *P. Slipper... 108 *W. Smith... 23 J. H. Snow... 55 J. Spender... 18 P. R. Staples... 21 **A. P. Steedman... 11 *K. Sullivan... 25 Dr A. Theophanous... 19 R. E. Tickner... 36 C. W. Tuckey... 49 Hon. T. Uren... 22 *D. J. Watson... 22 *A. Webster... 12 **D. Wells... 14 Hon. S. West... 24 P. N. White... 44 Hon. R. Willis... 14 Hon. I. Wilson... 25 *K. Wright... 19 Hon. M. Young... 37 Number distributed via members' offices... 4,778 (Question No. 2115) Dr Theophanous asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) Which of the established ethnic communities have lost grant-in-aid programs in the recent reallocation of grants. (2) What action has he taken to ensure that ethnic communities which might have been disadvantaged by the loss of these programs will be catered for by programs and grants from other Government departments. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Of the 201 three-year grants which comprise my Department's Grant-in-Aid Program, only 49 were available for re-award in 1984-/85. A total of 207 applications were received for these 49 grants, including 38 applications from grant-holders seeking reaward. Of this latter group, 30 were reawarded grants and of the eight agencies not reawarded, 4 were held by or served established ethnic communities, namely: Australian Jewish Welfare and Relief Society (Vic), held since 1979 Australian German Welfare Society (Vic), held since 1978 Finnish Club of Brisbane, held since 1979 Marrickville Centre for Human Services (largely Greek clientele) (2) The Grant-in-Aid Program has particular welfare related objectives, with priority being given to meeting the needs of the more recently arrived communities; it is only one of many Federal Government programs which serve migrants and ethnic communities. I am concerned to ensure that long and generally well-established ethnic community organisations not reawarded grants-in-aid at the expiration of the three-year cycle will have access to general community programs aimed at overcoming disadvantage in the Australian community at large. Given the limited number of grants, my Department's Grant-in-Aid Program obviously cannot be expected to cater for all of the welfare related needs of all of our ethnic and cultural minority groups. I am continuing to confer with my colleagues in order to refine the overall structure of welfare support. The Government is committed to ensuring that migrant communities and ethnic and cultural minority groups obtain equal access to and an equitable share of all Government programs and services. My Department is currently analysing reports from other portfolio areas on measures already implemented and being planned to achieve these goals. I shall report to Parliament on the results of this exercise at the first opportunity. (Question No. 2176) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 October 1985: (1) What is the origin of the name of each federal Electoral Division. (2) When was each of the current Divisions created and from which previous Division was each created. (3) Is this information available in booklet form; if not, will he instruct the Australian Electoral Commission to prepare and publish the information in booklet form. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Electoral Commissioner has advised: (1) Electoral Divisions-Origins of names as set out in the Report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on the Naming of Electoral Divisions (the Fox Report) with later additions. Adelaide (SA)... Locality name-city named after consort of William IV. Aston (Vic)... Tilly Aston-blind writer and teacher, helped found library of Victorian Association of Braille writers. Ballarat (Vic)... Locality-name derived from two Aboriginal words meanings `Leaning on elbow'. Banks (NSW)... Sir Joseph Banks-botanist with Captain James Cook. Barker (SA)... Collet Barker who in 1831 was sent by Governor Darling of New South Wales to try to solve the mystery of the mouth of the River Murray. Barton (NSW)... Sir Edmund Barton-Australia's first Prime Minister. Bass (Tas)... George Bass-explorer. Batman (Vic)... John Batman-settler and explorer. Bendigo (Vic)... Locality-originated from name of an English prize fighter. Bennelong (NSW)... Name of Aboriginal whom Governor Arthur Phillip befriended in 1788. Berowra (NSW)... Geographical. Blaxland (NSW)... John Blaxland-explorer. Bonython (SA)... Sir John Langdon Bonython-elected to the first House of Representatives to represent South Australia in 1901, and in 1903 elected as the first member for the Division of Barker. Boothby (SA)... William Robert Boothby-the Returning Officer for the first election of Members of the House of Representatives in 1901; in 1903 appointed as Commissioner to distribute South Australia into seven Electoral Divisions. Bowman (Qld)... David Bowman-Member of the Queensland Parliament 1899-1916, Leader of the Opposition and then Home Secretary. Braddon (Tas)... Sir Edward Nicholas Coventry