Tuesday, 18 February 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr BLUNT —I ask the Minister for Social Security: Why is it that under the Minister's administration poverty and homelessness have continued to increase as reported by the Socialist Left honourable member for Melbourne, who is also the State President of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party? Does this represent a failure on the part of the Minister's policies? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question because it gives me a very clear opportunity to state some facts with respect to the nature of poverty in the 1980s as opposed to poverty perhaps a decade ago. I think any serious student of poverty over the last 10 years-frankly, the Opposition rarely looks in any depth at all at questions; day in and day out it comes into the House with questions that are drawn from tabloids, the latest headline and the latest angle-would have noticed that we have had a major shift of those people who are most clearly in poverty as opposed to the situation in the early 1970s. In the 1970s more than 50 per cent of the poor were the aged. Since the early 1980s poverty is much more likely to be associated with younger people and this is very often as a result of unemployment although this Government has been remarkably successful in reducing the level of unemployment. Firstly, in terms of poverty and measures of poverty there is no doubt that the single unemployed have suffered very badly over the last decade. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, poverty is associated with pensioner and beneficiary families, often single parent families, with a number of dependent children. Thirdly, there is an association between poverty and housing costs, particularly in private rental housing markets. Interestingly enough, if one looks at the record of the Fraser Government and if one looks at the record of this Opposition when it was in government and one asks `Where were the severest cuts carried out by the Fraser Government and which were the groups it targeted to withdraw support and assistance from?' one would find that those were the three groups. It looked at withdrawing assistance from the unemployed; it was concerned about withdrawing assistance from pensioner and beneficiary families with children; and it was concerned about withdrawing assistance from pensioners and beneficiaries who were in private rental accommodation. The facts are remarkably clear at that point. During the Fraser years additional pensions for children declined 34.7 per cent. The mother's-guardian's allowance declined 34.7 per cent. Rent allowance declined; the single unemployment benefit declined 18.6 per cent; and the junior unemployment benefit declined 45 per cent. Against that, and given the nature of poverty in the 1980s, let us have a look at our priorities and what we have been doing in successive Budgets: Additional pensionor benefit for children-up 60 per cent, from $10 to $16; the mother's/guardian's allowance, up 100 per cent; the single unemployment benefit, up 42 per cent. That is why, whatever people in the welfare sector have said about the absolute numbers and in terms of the scale of funds that we may have provided by way of social security and community services, there has been absolute consensus across the board in the welfare sector with respect to our priorities. Last year's Budget, which contained some relatively modest increases, nevertheless was broadly welcomed right across Australia. The thing about this Government, unlike the Opposition, is that we are thoughtful about policy and we are determined to establish priorities. That is why the Prime Minister wrote to a number of Ministers last year who were involved in the area of welfare expenditure and said to those Ministers: `It is important that we get early within the Budget process some clear understanding of your priorities'. That is what has been provided so that within the context of this year's Budget we can continue to implement the kind of social reform that has been so broadly welcomed within the welfare community. I think it is about time the Opposition began to give a little more thought to these kinds of questions, rather than to come into the House constantly seeking to point-score around the periphery, around elements that do not go to the heart of social policy in this country. That is what this Government has been addressing. It has been addressing some of the central issues, which, after all, are to do with the distribution of income in this society. We have nothing to apologise for in terms of what we have done in social security. We have certainly had to make tough decisions, but we have been prepared to live with those tough decisions so that there can be some real distribution, and so that there can be additional assistance to people who have been thrown into poverty by the macro-economic policy pursued by the honourable member for Bennelong when he was Treasurer, when he brought this country into the deepest recession since the 1930s, and also in terms of the Opposition's inability to come to terms with the nitty gritty of policy. I believe that within the broader community there is complete sympathy with the difficulties the Government has faced in terms of the economic circumstances we have inherited, and very wide support for the social policies we have pursued. Mr CHARLES —I address my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Minister aware of reports that the Government of the Republic of Korea has cracked down on the Opposition in that country? What action, if any, is the opposition party in Korea, and others, taking in an attempt to improve the present situation? Has the Australian Government expressed to the Korean Government its concern about the human rights situation in that country? Mr HAYDEN —Last week the opposition New Korea Democratic Party announced that it would start its signature campaign, the aim of which is to collect 10 million signatures to amend the Constitution to provide for a directly elected president. The campaign is led by the prominent dissidents Kim Dae Jung and Kim Young Sam. The electoral college is heavily gerrymandered to the disadvantage of the Opposition. Full details of the developments are not clear, but it appears that the officials of the CPD-that is, the Committee for the Promotion of Democracy-and of the NKDP-the New Korea Democratic Party-have been prevented by the police from entering their offices. The police have searched NKDP and CPD headquarters, confiscating signature sheets. The police are now threatening action against individuals who have signed the petition. Kim Dae Jung has been placed under house arrest, his phone cut off and entry and exit to his house blocked to prevent his engaging in further activities supporting the campaign. On Monday the Australian Government instructed its Embassy in Seoul to make representations to the ROK Government expressing its concern over these developments. We are concerned at the apparent breakdown of the processes of political liberalisation which we and the ROK friends had welcomed a year ago. Mr PORTER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of the failure of the Minister for Health at yesterday's Question Time to rule out an increase in the Medicare levy, I ask the Prime Minister: Will he reaffirm the undertaking given prior to the last election that `for the term of our next government, the Medicare levy will not be increased'? Mr HAWKE —I confirm that the Government has no plans to change the Medicare arrangements. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Have recent economic announcements highlighted the continuing success of Government policies, particularly the increase in employment opportunities? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Lowe for his question. As usual, he is right on the ball. There is little wonder that international observers are putting Australia at the head of the table in terms of economic achievement. The situation for 1986 is quite clear. The rate of forecast economic growth for Australia virtually doubled the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. I know that those on the other side of this House take no pride in Australia's economic achievement because Australia's economic achievement spells further doom for them politically, as it should. That economic performance is made the more remarkable because it stands, in contrast to the rest of the world, at double the rate of employment growth. It is the only country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which will be reducing unemployment in 1986; there will be increases in the other countries. Our economic performance is made the more remarkable and the more stark when people in this country and the rest of the world compare and contrast it with what happened under our predecessors, because under their stewardship and so-called economic management what we had was the bringing of this country to its knees and the worst recession for 50 years. We made a promise to the people of Australia, a promise which was derided by the now Leader of the Opposition. When I said in February 1983 that we would produce half a million new jobs, what did the now Leader of the Opposition say? He said `nonsense', and said it month after month through 1983. He said that this country could not grow, in employment terms, like that. He said that because his whole thinking was moulded in terms that one used the levers of economic power, not to produce equitable growth but to grind people into the ground. It was the underprivileged of this country-the young-who paid the price of his economic ineptitude. He did not have the wit or the economic intelligence to understand that if one applied sensible economic policies one could turn this country around from recession into record growth. The honourable member for Lowe is right-the performance of this country has been truly outstanding. The important thing is that not only does this Government take pride in that performance but so does the overwhelming majority of the people of this country. The only great tragedy that mars the fact that we are performing better than the rest of the world is that we have this Opposition which, as I have said before, is without talent, without principle and without leadership. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister to assure the House that the ministerial revolt he now faces over spending cuts will not prevent either the announcement of a full cut in oil prices to reflect the fall in world prices from 1 March or the delivery in full of the tax cuts promised last September. Mr HAWKE —I understand that my colleague, the Treasurer, on about three occasions in the last week, has splattered around the floor of this House whatever may have remained of the reputation of the Leader of the Opposition in matters economic. For this individual to presume to talk of economic management is an insult to the intelligence of all people in this country. He had his go. He had his chance and he proved to be the worst Treasurer in the history of this country. He has not done any better in opposition. Let us look at what he said about what we would do. We announced and imposed upon ourselves the most stringent economic constraints in the history of this country. What did this person, the now Leader of the Opposition, say about our chances of achieving that result? On 3 January last year, he said: It is further evidence that the Hawke Government will not be able to keep its promised economic trilogy. Of course he was wrong then. We produced results. I say again to this House that we will abide by the trilogy. We will deliver the tax cuts and the decision in regard to oil policy will be announced in the very near future and will meet with the approval of the Australian people, as has the economic management of this country under this Government since they gave us the responsibility for that task in March 1983. Mr LANGMORE —Has the Minister for Territories seen recent criticisms of the Government's administration of the Australian Capital Territory? Is he able to comment on whether there has been a decline in the Australian Capital Territory economy since 1983? Mr Cadman —Tell us about the Belconnen Mall. That is what we want to hear about. Mr SCHOLES —Most people who have shown a continuing interest in the Australian Capital Territory will be aware of the mess that the economy of the Australian Capital Territory was in in 1983. At the time of the change of government unemployment in this area was running at 7 per cent. It is now less than 5 per cent. The private sector had ground to a halt. There were no serviced blocks available for home builders who wished to take part in that great Australian dream of owning their own home. Land prices were escalating at a very rapid rate because of the failure in the previous 12 months of the then Government to pursue a policy of providing adequate serviced land for those people who wished to build homes. The claims of members of the Opposition in this regard are very much like most of the claims they make in this House. They have all the substance of the words of a trained parrot which does not understand what it is talking about and does not want to know what it said or did yesterday. The performance of the present Government in this area since the change of government has been extremely good and compares more than favourably with the disastrous performance and management of this area over the six or seven years prior to 1983. The Australian Capital Territory was one area of Australia in which the former Government played at cutting government expenditure-the supposed razor gang exercise which went on for five years and achieved $300m in cuts. An honourable gentleman opposite wants to know about the Belconnen Mall. I might say that his Government spent two years and $300,000 worth of public funds in a failed attempt to sell that particular commercial development. It took three years and the best bid it could get was $50m. I will make one other comment on the sorts of allegations coming from the Opposition. I note that in the Senate I was criticised for failing to encourage private enterprise in the development of the Tuggeranong town centre. We sold the site to private enterprise for development several months ago at a very substantial profit for the Commonwealth. The problem is that Opposition members do not know what they are talking about. It is worth noting that, despite the statements of the Leader of the Opposition that he will cut billions of dollars from government expenditure, his shadow Minister for Territories has given a solemn undertaking, presumably with his Leader's blessing, that in every area of expenditure in the Australian Capital Territory there will be increased expenditure. Is the Leader of the Opposition prepared to underwrite that promise or is his shadow Minister talking through his hat? Mr RUDDOCK —My question is to the Minister for Social Security. I ask whether he agrees that the continuing wrangling between the Hawke and Wran governments over the emergency relief services in New South Wales is an example of how, in the words of his Socialist Left colleague, `poverty and homelessness have continued to increase' under this Administration. Mr HOWE —During the time that we have been in office this Government has taken extremely seriously the problem of assistance to the States and to the voluntary organisations in the form of additional funding for emergency relief. Since we have been in government funding has tripled in terms of the amount available when we came to office and the funding currently available to the States to assist the various government and voluntary sectors in the provision of emergency relief. The conferences of Commonwealth and State Welfare Ministers have involved a number of discussions on the subject of emergency relief. I do not think there is any disagreement between the Commonwealth and the States that in the longer term effective action taken against poverty and the removal of the need for assistance for emergency relief is dependent on overall government priorities, particularly in the area of social security but also in terms of other services provided by government departments. The extent of the consensus can be seen in the major areas of expenditure which the Commonwealth and State Ministers agreed ought to be focused on by the Commonwealth. Those are the areas that I referred to in a question earlier in Question Time where we are providing additional assistance. Our strategy has been very much in line with the strategy agreed between the Commonwealth and the States. With regard to New South Wales, the Commonwealth is certainly concerned about the decision made by the New South Wales Government to withdraw partially from the provision of emergency relief through the Youth and Community Services Department of that State. However, it is not a complete withdrawal but a partial withdrawal. There have been discussions between the Commonwealth and the States. The Commonwealth for its part has been prepared to make a significant offer to the New South Wales Government. Not only have we tripled expenditure from the Commonwealth viewpoint on additional assistance for emergency relief, but also we have spent some hundreds of millions of dollars to provide additional assistance to individuals in the target group areas and also made an additional offer to the New South Wales Government with respect to the provision of assistance-- Mr Carlton —That is while the people wait. Mr HOWE —No, we have made an offer to the New South Wales Government. Ms FATIN —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. In the light of the joint announcement this week by the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Housing and Construction, can the Minister inform the House of the expected impact on the local community of new developments at HMAS Stirling at Garden Island in Rockingham? In particular, can the Minister tell the House about the new submarine escape training facility at HMAS Stirling? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for her question. She is very diligent in taking note of the various decisions this Government takes on developments at HMAS Stirling, and she has a considerable interest in the welfare of the Royal Australian Navy people and the impact to those people on her constituency. The Government has taken a number of decisions in recent times to give effect to our two-ocean navy strategy, which we see as an essential aspect of defence self-reliance. Among those decisions put into effect-there are some yet to be implemented-is the stationing of, and providing of the necessary housing and other facilities for, the two destroyers now permanently home ported at HMAS Stirling. We have also taken decisions in recent times to base the bulk of the new submarine fleet, when it comes into existence, at HMAS Stirling and to base a proportion of the old submarine fleet there. They are decisions that will be implemented down the line. When those changes come into effect there will be a substantial requirement, particularly in the housing area, to ensure that those crews can be properly home ported, and some work, though not a great deal, will need to be done to improve the facilities so that they can cope with the additional requirements. All of those changes mean substantial work for the local community. The decision we have taken most recently is the decision to construct a new submarine escape training facility at HMAS Stirling, which is consistent with our decision ultimately to base the bulk of the submarine fleet there. A contract worth $11.5m has been let for that project, which comprises a submarine escape training tank incorporating a submarine escape training module, a shallow training module, support services for the training tank and modules, an eight-level reinforced concrete building to house the tank, associated teaching areas and support services, site works and building and engineering services. At its peak some 60 people will be employed on that site. Of course we do not take decisions solely because we wish to advantage residents in the honourable member's constituency, though they do have that effect. We take these decisions because we believe that they are essential in the defence interests of this country and are long overdue. They are just part of the general effectiveness of the defence policies pursued by this Government. As it happens, these new facilities will benefit many of the honourable member's constituents. I am aware that they are appreciative of that, and the Navy has made an effort in recent times to involve itself actively