Braddon-a member of Tasmanian House of Assembly 1879-1888 and 1893-1901; Member of the House of Representatives 1901-1903. Bradfield (NSW)... John Job Crew Bradfield-engineer and bridge designer. Brand (WA)... Sir David Brand-Premier of Western Australia 1959-71. Brisbane (Qld)... Locality name-after Sir Thomas Makdougall Brisbane, Governor of New South Wales from 1820 to 1825. The Penal Colony at Moreton Bay was established by John Oxley and with the Governor's permission the settlement was named Brisbane. Bruce (Vic)... Standley Melbourne (later Lord) Bruce-former Prime Minister. Burke (Vic)... Robert Burke-explorer. Calare (NSW)... Aboriginal name for Lachlan River. Calwell (Vic)... Arthur Augustus Calwell-Member of the House of Representatives 1940-72, Minister 1943-49, ALP Leader 1960-7. Canberra (ACT)... Locality-originated from an Aboriginal word, the popular meaning of which is `meeting place'. Canning (WA)... Alfred Wernam Canning-surveyor who pioneered stock roads and rabbit proof fences in Western Australia. Capricornia (Qld)... A district name apparently originating from the fact that the Tropic of Capricorn passes through the area. Casey (Vic)... Lord Casey-former Governor-General of Australia. Charlton (NSW)... Matthew Charlton-local Member of the House of Representatives 1910-28, ALP Leader 1922-28, Member of New South Wales Legislative Assembly 1903-10. Chifley (NSW)... Joseph Benedict Chifley-former Prime Minister. Chisholm (Vic)... Caroline Chisholm-nineteenth century social worker and advocate of immigration to New South Wales. Cook (NSW)... James Cook-explorer. Corangamite (Vic)... Locality (Lake Corangamite)-orginated from Aboriginal word for `bitter' (describing salt content of Lake). Corio (Vic)... Locality (Corio Bay)-originated from an Aboriginal word for `small marsupial'. Cowan (WA)... Edith Dirksley Cowan-first woman elected to any Australian Parliament, State or Federal. Cowper (NSW)... Sir Charles Cowper-former Premier of New South Wales. Cunningham (NSW)... Allan Cunningham-explorer. Curtin (WA)... John Curtin-former Prime Minister. Dawson (Qld)... Andrew Dawson-Queensland's first Labor Premier; later entered Federal politics as a Senator and was Minister for Defence in the Watson Government. Deakin (Vic)... Sir Alfred Deakin-former Prime Minister. Denison (Tas)... Sir William Thomas Dension-Lt Governor of Tasmania 1847-1855. Dobell (NSW)... Sir William Dobell-painter. Dundas (NSW)... Locality name. Dunkley (Vic)... Louisa Margaret Dunkley-founder of the Victorian Women's Post and Telegraph Association, campaigner for equal pay. Eden-Monaro (NSW)... Locality name, geographical. Fadden (Qld)... Arthur William Fadden-former Prime Minister. Fairfax (Qld)... Ruth Beatrice Fairfax-a founder of the Country Women's Association and its first Queensland President. Farrer (N.S.W.)... William James Farrer-wheat breeder and experimentalist. Fisher (Qld)... Andrew Fisher-former Prime Minister. Flinders (Vic.)... Matthew Flinders-explorer. Forde (Qld)... Francis Michael Forde-Prime Minister 1945, Minister 1941-6, Member of the House of Representatives 1922-46, State Member 1917-22, 1953-7, High Commissioner to Canada. Forrest (W.A.)... Sir John (later Lord) Forrest-Surveyor-General of Western Australia and member of Executive Council. Fowler (N.S.W.)... Lillian Fowler-Member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly 1944-50, first woman mayor in Australia. Franklin (Tas.)... Sir John Franklin-Lt-Governor of Tasmania 1837-1843: also an explorer. Fraser (A.C.T.)... James Reay Fraser-the Australian Capital Territory's sole representative in the Parliament (as a Member of the House of Representatives) 1951-1970. Fremantle (W.A.)... Locality name-city named after Charles H. Fremantle who came to Western Australia in 1831 to establish the Port of Fremantle. Gellibrand (Vic.)... John Thomas Gellibrand-explorer. Gilmore (N.S.W.)... Dame Mary Gilmore-poet. Gippsland (Vic.)... Locality-named after Governor Gipps. Goldstein (Vic.)... Vida Goldstein-first woman candidate at a national parliamentary election in the British Empire. Grayndler (N.S.W.)... Edward Grayndler-Member of the New South Wales Legislative Council and General Secretary of the Australian Workers Union in the 1920s and 1930s. Greenway (N.S.W.)... Francis Greenway-architect. Grey (S.A.)... George Grey-in 1841 became the third Governor of South Australia. Griffith (Qld)... Sir Samuel Walker Griffith-Premier of Queensland and first Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia; Lt-Governor of Queensland 1899 to 1903; remained Chief Justice of the Commonwealth until his retirement in 1919. Groom (Qld)... Sir Littleton Groom-local Member of the House of Representatives 1900-29, 1931-36; various Ministries. Gwydir (N.S.W.)... Gwydir River. Hawker (S.A.)... Charles Alan Seymour Hawker-former Member of the House of Representatives for Wakefield. Henty (Vic.)... Francis Henty-settler in Victoria. Herbert (Qld)... Sir Robert George Wyndham Herbert-first Premier of Queensland. Higgins (Vic.)