in the local community. The honourable member drew my attention recently to the Navy's participation in a work training scheme for local members of the community. That is to be welcomed. I know that the Navy is appreciative of the welcome it has received in the honourable member's community and I know that it is also appreciative of her efforts on its behalf. Mr SINCLAIR —The Minister for Primary Industry will recall during the Mudginberri dispute backing a decision by the Export Inspection Service, which is under his control, to refuse to provide export inspection for meat produced there. Does the Minister's announcement the other day, that following court action the Government will legislate for an escape clause which would allow him not to provide export inspection, mean that the Minister now acknowledges that he had no such discretion at Mudginberri? Mr KERIN —First of all, there is no implication of this being an escape clause at all. The Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia recently handed down a decision. The effect of that, in law, is that the Export Inspection Service has virtually no discretion but to provide inspection staff whenever requested to do so. In that decision the word `impossible' appeared-`. . . unless it is impossible to do so'. That word is not defined, so in all other government departments, if that rule applies as a statement on administrative law it simply means that we have to provide a service unless it is impossible to do so, whether it be the Australian Bureau of Customs, Australia Post or whatever. As far as the Export Inspection Service is concerned, if we apply that word `impossible' it simply means that we have to employ a lot of additional inspectors, which imposes a cost on the industry. In the usual run of events, requests for inspectors can be made at any time, regardless of the absolute condition of whether or not stock is available. I believe that it is untenable that the people who are accountable for the proper administration of the inspection service have little say in the way this service is provided. When considering a request for inspection staff they must be able to take into consideration the efficiency of the operations, the safety of the staff, together with the effect of their decision on the whole of the industry. It is also necessary for the Government to have an input into the decision-making process when the national interest is involved. Considering the nature of the judgment-I advise honourable members to read the judgment because there was a plain invitation within it to do what the Government has done-and the added inspection costs that would result if no inspection was taken, not to mention the possible effects in other areas of government administration, the Government has decided to amend ministerial orders clearly to provide a discretion. Under the new orders, decisions taken by officials will be subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The changes will also enable the Government to be involved in the decision-making process should the national interest be in question. Mr BILNEY —I preface my question to the Minister for Health by reminding him that last year he assured me that progress was being made towards the conclusion of an agreement on reciprocal health care benefits between Australia and the United Kingdom. Will the Minister now outline the stage negotiations have reached? Secondly, will he let us know what benefits this agreement will provide to the many people of United Kingdom origin in his and my electorates? Dr BLEWETT —I can assure the honourable member for Kingston that we are well advanced in the negotiations with the United Kingdom for a reciprocal health care agreement. I point out that in the first week of January I signed a reciprocal Medicare agreement with the Italian Government. As soon as the Italian Parliament has approved that agreement, short term Italian visitors to this country and Australian visitors to Italy will be granted immediate access to the health systems of the two countries. In relation to the agreement with the United Kingdom, it is my ambition and hope-negotiations are now sufficiently advanced-to be able to say that in mid-March I will be signing an agreement with the United Kingdom Government to ensure reciprocal arrangements between Australia and Britain. This will mean that, as soon as that agreement is approved, Australian citizens visiting the United Kingdom for short periods will have access to the British national health system and United Kingdom visitors to Australia for a short period will have access to the Australian Medicare system. Mr HICKS —My question is directed to the Treasurer. In the light of the threatened widespread loss of jobs in the Riverina-Darling electorate and in the rest of rural Australia through the Government's proposed quarantining of farm loss legislation, will the Treasurer investigate the situation in the hope that the existing rural recession will not be exacerbated further by ill-advised Government policy? Mr KEATING —The honourable gentleman may say `ill advised' but in fact anybody with an exclusive farm income is not affected whatsoever. Mr Tuckey —Of course they are; the values are down. Mr KEATING —They are not affected whatsoever. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked. We will now hear the answer. Mr KEATING —What was happening was that there was a haemorrhage on the revenue through the fact that many people were not principally in the business of farming but were running a so-called farming enterprise. They were running those losses off against their income in a way whereby they were essentially accumulating a capital profit themselves but were not in the business of producing or relying principally on an agricultural income. The Government designed this rule in this way because there was a history of losses in agricultural income for the previous five years being aggregated against other income. To provide for somebody who had a property and was relying principally upon that and was earning some off-farm income, we amended the original proposal in the tax reform package from a maximum of $15,000 tapering off to $30,000 to a maximum of $20,000 tapering off to $40,000. This meant that for someone with an income of $20,000 there would be a full offset, tapering off for single incomes to $40,000-of course, with a two income family that figure would increase. So the person earning some off-farm income who has needed that off-farm income is taken care of under the provision and someone who has a record of farm income for the previous five years can offset the value of the cumulative previous five years farm income against other income. What has happened is that over years the rorters of the National Party and the Liberal Party have been responsible for breaking up decent pieces of agricultural land into 50 and 100 acre lots. They have been responsible for the speculation in rural properties. The result has been that there has been inflation in land values which has had no correlation whatever to the capacity of that land to produce income. Every Pitt Street farmer who wanted to diminish his income and store up a capital gain was able to do so under this provision. What we say about it is that any farmer who relies solely on farm income will not be affected. Honourable members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Why don't you go and read it, you clot. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. The behaviour this afternoon is deteriorating. I suggest that members ask their questions and then listen to the answers. I suggest that the honourable member for Mackellar cease interjecting. Mr Carlton —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I ask that the offensive term used by the Treasurer be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —If the Treasurer used an offensive term, I ask him to withdraw it. Mr KEATING —I withdraw. I would not hurt his feelings, not for quids. The fact is that a farmer relying exclusively on farm income is not affected. Mr Rocher —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Can you inform the House whether the Treasurer withdrew the remark? Madam SPEAKER —The Treasurer withdrew his comment. Mr KEATING —Of course I did. I would not offend old Rosie over there. The provisions take care of farms which rely upon some off-farm income. The Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about values, putting in his little tuppence worth. I do not suppose that it has occurred to him that the decline in farm prices around the world has had some impact on land values. The fact is that the distortions which are claimed by implication in the question and by members of the National Party and the Liberal Party are blatant distortions aimed at frightening the farm community. A farmer who relies exclusively on farm income is not affected at all. Mr DUNCAN —Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the Tasmanian Government has commenced road construction at Farmhouse Creek in the southern forest area with a view to building a road to be used in part for the transport of export woodchips? In light of the Minister's statement on 16 December that the area would be excluded from woodchipping, what steps will the Government take to protect this area or to prevent the export of woodchips harvested in the Picton Valley-Farmhouse Creek area of the southern forests? Mr KERIN —This matter arose during the recent election campaign, and I did not make any comment on it then. The roading plan for this activity has been in place since 1983. At that time it was on public display. The Australian Conservation Foundation would have known about that roading plan. In terms of any logging plan and of the decision we took, some elements are still to be negotiated with the Tasmanian Government. Mr PEACOCK —Madam Speaker-- Government members-Hear, hear! Mr Simmons —Plenty on this side seem to support you, Andrew. Mr PEACOCK —I agree, but not as many do over this side of the House. I refer the Foreign Minister to his answer at Question Time yesterday that the conduct of the election in the Philippines will `necessarily have an effect on the environment in which our bilateral relations with the Philippines are conducted'. I ask the Foreign Minister specifically: In what way will the bilateral relationship be affected? What has been the reaction of the Association of South East Asian Nations to developments in the Philippines? I further ask the Minister: Will he be attending the forthcoming post-ASEAN ministerial meeting in Manila? Will the Government continue to use the Philippines as Australia's ASEAN dialogue partner? Mr HAYDEN —The comments of the honourable member for Kooyong about having more support on this side of the House than the other caused me to cast my mind back to the early days when I was campaigning for the Australian Labor Party to get elected- Mr Beale —You've still got the same problem, Bill. Mr HAYDEN —Not since I used Lifebuoy soap. I used to go out to Labor Party branch meetings in the rural area of my electorate to big functions and meetings that had been organised where four people would turn up which, in those days, seemed to me to be a rather large crowd. They used to tell me: `It is quality that counts, Bill, not numbers'. Subsequently I found that numbers are pretty important. In response to the honourable member's question: Our relationship with a number of countries, as is the nature of foreign relations, is the subject of a periodic review. That review has been under way for sometime. Its purpose, very simply, is to update the basis of the bilateral relationship and developments which might have taken place. When I have completed that review I will be in a far better position to respond concretely on the matter the honourable member raises. Privately, I am quite happy to make material available to the honourable member, who, as I have said many times, was a distinguished Foreign Minister of this country for five years. I will be going to the post-ASEAN conference in Manila in July. The Philippines was nominated by the ASEAN countries in July last year as our dialogue partner. Dr CHARLESWORTH —Is the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism aware of reports in the Australian today pointing out that a doctor appointed to the 1986 Commonwealth Games team has publicly advocated the use of anabolic steroids by athletes? Can the Minister inform the House whether these reports have any substance? What measures does the Australian Institute of Sport take to make sure that none of its athletes uses these practices? Mr JOHN BROWN —I certainly read that article in the Australian. It is proper that the honourable member should ask this question because, in his dual role as an eminent doctor of medicine and a former captain of the world champion Australian hockey team, he has been a very outspoken advocate of drug free sport. I congratulate him on that. It is axiomatic that I and the Government find the use of anabolic steroids in any form in sport totally unacceptable. Under the auspices of the Australian Sports Commission, I set up a committee under the national program of drugs in sport which has been charged with collecting and disseminating research material to sporting organisations throughout Australia, advising them on methods of preventing the use of drugs in sport. I note with some interest that the Chairman of that committee has written to the Commonwealth Games Association pointing out that the appointment of Dr Miller as the doctor for the Commonwealth Games team, given the article in which he has advocated the use of steroids, is a position which we do not appreciate at all. I would be pleased if that position were altered dramatically. The second half of the honourable member's question is concerned about the Institute of Sport. Since its inception by my good friend Bob Ellicott it has adopted a very firm principle with regard to drugs. Any athlete or any coach found using drugs is instantly dismissed. It is written into every coach's contract and into every athlete's contract that the use of drugs is absolutely forbidden. In conclusion, I think it would be fair to say that all sports loving people in this country would be quite happy if Australia were absolutely bereft of any medal in any international competition if the price for a winning performance were the use of anabolic steroids or any other form of stimulant or drug. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 63m of the Audit Act 1901, I present the annual report of the Law Reform Commission for 1984-85. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the National Consumer Affairs Council 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 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 Hawker,Mr McArthur and Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space; The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Rocher. 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 and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners, and in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl and Mr Staples. 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 they are opposed to the introduction of the Kerin Plan for the Australian Dairy industry which would destroy the livelihoods of many thousands of dairy farmers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will reject the Kerin Dairy Plan. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitions of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- That the Federal Government's report recommending aged pensioners pay for prescribed drugs be not acted upon. The aged are more likely to be using prescribed drugs than others and this outrageous suggestion will only deprive the aged pensioners of money they need for living expenses. Due to any increase in cost of prescribed drugs, pensioners may not be able to have prescriptions filled. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that no action be taken by the Government on this matter and that free drugs remain available to the aged. by Mr Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the pricing of petrol in this country; 2. That under a Labor Government petrol prices have continued to rise excessively, with recent Government decisions adding over 8c per litre to the price of petrol in some country areas; 3. The proposed consumption tax could lead to a further rise of 6c per litre; and 4. The high cost of petrol discriminates against country residents who rely on their cars for essential communication and transport. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister during the 1983 election campaign to reduce petrol prices by 3c per litre. Further we strongly urge the Government to adopt a petrol pricing policy which does not cause unnecessary rises in the cost of petrol. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to Ethnic Communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that ``States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women''. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of 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 McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office Agency at North Randwick be closed by Australia Post. The location of the North Randwick Post Office Agency has been of immense service and convenience to us, and has been in existence for 65 years. It will be extremely difficult, inconvenient and expensive to us the residents, and visitors, of the North Randwick, Centennial Park area, to travel all the way to Randwick, Bondi Junction or the Waverley Post Offices, for our postal transactions, banking, parcel collection and other agency requirements. This Post Office not only serves a large retired community and working community but also the business community which is vital to the economy of this area, and for our convenience. The 2 hour Saturday trading also helps the working section of the community immeasurably. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of this Post Office. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: S.W.A.P.O. is recognised by the United Nation as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. The situation in Namibia is of particular importance to Australians, given Australia's position as a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia, in effect a member of the UN, the government for Namibia in exile and therefore has a legal international entrusted responsibility to the people of Namibia, responsibilities which it must be prepared to take seriously in order to bring about social justice, freedom and independence for Namibia and genuine peace in that Region. Therefore this humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to urgently initiate the following steps: 1. To fund a S.W.A.P.O. Office in Australia, such funding to continue until a free Namibia is able to establish an Embassy in Canberra. 2. That all commercial, sporting and cultural ties with the Republic of South Africa be severed forthwith. 3. That all diplomatic ties with Pretoria be severed. 4. To give decent support to S.W.A.P.O. agriculture and educational programs. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under Common Law, 2. Deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. Give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. Could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives should: Completely reject both the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government's decision to force, at the expense of viewers, the transfer of WIN TV (and any future local broadcaster) from VHF to UHF transmission, while excluding Sydney metropolitan TV stations from this requirement, has placed in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial TV operator. Your petitioners request the House of Representatives to protect the interests of the hundreds of thousands of television viewers within the area from Wollongong to the Victorian border served by WIN TV, by preventing the Government from taking this unwarranted and discriminatory action which disadvantages both viewers and advertisers on the South Coast to the benefit of the metropolitan networks. 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 the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- We, the undersigned, recognise that every individual has the basic right to negotiate employment conditions if he or she so chooses, free from Union interference of any kind. We request that the Federal and State Governments introduce new legislation or amend existing legislation to permit negotiated employment contracts as an alternative available to those who do not wish to have a Trade Union acting for them in matters relating to their employment. 