... Henry Bournes Higgins-former Member of the House of Representatives, Justice of the High Court and Second President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Court. Hindmarsh (S.A.)... Sir John Hindmarsh-the first Governor of South Australia. Hinkler (Qld)... Bert Hinkler-aviator whose name is especially linked with Bundaberg. Holt (Vic.)... Harold Edward Holt-former Prime Minister. Hotham (Vic.)... Sir Charles Hotham-former Governor of Victoria. Hughes (N.S.W.)... William Morris Hughes-former Prime Minister. Hume (N.S.W.)... Hamilton Hume-explorer. Hunter (N.S.W.)... John Hunter-second Governor of New South Wales. Indi (Vic.)... Aboriginal word for Murray River. Isaacs (Vic.)... Sir Isaac Alfred Isaacs-Member of the House of Representatives 1901-06, Justice and later Chief Justice of the High Court, Governor-General 1931-36. Jagajaga (Vic.)... Three principal Aboriginal elders who signed the treaty with Batman. Kalgoorlie (W.A.)... Locality name-in addition, name of the mine discovered by Hannan and Flanagan in 1893 from which the town and area took its name. Kennedy (Qld)... Edmund Besley Court Kennedy-explorer. Kingsford-Smith (N.S.W.)... Sir Charles Kingsford-Smith-aviator. Kingston (S.A.)... Charles Cameron Kingston-Premier of South Australia, elected to the first House of Representatives to represent South Australia in 1901 and in 1903 elected as the first member for the Division of Adelaide. Kooyong (Vic.)... Aboriginal name for camp or resting place. Lalor (Vic.)... Peter Lalor-of Eureka Stockade fame. Elected to Victorian Legislative Council in 1855; then to Legislative Assembly in 1856. La Trobe (Vic.)... Charles Joseph La Trobe-Lt-Governor of Victoria. Leichhardt (Qld)... Friedrich Wilhalm Ludwig Leichhardt-explorer. Lilley (Qld)... Sir Charles Lilley-Premier and Chief Justice of Queensland. Lindsay (N.S.W.)... Norman Lindsay-writer and artist. Lowe (N.S.W.)... Robert Lowe, Earl of Sherbrooke-advocated discontinuance of deportation of convicts to New South Wales. Lyne (N.S.W.)... Sir William Lyne-former Premier of New South Wales. Lyons (Tas.)... Joseph Aloysius Lyons-former Prime Minister, and Dame Enid Muriel Lyons-Member of the House of Representatives, 1943-51. Macarthur (N.S.W.)... John Macarthur-founder of Australian merino wool industry. Mackellar (N.S.W.)... Dorothea Mackellar-poet. Macquarie (N.S.W.)... Governor Lachlan Macquarie-former Governor of New South Wales. McEwen (Vic.)... Sir John McEwen-Prime Minister 1967-68, Minister 1939-41, 1949-71, Member of the House of Representatives 1934-71. McMillan (Vic.)... Angus McMillan-explorer of East Gippsland. McPherson (Qld)... This name apparently originated from the McPherson Range which forms the southern boundary of the McPherson electorate. The range was named in 1828 by Allan Cunningham after Major McPherson of His Majesty's 39th Regiment. Makin (S.A.)... Norman Makin-Member of the House of Representatives 1919-46, 1954-63, Speaker 1929-32, Minister. Ambassador to the United States. Mallee (Vic.)... Locality name. Maranoa (Qld)... District name taken from the river of that name which passes through the area. The river was named by Thomas Mitchell in 1846. The name is of Aboriginal origin but the authenticity of several meanings suggested is particularly hard to verify. Maribyrnong (Vic.)... Locality (Maribyrnong River)-originated from Aboriginal word for `yam' or `edible root'. Mayo (S.A.)... Helen Mayo-founder of the Mothers' and Babies' Health Association, first woman elected to a University Council in Australia, co-founder of St Anne's College, University of Adelaide. Melbourne (Vic.)... Locality name-city after Viscount Melbourne, Prime Minister of England. Melbourne Ports (Vic.)... Locality name. Menzies (Vic.)... Sir Robert Gordon Menzies-Prime Minister 1939-41, 1949-66, Member of the House of Representatives 1934-66. Mitchell (N.S.W.)... Thomas Mitchell-explorer and surveyor. Moncrieff (Qld)... Gladys Moncrieff-light opera and musical comedy singer. Moore (W.A)... George Fletcher Moore-first Advocate-General in Western Australia. Moreton (Qld)... A district name originating from the naming by Captain Cook of the bay adjacent to Moreton Island and Stradbroke Island. It was named after the Earl of Morton but due to a spelling error in Hawkworth's edition of Cook's Voyages, the present form of spelling has resulted. Murray (Vic.)... Locality name from River Murray, which was named after Lt John Murray of the `Lady Nelson'. Newcastle (N.S.W.)... Locality name. New England... Geographical. North Sydney (N.S.W.)... Locality name. Northern Territory (N.T.)... Geographical. O'Connor (W.A.)