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 the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's proposal to bring about a reduction in the amount payable under the present Family Allowance Scheme, that the House of Representatives assembled oppose such a move, on the evidence of its impact on the family unit. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek to restore payments to the former level. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the 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 Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement Action Programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10 per cent of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable 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 petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens 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: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond 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 Blunt and Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ban on negative gearing and restrictions on property depreciation will adversely affect thousands of disadvantaged people who rent their homes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: End its ill-considered and discriminatory policy on rented property and allow depreciation on all buildings used to produce rental income. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner. Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (ie, set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas 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 the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality 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 such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand 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 Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, 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 union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of 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 union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned residents of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains tax Hidden Death tax described as ``Capital gains tax after death'' Gift tax Increased Company tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 Fraser 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 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. Petitions received. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, Mr Saunderson be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, in place of Mr Wright, resigned. Madam 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 implications of the revolt of the gang of seven Ministers on the Government's ability to honour its promises on petrol price reductions and tax cuts. 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)(2.54) —This morning's Press is absolutely chock-a-block full of stories of one of the most serious revolts the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has faced within his own Ministry since he became Prime Minister in March 1983. Despite the fact that the Government faces a very severe budgetary problem because of its own stupid, unaffordable promises in a wide range of areas, and despite the fact that, unlike the first three Keating Budgets, the next Keating Budget, the fourth Keating Budget, will need to bear down very heavily on government spending, seven Ministers, who comprise one quarter of the Federal Ministry and who are responsible between them for about 40 per cent of all government spending, have, in effect, told the Prime Minister to go and get lost. In reality that is what has happened. The significance of what was revealed in the Press this morning and what was left undenied at Question Time today lies in the defiance that it represents towards the Prime Minister and also in the threat it poses towards the capacity of the Government to deliver, not only on the promised tax cuts that were made in September last year but also on the promises that it made-promises made not only in opposition but also in government-that it would deliver to the Australian public the full benefit of the fall in the world price of oil. What the gang of seven Ministers is saying to the Prime Minister and to the Treasurer (Mr Keating), and, therefore to the Australian public, is that there is no hope on earth that the Hawke Government will be able to honour both of those promises. Unless significant spending cuts are achieved in the next Budget which are beyond the spending cuts that have been achieved in the past by the biggest spending Treasurer in Australia's history-the Treasurer who now sits at the table-there is no hope on earth of this Government delivering on both of those promises, unless, of course, it decides upon a major increase in the size of the deficit. That would have adverse effects on the attitudes of the financial markets towards the Government and the attitudes of the financial markets towards interest rates and the value of the dollar. The Minister who really gave the game away was none other than the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). When he was asked yesterday whether the Medicare levy was going to go up and whether he could give an assurance that it was going to go up he admitted that the matter was before the Budget Cabinet. Therefore, it is not surprising that these seven Ministers, none of whom belong to the Prime Minister's faction, have all said publicly that as far as they are concerned the promises of the Prime Minister and of the Treasurer are disposable. By saying what they have said and by taking the stand they have taken these Ministers are making it impossible for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to deliver on the promises that both of those gentlemen have made. This Prime Minister is now building up the most unenviable record, as far as broken promises are concerned, of any political leader in Australia. The present Prime Minister of this country is on the way to breaking more promises as a Prime Minister than he destroyed jobs as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That would have to be a pretty fair record because, while President of the ACTU, he did more to destroy the international competitiveness of Australian industry than anybody else. He treated the Australian public, and particularly Australian farmers, to one of the greatest exercises in hand-wringing hypocrisy ever seen a couple of weeks ago when he visited three families and pretended to care about the rural plight. After what he did to the competitiveness of Australian agriculture, after what he did to the export incomes of all Australian exporters and after the strikes that he encouraged and supported that tied up our export industries and left the produce of our farmers rotting on the wharves because he would not use his position as leader of the ACTU, he has the temerity to go off in a pre-arranged gimmicky fashion to three families and pretend that he is really interested in the plight of the rural producer, the plight of the Australian farmer. The fact is that this Prime Minister is on the way to getting back into the Guinness Book of Records yet again. He is on the way to getting into the Guinness Book of Records of broken promises by a Prime Minister. Remember this man. Remember him before 1983. He said to the Australian public: `Let me tell you in terms that even the Liberal and National parties can understand; there will be no capital gains tax'. That promise was disposed of. Then he said to the Australian pensioners: `We will not affect the value of your pension'. We all know what happened to that promise. Then the Prime Minister let himself loose. He really extended himself when it came to the matter of interest rates. He and his mate, the Treasurer, said: `We will do something about interest rates. We will make some promises about them'. Before the 1984 election they said: `Friends, interest rates will come down in 1985. That is the good news of the Hawke economic strategy. That is the economic deliverance we have given to the Australian public'. What happened? We now have the highest interest rates that we have had since the Prime Minister was two years of age. We have to go back to 1928 to find interest rates as high as they are at present and there is no prospect of those interest rates coming down. That was yet another totally disposable promise. In the face of that, one would think that the Prime Minister might have learned something-having promised that there would be no capital gains tax and breaking that promise; having promised that pensioners' assets would be left alone and breaking that promise, and having promised that interest rates would come down and breaking that promise. But no, he could not restrain himself. After he had been on holidays he made a beautiful Kirribilli decision-the one about fertilisers-that was supposed to get him off the hook in Western Australia. It was a marvellous decision that cost him votes not only in the rest of rural Australia but, brilliant though he is as a strategist, also in rural Western Australia. It has to be a pretty clever exercise in pork-barrelling for a Prime Minister to give something to help a section of the country and end up losing votes in all areas of rural Australia. Despite that, the Prime Minister still had not really learnt his lesson. On the Mike Carlton show he was asked about interest rates. He said: `I agree with everybody else who says that they are coming down'. He was asked about the dollar. He said: `I think that the correct value of the dollar is about 72c to 75c'. The Australian dollar has not been within a bull's roar of 72c, the bottom end of that range, since the Prime Minister made that prediction. The real bind that he is now in is that he, the Treasurer, Senator Walsh and Senator Gareth Evans are on the record telling the Australian public that they will get the full benefit of the fall in the world price of oil. What the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the gang of seven know is that there is no way on earth that the Prime Minister can deliver on both those promises unless they are prepared to help him out. One thing that the Prime Minister's factional opponents in the Labor Party are not prepared to do when they really have him cornered, as they did about the MX missile and other matters, is help him out. They have waited for this opportunity and have said to the Prime Minister `You can stew in the embarrassment of your foolishly made promises', because the Prime Minister and the Treasurer more than anyone else in the Government have got them into this pickle. The Treasurer, along with the Prime Minister, when making the tax cut promises in September last year knew darned well that the bottom could fall out of the oil market. Senator Evans knew it two months earlier. All I can say is that if Senator Evans knows something we can be absolutely certain that everybody else does. I do not think that anybody is prepared to wear the argument that only Senator Evans knew about it and that he had an exclusive insight into the workings of world oil markets that was denied to everybody else. Wilfully and knowing the risk involved, the Treasurer and his colleague the Prime Minister, his factional ally, went ahead, misled the Australian public and said: `Trust us. We will give you tax cuts and the full benefit of the fall in the price of oil. We will meet the trilogy and so on'. Of course, the day of reckoning is now coming. Everybody is staking out his position. It is no surprise that simultaneously a letter has been deliberately and maliciously leaked by one of the Prime Minister's Ministers to embarrass the Prime Minister. It happens on the very day when two other interesting things happened. We had the President of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), a recognised leader of the Socialist Left within the Parliamentary Labor Party, saying that, under the Labor Government, poverty and homelessness have got worse. That is what he said. They are not my words; they are not the words of any member of the Liberal or National parties. They are the words of the leader of the Socialist Left faction in the Labor Party. Of course, this was to the great embarrassment, which was evident to anybody present at Question Time, of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) who bobbed and weaved and tried to filibuster and bluster his way out of the indictment that had been delivered. I see in the remarks of the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), who is questioning the international economic priorities of the Government, a deliberate attempt by a section of the Labor Party to make it difficult, well nigh impossible, for the Government to honour the commitments that it has made on the subjects of oil pricing and taxation. The two people who will cop the political odium for that, because they deserve it, are the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. No two people have been more responsible for misleading the Australian public on these two issues than the Treasurer and the Prime Minister. The Treasurer was the obedient lapdog of the Prime Minister in misleading the public on the issue of interest rates before the 1984 election. The Prime Minister enthusiastically encouraged him and said: `Oh, yes, we will have interest rate falls'. The Treasurer was the architect of the taxation package of 19 September. He was the person who mortgaged two future budgets of the Commonwealth-one of the most irresponsible things for any Treasurer to do. He mortgaged the future of the Budget and he knew darned well in making that promise that he could not possibly keep the commitment to give the full benefit of the fall in the world price of oil. He knew that. He had undoubtedly been warned by the Treasury of the danger of that. I find it inconceivable that the Treasury would not have warned the Treasurer that in making the promises he was making he was running the very serious risk that, if there were a fall in the world price of oil, the Government would be in serious budgetary difficulties. I say to the Treasurer, as the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has said to the Treasurer, that that clearly must have been the advice that he received from the Treasury. All I can say is that the dogs were barking about the fall in the price of oil. They were barking about the middle of last year. Senator Gareth Evans went to a meeting of the Committee for Economic Development of Australia and made a long speech about the problems that would be created if there were a fall in the world price of oil. Now, in February of 1986, the Government is moving towards the classic bind of all those who seek to deceive the Australian public and to promise things that they know they ought not to promise and that they cannot deliver. This Prime Minister has made and dishonoured so many promises that he is turning it into a veritable art form. But this may well be one promise too many. It may well be that this is the promise that really seriously damages and undermines the credibility of the Prime Minister. Everybody knows the simple proposition that it is fair enough that, when the world price of petrol goes up, our price has to go up. But the other side of it is a very simple proposition that, if the world price of petrol comes down, it is only fair and reasonable that our petrol price comes down. I can tell the Government that that is a proposition that every family motorist, every farmer, every businessman and indeed every single Australian and his or her family understands with great clarity. They also understand that no two people have made more promises about that principle than the present Treasurer and the present Prime Minister. What we have now is a clear and open revolt by seven factional opponents of the Prime Minister within the Ministry which is clearly designed to undermine and to embarrass the Prime Minister and make it impossible for him and the Treasurer to honour their promises to the Australian people. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.09) — One always has to have a bit of a quiet giggle about the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong and Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), worrying about our Budget and this Government's capacity to bring down its Budget. The economic vandal of 1982 is now the economic angel of 1986. He is the man who started with a Budget deficit of $1.4 billion in 1982 and 18 months later left us with $9.6 billion. It went from $1.4 billion to $9.6 billion in 18 months. This is the character who is lecturing us about fiscal rectitude-his oiliness, the man who put all the oil money up, the honourable member for Bennelong-- Mr Tuckey —If you want me to talk about Kristine, you keep up with this `his oiliness'. I will give it to you any time you want it. You play it straight. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor might have an early afternoon if he proceeds in this way. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for O'Connor is a member with a criminal intellect, and is a criminal in my view. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The Treasurer will not speak while the occupant of the chair is on his feet. Mr Tuckey —Withdraw. Mr Keating —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I was speaking. He did not raise a point of order. If disciplinary action is available, it ought to be taken against him. Opposition members-Withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair is aware that the Treasurer was interrupted. The honourable member for O'Connor has claimed that the words used by the Treasurer were offensive to him. Will the Treasurer withdraw? Mr KEATING —I will withdraw nothing. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I do object to the words `his oiliness'. I believe that they are unparliamentary. I have now also been accused of having a criminal intellect, and I ask that that be withdrawn. I certainly do not mix with criminals. Mr KEATING —I do not get someone to hold somebody against a wall while I belt him with a truncheon. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will refer-- Opposition members-Name him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have all afternoon if the members of the Opposition wish to continue. The Treasurer will refer to the Leader of the Opposition as the Leader of the Opposition and will withdraw the remarks made against the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, in deference to you I withdraw but I point out that the Leader of the Opposition hurls all sorts of abuse at me, and all through Question Time those two pansies over there want retractions of the things we have said about them. They are a bunch of nobodies going nowhere. Let me repeat this undertaking: This Government will meet its trilogy commitments. Mr Donald Cameron —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Treasurer has even called people over here pansies. When are you going to put an end to all this rubbish he is going on with? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not know whether the honourable member for Moreton was identifying with the Treasurer's remarks; I am sure he was not. Members of the Opposition are busily provoking the Treasurer, and the Treasurer is busily provoking members of the Opposition. If both parties continue in this mode I guess they have to expect to take what they get. It would be to the benefit of both sides if members of the Opposition listened to the Treasurer in the same way as Government members listened to the Leader of the Opposition. The Treasurer may now proceed. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence but we will get no such treatment from the animals on the other side. Let me make this clear: We do not need advice from the Opposition about how to run a decent fiscal policy. We were left with the most disastrous fiscal inheritance, the most disastrous fiscal imbalance, of any government in the history of this Federation. That is what we were left with. I just add that, in terms of our alleged breaches of promise, our major commitment was to reduce unemployment and provide jobs. Our major commitment was to provide 500,000 jobs in three years and, before the three years are up on 5 March this year, we have already created 608,000 jobs. That was our principal commitment; that is the principal promise which has been kept by this Government. That is in marked contrast to the performance of the former Government and the disastrous levels of unemployment it left. The Government will meet its trilogy-the only discipline ever imposed on a government's fiscal policy in living memory. Let me make it quite clear that we will provide the tax cuts, we will meet our new spending obligations, including our consideration on oil, and we will do so within the trilogy. We do not need any lecturing from the Opposition about budgetary policy after it left us with the deficit we had. The Leader of the Opposition, whose policy this is, has said that he will refuse the passage of the measures providing for the $700m to $800m tax cuts. He would add that to the deficit. Mr N.A. Brown —Who said that? Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition said that in an interview. He made it quite clear that he would carry the $600m to $800m without the current revenue measures. He also said that he would carry the cost of a return of the oil money, which is $1 billion-plus. So he has $1 billion-plus on oil and $800m on tax cuts. But when the Press Gallery dared to ask how this would be funded, how the coalition government would bring down a fiscally responsible Budget, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) said yesterday: He tried,-- that is the Treasurer-- with the assistance of a couple of financial journalists from the gallery to throw it back to the Opposition by asking where we would make the necessary cuts. He went on: We simply will not do that. That is what he said. He blames the Press Gallery for making him face up to all these crazy promises he has made. When the Leader of the Opposition is asked about this, he says: I will, at the appropriate time, indicate what a coalition government will be doing in the expenditure area. I do not intend now, or in the immediate future, to be detailing the alternative expenditure plans of the Opposition. So in other words he is saying: `Mount it all up. Never say where the tax cuts come from. When there is any debate on the Government side about tax cuts we will jump up with a matter of public importance'. The fact is that we have made expenditure cuts within the Government and we have reduced the Budget deficit. We did not do it with the lazy oil money. We did not grab the easy oil money, as the world price went up, to reduce the deficit. We reduced the deficit by- Opposition members interjecting- Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, do I get any protection here? At least I would like to be heard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition might find himself having an early afternoon as well. Members of the Opposition seem to have taken the view that the way to disrupt the business of the House is to continue interjecting. If members of the Opposition continue to do that the Chair will just have to take the view that some of the louder interjectors will have to have an early afternoon. If that occurs I do not think the Chair will discriminate among office holders. I will not warn members of the Opposition any more. I ask the members of the Opposition front bench and on the back bench to hear the Treasurer in silence and that will ensure that the right honourable member for New England is heard in silence when he speaks. Mr KEATING —We find that the $1 billion- plus of oil money and $800m on tax cuts is to be mounted up on the Budget. But we should not ask honourable members opposite about expenditure. I remind the House that in three Budgets we funded $2,000m of new policy in the social security, welfare and housing areas and we brought down the Budget deficit from the $9.6 billion we inherited to $8.5 billion, and then to $4.9 billion, or less than half of its proportion of gross domestic product. We have funded this new policy by putting Labor's priorities in place and by cutting outlays. The former Government never cut outlays. Its lousy razor gang only raised $250m after 18 months. The only way the former Government cut the deficit was by taking in the lazy oil money. It never had a decent expenditure-cutting exercise. Of course, the business of government, of reducing those deficits, is about expenditure control. Whenever there is any debate on the Government side about the difficult areas of expenditure control, up gets the lunatic with a proposition like this about- Mr Carlton —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr KEATING —Here is old Rosie again. She is up again. Mr Carlton —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: This is unparliamentary language and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr KEATING —Anything you say. I withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair was not aware that the Treasurer was referring to any particular person. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The reference was to `the' lunatic and it should be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the honourable member identifying himself as the person the Treasurer was referring to? Mr Tuckey —I am quite happy to, but it wasn't me. Mr Howard —On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: May I respectfully suggest to you, sir, that, if you want the co-operation that you so earnestly request of the Opposition, you might treat points of order taken by the Opposition a little less flippantly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Chair was not aware, with the performance of the Leader of the Opposition and his front bench in their continual interjections in the last 10 minutes, that they were all that interested in taking this debate too seriously either. If you wish to take the debate seriously, the way it should be, the Chair will ensure that you are given the respect that you deserve, but if you wish to continue to interject the Chair will treat it as the type of raucous debate you tend to want to run it as. Mr KEATING —It is the Opposition's proposition that I am responding to. We heard the Leader of the Opposition in silence. If we are in the business of making threats, let me make one: If they keep up this behaviour they will have no matters of public importance for the rest of this week. So how about that? I am not going to waste my time trying to be heard in answering a proposition raised by the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to raise the proposition, I will answer it. I will knock the Opposition right over, no problems. If Opposition members want a few New South Wales ALP rules, I will give them to them. Mr Shipton —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Treasurer said words to the effect that if the Opposition kept up this conduct there would be no MPIs. The matter of an MPI is at the discretion of the Speaker. The Treasurer has threatened the Chair and I ask you to get him to withdraw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is nothing of the sort. Resume your seat. Mr KEATING —I can only conclude at this point. The Opposition has no interest in this issue apparently. Mr Carlton —What about your own back bench? Look at it. Mr KEATING —It is your proposition, my friend. You are the one who comes to listen to it, not us. You have got no interest in it whatsoever. The fact is that, if you are not interested in it and you do not want to hear, that is fine; there is no problem. Mr Shipton —Sir, I ask you to rule on the point of order that the Treasurer threatened the Chair in his comments about denying an MPI. It was a reflection on the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ruled that the point of order had no substance. If the honourable member for Higgins insists on taking spurious points of order, I will make a further ruling on him. Has the Treasurer completed his remarks? Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not mind giving the Opposition the time to reply to serious propositions, but if this is what we are to expect from this rabble opposite, if one cannot even be heard and if the interjections persist at this level, the Opposition will not get me to answer its propositions. It is as simple as that. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.24) —I am very happy to give the Treasurer (Mr Keating) an extension of time if he wishes it. Mr Keating —Listen, George- Mr SINCLAIR —That's all right, Warren. I will respond to you any day, my friend. Would you like an extension of time, Warren? Mr Deputy Speaker, over the last 15 minutes we have heard an absolutely deplorable effort by the Treasurer which exposed to this Parliament the fact that the Government is suddenly finding it far too hard to control the economy of this country. Opposition members interjecting- Mr SINCLAIR —Now the Treasurer is threatening the Speaker, is he? Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no way that members on this side of the House are prepared to accept that there should be anything but an absolutely dispassionate exercise of your responsibilities when it comes to the procedures of this place. If the Treasurer or any other member of the Government likes to threaten you, Mr Deputy Speaker, you can be assured that we are on your side. Over the last nine months we on this side of the House have been pointing out to the Treasurer and to the Government the consequence of a series of measures they have taken in the running of the economy. Outside the House very significant groups within the community have been very vocally expressing their concern. On 1 July 1985 the farmers came en masse to Canberra. Last Friday they came in not insignificant numbers. Yesterday in Dubbo, again, they came, not to talk about the economy in general or to use the esoteric phrases the Treasurer likes to resort to, but to point out to the Treasurer and to those who work with him on the front bench of the Government that they are inheritors of the Whitlam deficit mantle. This Treasurer has presided over successive Budgets that have brought down the largest deficit in Australia's history. He has presided over the highest level of personal taxation in Australia's history. He has presided over a regime which has seen the largest increase in our overseas debt. That is the trilogy the Treasurer should be addressing-none of this fanciful manipulation of economic jargon that, in reality, does not overcome the harshness of the consequences of his Government's economic policy on the men and women of Australia. The reason this matter of public importance has come forward is not that something happened on this side of the House, but