... Charles Yelverton O'Connor-Engineer-in-Chief of the Colony, designed and supervised the construction of the water pipeline from Perth to Kalgoorlie. Oxley (Qld)... John Joseph William Molesworth Oxley-explorer. Page (NSW)... Sir Earle Christmas Grafton Page, local Member of the House of Representatives 1919-61, Prime Minister 1939, Minister 1923-9, 1934-9, 1940-1, 1949-56. Parkes (NSW)... Sir Henry Parkes-former Premier of New South Wales. Parramatta (NSW)... Locality name. Perth (WA)... Locality name-after Perth in Scotland. Petrie (Qld)... Andrew Petrie-civil engineer, or Thomas Petrie-a Queensland pioneer who arrived in Brisbane in 1837. As a boy he befriended the Aboriginals and later became an authority on their language and customs. He took up cattle country area near Pine River not far from where the town of Petrie now stands. Phillip (NSW)... Arthur Phillip-first Governor of Colony of New South Wales. Port Adelaide (SA)... Locality name. Prospect (NSW)... Locality name including Prospect Reservoir area. Rankin (Qld)... Dame Annabelle Rankin-first woman Commonwealth Minister with departmental responsibilities, Senator 1946-71, Minister 1966-71, High Commissioner to New Zealand. Reid (NSW)... Sir George Houston Reid-one of the founders of the Constitution and former Prime Minister. Richmond (NSW)... Geographical-Richmond River and Richmond Gap between Queensland and New South Wales. Riverina-Darling (NSW)... Geographical. Robertson (NSW)... Sir John Robertson-former Premier of New South Wales. Ryan (Qld)... Thomas Joseph Ryan-former Premier of Queensland 1915-1919, resigned to enter Federal politics. St George (NSW)... Locality name. Scullin (NSW)... James Henry Scullin-former Prime Minister. Shortland (NSW)... John Shortland-discoverer of Hunter River estuary. Streeton (Vic)... Sir Arthur Streeton-original member of the Heidelberg School of painting. Stirling (WA)... Sir James Stirling-first Governor of Western Australia. Sturt (SA)... Charles Sturt-noted early Australian explorer. Swan (WA)... Swan River-originally named Swaanen River by Willem de Vlamingh in 1829. Sydney (NSW)... Locality name-city named after Viscount Sydney, Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1787. Tangney (WA)... Dame Dorothy Margaret Tangney-first woman Senator. Throsby (NSW)... Charles Throsby-local pioneer settler. Wakefield (SA)... Edward Gibbon Wakefield-while serving a three years' term of imprisonment, evolved a plan for a systematic, scientific mode of colonisation. The plan formed the basis of settlement in South Australia. Wannon (Vic)... Locality (Wannon River)-named by Major Mitchell, 1836. Warringah (NSW)... Locality name. Wentworth (NSW)... William Charles Wentworth-explorer. Werriwa (NSW)... Aboriginal name for Lake George, which was located in the electorate in 1901. Wide Bay (Qld)... District name-the Wide Bay district takes its name from the bay named by Captain Cook on 18 May 1770. Wills (Vic)... William John Wills-explorer. (2) Each of the current Divisions except the Northern Territory was created at the 1984 redistribution in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The 1984 redistribution was quite comprehensive and, with the exception of the Division of the Northern Territory, all then existing Divisions were subject to the possibility of boundary changes or renaming. Full descriptions of how each Division is constituted can be found in Volume 1 of the Redistribution report for each State and Territory tabled in Parliament on 18 April 1985. A copy of each report was supplied to each senator and member. The Division of the Northern Territory has existed since 1922. Minor adjustments to its area occurred in 1984 with the inclusion of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. (3) Information about Division names is currently not available as a consolidated list in published form. However, it is available upon inquiry from the Commission. Should public demand for such a published list make itself apparent, the Australian Electoral Commission will examine opportunities to take up the honourable member's suggestion. Information about the origins of current Divisions is already published in the Redistribution reports. (Question No. 2177) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 11 October 1985: Which federal Electoral Divisions are named after trade union officials. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Electoral Commissioner has advised that the Electoral Divisions of Grayndler in New South Wales and Dunkley in Victoria are named after trade union officials. A number of other Divisions are named after prominent Australians who were, amongst other things, trade union officials. However, their recognition was more for their notable contributions in other areas such as, for example, Federal or State Parliaments. (Question No. 1381) Mr Langmore asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What was the (a) total expenditure, (b) real total expenditure and (c) real total expenditure per pupil, on public education in the Australian Capital Territory in each year since 1972-73. (2) What were the overall pupil/teacher ratios in public schools in each of the States and in the ACT in 1983. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) I have assumed that the honourable member's question is directed at the funding of ACT government schools and preschools, and not all sectors of ACT education, in order that meaningful comparisons can be made. On this basis the total expenditure on public education in the ACT (that is, capital and recurrent expenditure, on ACT government schools and preschools) in each year since 1972-73, as given in Budget papers, was as follows: ($m) 1972-73... 24.8 1973-74... 34.0 1974-75... 57.2 1975-76... 79.8 1976-77... 83.8 1977-78... 89.2 1978-79... 92.7 1979-80... 93.6 1980-81... 105.5 1981-82... 116.6 1982-83... 141.8 1983-84... 160.3 1984-85... 178.8 Source: Department of Finance (1) (b) The real total expenditure, adjusted to December 1984 prices, on public schooling in the ACT in each year since 1972-73 was as follows: ($m) 1972-73... 88.4 1973-74... 104.7 1974-75... 142.3 1975-76... 172.3 1976-77... 162.1 1977-78... 158.7 1978-79... 155.0 1979-80... 143.5 1980-81... 145.0 1981-82... 142.4 1982-83... 155.4 1983-84... 166.8 1984-85... 177.3 The adjustment was made by the Department of Education using the Schools Price Index (Recurrent) for the recurrent component of the expenditure, and the Schools Price Index (Capital) for the capital component. (1) (c) Data are not available on which to calculate figures for the real total expenditure per pupil in ACT public education for the years 1972-73 to 1976-77. Subsequent to that, figures are available for real recurrent expenditure only per pupil in ACT primary and secondary schools, excluding costs of school transport, scholarships, and pre-service teacher education. These figures are shown in the following table for the years 1977-78 to 1984-85, adjusted to December 1984 prices, with the average of the six States shown for comparison: Primary A.C.T. Six States Secondary A.C.T. Six States $ $ $ $ 1977-78... 1,913 1,695 3,348 2,720 1978-79... 2,021 1,738 3,464 2,835 1979-80... 2,111 1,809 3,515 3,000 1980-81... 2,062 1,868 3,561 3,039 1981-82... 2,271 1,925 3,776 3,075 1982-83... 2,345 2,002 3,770 3,124 1983-84... 2,465 n.a. 3,925 n.a. 1984-85... 2,553 n.a. 4,034 n.a. Source: The Commonwealth Schools Commission and the A.C.T. Schools Authority. (2) The overall pupil/teacher ratios in government schools in the States and in the A.C.T. in 1983 were as follows: N.S.W.... 17.0 Victoria... 13.6 Queensland... 17.1 Western Australia... 17.3 South Australia... 14.4 Tasmania... 13.6 A.C.T.... 14.5 Source: Department of Education (Question No. 1645) Mr Peter Fisher asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: Does the Minister's Department provide local call access to clients to the district or regional offices of the Department; if not, will the Department consider installing a 008 telephone number so that clients currently without local call access can have equal opportunity to contact the Department for assistance? Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department already has 008 local call access in its Home Ownership Assistance Offices in Brisbane and Perth, and steps have been taken to have the service installed in other State Offices. It is expected that all Home Ownership Assistance Offices will have the service installed by the end of this year. (Question No. 1825) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 13 September 1985: Has the Government publication In Focus produced by the National Media Liaison Service ever contained a story (a) unfavourable to the Government or (b) which was not sourced from Government Press releases. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) No. (b) Yes. (Question No. 1847) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 September 1985: (1) Does the United Nations Charter require member states to register all treaties between them with the United Nations Secretariat. (2) If so, is he able to state whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, ANZUS and South East Asia Treaty Organisation pacts have been registered; if not, why not. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Article 102 of the United Nations Charter requires that ``every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.'' (2) Yes. The NATO, ANZUS and SEATO pacts were registered with the United Nations Secretariat and published in the United Nations Treaty Series. (Question No. 1993) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: Is he able to say whether compensation for a fatal aircraft accident in New Zealand is limited to $4000 per Australian; if so, will he raise the situation with his New Zealand counterpart. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Information available to us is to the effect that the New Zealand Accident Compensation Act 1972 abolished the right to sue for damages in New Zealand courts for personal injury by accident suffered in New Zealand. The Act provided that compensation would be available to all persons, including visitors, suffering personal injury by accident in New Zealand. The levels of compensation payable are required to be reviewed every year and adjustments are then made by Government. We understand that benefits presently available under the Act include lump sum payments, for example, for permanent disability ($NZ17,000), disfigurement and loss of employment ($NZ10,000), and death ($NZ4000 maximum to a dependent spouse). In addition, there is in most cases compensation for loss of earnings in New Zealand. Each sovereign state has the right to decide for itself what legislation it enacts, and the rules which it applies to situations which arise within its territories. Accordingly I do not think that it would be appropriate for the Australian Government to raise with the New Zealand Government matters of this kind pertaining to New Zealand domestic responsibility. (Question No. 2059) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their companies, or principals of their companies, for services rendered to the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control and for what purpose in each case? (2) What amounts have been paid to each of these people or companies for (a) travel allowance, (b) air fares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire care expenses and (e) any other expenses incurred? Mr West —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My Department has made two payments, both to the firm Monahan, Dayman, Adams Limited: (i) $195.84 for radio advertising associated with the First Home Owners Scheme, (Launceston Show) November 1985 (ii) $451.50 for radio advertising also associated with the First Home Owners Scheme, (Tassie Expo 1985) March 1985. (2) There have been no payments of the type listed in part 2 of the honourable member's question. (Question No. 2063) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their companies, or principals of their companies, for services rendered to the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control and for what purposes in each case. (2) What amounts have been paid to each of these people or companies for (a) travel allowance, (b) air fares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire care expenses and (e) any other expenses incurred. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Nil. (2) Nil. (Question Nos 2074-2101) Mr Blunt asked all Ministers, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: What is the estimated expenditure in 1985-86 on (a) salaries and (b) administration, as opposed to expenditure on actual programs for (i) each authority under the Minister's control and (ii) the Minister's Department and how do these compare with actual expenditure for 1984-85, in both fiscal and percentage terms. Mr Willis —As indicated above, the honourable member asked identical questions of all Ministers. With their concurrence, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer on behalf of all Ministers: The information sought by the honourable member is available in general form in the Budget Papers. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) sets out the salary and administrative expenditures of Departments at the appropriation level. This information is supplemented, in Budget Paper No. 6, by Table 1, setting out portfolio program estimates and Table 3; which sets out the estimates of most `one-line' statutory authorities. Because of the difficulties in drawing clear distinctions between program and administrative expenditures in many areas, and especially in relation to statutory authorities, it would not be possible to provide information in the precise form sought by the honourable member. Any more than a superficial attempt to do so would involve considerable cost and even then, for the reason given, could not yield accurate results. I am therefore not prepared to authorise the expenditure that such an exercise would involve. (Question No. 2106) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, on notice, on 9 October 1985. What is the name of the advertising agency handling the campaign associated with the official handover of Ayers Rock and how was it selected. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Department has not employed an advertising agency to undertake an advertising campaign in relation to the handover of title to the Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mt Olga) National Park. A public relations firm, Neilson, McCarthy, McFarling and Co. Pty Ltd. was engaged by my Department to assist with arrangements for the handover/leaseback ceremony. This firm was selected through normal processes with the assistance of the information Co-ordination Branch of the now Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. (Question No. 2122) Mr Fife asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) In view of the Biological Control Act, when will the Industries Assistance Commission report concerning the biological control of Paterson's Curse be completed. (2) Will the report be made available to the public before the Government takes a decision regarding the findings of the Industries Assistance Commission. (3) Which State Parliaments have passed complementary legislation to permit the biological control of Paterson's curse. (4) Will the Government expedite all related matters with a view to the biological control of Paterson's Curse commencing in 1986. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Industries Assistance Commission's report was completed on 30 September 1985 and presented to Government on 4 November 1985. (2) Government will take a decision on the findings of the Industries Assistance Commission at the first available opportunity, and this may be before the report is publicly available. However, an effective final decision for the purposes of the Biological Control Act 1984 requires that there should be unanimous agreement by all Ministers represented on the Australian Agricultural Council. The next meeting of Council is in February 1986 and the report will certainly be publicly available before then, probably by early December 1985. (3) No State Parliaments have passed legislation complementary to the Biological Control Act 1984, although I am advised that New South Wales introduced a Bill on 12 November 1985. The State legislation, like the Biological Control Act 1984, does not specifically permit biological control of Paterson's Curse or any other weed or pest, but provides a mechanism for making such a determination. However, until all the complementary legislation is in place, any decision to introduce biological control of Paterson's Curse would probably not be implemented. (4) The Government will, as far as is practicable, expedite matters relating to a decision whether biological control of Paterson's Curse should be introduced. However, even if there is a unanimous decision by the Australian Agricultural Council that biological control of Paterson's Curse should be authorised under the legislation, there will be no further action that the Government can take, as far as implementation of biological control is concerned; collection and release of biological control agents is a matter for the relevant technical agencies and I cannot be certain when they might be in a position to commence biological control. (Question No. 2206) Mr Price asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 15 October 1985: Is he able to say whether the European Management Forum of 22 developed countries has conducted surveys since 1982-83 examining the utilisation of technology to improve productivity; if so (a) when, (b) what were the rankings of member countries and (c) where was Australia ranked. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The European Management Forum has conducted surveys since 1982-83 examining a number of industrial competitiveness factors, including the utilisation of technology to improve productivity. (a) The most recent survey was in 1983-84. The results were published in 1985 in the document, EMF's Report on International Industrial Competitiveness. Ten competitiveness factors, including `innovative forward orientation' were applied to the 28 countries surveyed. (b) The rankings of the countries in terms of `innovative forward orientation' that is, Government and business research and development expenditures as well as corporate attitudes to exploiting new ideas, products and production processes, were as follows: Rank and country: 1. Japan; 2. United States; 3. Germany; 4. Denmark; 5. Sweden; 6. Switzerland; 7. Belgium/Luxembourg; 8. Korea; 9. Finland; 10. Netherlands; 11. Italy; 12. New Zealand; 13. Austria; 14. France; 15. Canada; 16. Ireland; 17. Norway; 18. India; 19. United Kingdom; 20. Brazil; 21. Mexico; 22. Saudi Arabia; 23. Australia; 24. Spain; 25. Turkey; 26. Malaysia; 27. Portugal; 28. Greece. (c) In terms of `innovative forward orientation' Australia ranked 23 out of the 28 member countries. (Question No. 2234) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: Is he proposing to establish an inter-departmental committee or steering group to co-ordinate and promote the consideration of the application of search and rescue satellites for Australia; if so, who would be included in such a group. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. The Department of Transport is, however, represented on a liaison committee which will evaluate a research program being conducted by the CSIRO Office of Space Science and Applications. This program will investigate the accuracy with which Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons fitted with an experimental frequency of 406 megahertz can be detected and located by an experimental satellite system. In addition, an official of the Department chairs the Maritime Safety Communications Sub-Committee of the Telecommunications Advisory Committee. This sub-committee co-ordinates the development of maritime safety communications, which include distress alerting and locating satellite systems.