that seven members of the front bench, seven associates have revolted. The Treasurer is now walking out of the chamber. He is not going to sit here and listen to the harsh reality of the economic decisions which he and his colleagues have implemented. The harsh reality is that seven of the members who sit on the Government front bench have said to the Government: `We are not prepared to forgo our spending program in order to accommodate the latest whim of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). We are not prepared to forgo our programs to implement the Government's personal income tax program. We are not prepared to implement the expenditure cuts which the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), in another place, has told us must be at least 6 per cent for each department if the Government is to have any semblance of spending propriety when it brings down the 1986-87 Budget'. The importance of this revolt is not just that it has shown that, within the Labor Party, significant groups are beginning to rebel against the economic program that the Treasurer and the Prime Minister have imposed upon them, but also that many others believe that this nation is at the cross-roads. This week we have seen that the Government is finding that it is all too hard. The Treasurer walked out of the chamber after making a fool of himself in responding to this matter of public importance because he can no longer cope. He knows that the Prime Minister has made promises that cannot be delivered. He knows that the real value of the Australian dollar is not 72c to 75c. He knows that if the Reserve Bank of Australia were not operating in the market-place there would be an immediate fall in interest rates of between 4 per cent and 7 per cent. He knows that if the Prime Minister is allowed to implement the promise he undertook two elections ago that there would be an immediate reduction by 3c a litre in the price of fuel, or the other undertaking he gave a few weeks ago that there would be a proper discounting in the Australian community for falls in the world price of oil, the Government will be unable to maintain its present economic program. We all know that the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in the other House has said that, were the real price of crude oil to be implemented, there would not be a cut of only 7c; it would be something like 11c a litre. We all know that the Australian economy is getting less and less competitive. We are falling behind more and more in the international stakes. Why are we doing so? We are doing so because the Government is prepared to ignore completely the propriety of the sort of program it should pursue. Why, even at Question Time today, we heard the Treasurer lampooning those who seek to own a bit of land. Do honourable members remember the answer he gave about hobby farmers? I have never heard anything more disgraceful. Mr Hand —You're a Pitt Street farmer. Mr SINCLAIR —He was not talking about Pitt Street farmers; he was talking about those small Australians. The President of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party would not know about those who like to own a bit of land. He is not interested in small Australians. The Treasurer said that he would not give the small Australians who like to own 20 to 40 acres of land-he was not talking about the big Australians; he was talking about the little Australians-a fair go. I am delighted to see that the President of the Victorian Branch of the Labor Party is in the House because he was one of the catalysts of the revolt in the Federal Caucus. He would know. The other day he said that poverty and homelessness would continue to increase. Why? It is because this Government's so-called social welfare policy has failed. The sooner there is a recognition that the Government cannot go on buying its way out of trying to resolve the social problems of this country, the better Australia will be served. It is not a matter of buying one's way out; it is a matter of acting responsibly. Mr Hand —What did you do about it? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Members on both sides of the House are continuing with inane interjections. Mr N.A. Brown —He is not in his own seat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party will be quiet while the Chair is speaking. Mr N.A. Brown —A flagrant breach of the Standing Orders is going on under your nose, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party persists- Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If members of the Opposition want to take up the time of the Leader of the National Party that is their affair. But the whole little exercise this afternoon of attempting to disrupt the House will cease pretty quickly. If the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party continues to interject while the occupant of the chair is on his feet, the Deputy Leader will pay the price. Therefore the honourable member will not interject. Mr SINCLAIR —In 1983, before the election, the Prime Minister said that there would be no capital gains tax. We know that there is a capital gains tax; we know that it will deprive many Australians of the opportunity to invest, to develop their own holding and to make a reasonable go of their own affairs. We know that the quarantining of farm losses will deny thousands of family farmers a chance to survive on their properties. We know that the Prime Minister promised that pensions would be secure. What happened? He introduced an assets test which has denied thousands of worthwhile small holders the chance to receive their well deserved and justified pension. The Prime Minister promised the people of Australia that interest rates would come down in 1985. We know that that promise cannot be delivered because the consequence of his Government's program is that, as a result of the prices and incomes accord, monetary policy is the only arm of economic policy available to his Government. The only way in which the Government can hold any semblance of value in the Australian dollar is by holding interest rates at a totally non-competitive level. Earlier this afternoon we were told about the fertiliser decision at Kirribilli. Wherever the Government turns it seeks to deprive the investors, those who work in this community, those who have a chance of providing some real value to the Australian dollar, a chance of surviving. I do not know whether the revolt by the seven Ministers is to try to get the Government to look at its whole economic program or whether it is a revolt just because the Government wants to continue to spend more. Honourable members on this side of the House say to the Government: Unless it is prepared to change the country's economic direction, the future for young Australians in employment, the future for those who have jobs and are trying to preserve them and the future for those in the city and those on farms is very bleak indeed. The time has come for Australia to change its course. Unless the Government listens to the cries of the Opposition I frankly fear for the future of Australia. Mr LEE(Dobell)(3.34) —This afternoon the Opposition has demonstrated that it is nothing but a pathetic, hypocritical rabble. Its behaviour this afternoon has simply proved what we have known for a long time. In today's debate the Opposition has claimed that this Government has been unable to restrain expenditure but let us look at the Opposition's record during its years in government. I seek permission to incorporate a table in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Is leave granted? Opposition members-No. Mr Connolly —Mr Deputy Speaker, the document has not been shown to the Opposition. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. Mr LEE —Leave apparently has not been granted; so let me read into the parliamentary record the figures which the Opposition is afraid of. Mr N.A. Brown —Mr Deputy Speaker, we are quite happy to accommodate the honourable member. I suggest that he show the table to me or the Leader of the National Party while he continues his speech and we will give an answer later. Mr LEE —The figures which I hope will be incorporated later, after the Opposition sees them, demonstrate clearly that in five out of the five years that the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) was Treasurer total outlays increased. Mr Price —Fiscal rascals. Mr LEE —That is right; they were fiscal rascals, as the honourable member suggests. In four out of those five years when honourable members opposite controlled the Treasury not only did government expenditure increase but the rate of increase accelerated. In the last Howard Budget, outlays increased 18.5 per cent. That was the Opposition's record. The increase in expenditure during this Government's last Budget was only 8.4 per cent. In the Opposition's last Budget there was an increase in expenditure of 18.5 per cent; we have brought that figure back to only 8.4 per cent. The honourable member for Bennelong not only could not restrain expenditure but also would not even talk about the level of expenditure to the Press. We all remember the disgraceful $9.6 billion deficit which the honourable member for Bennelong wears around his neck like an albatross. We will make sure that he continues to wear that albatross for many years to come. He has admitted publicly that before the 1983 election was even declared he was advised by Treasury that the expected deficit would be $8 billion. In the week before the 1983 election he was officially advised by that great public servant John Stone that the deficit would be $9.6 billion. What did the honourable member for Bennelong do? He hid the figures; he refused to admit publicly that under his administration government expenditure had blown out. That is how the Opposition controlled expenditure when it was in government. It has a very short memory. In today's debate the Opposition has also sought to claim that the Government will not provide the tax cuts which it has promised. Let us look at the Opposition's record of providing tax cuts. It won an election in 1977 on the famous fistful of dollars television advertisements. Yet what did the Leader of the Opposition do in his first Budget? He abolished the tax cuts and imposed a temporary 1.5 per cent surcharge. Not only was the surcharge temporary but it was also retrospective. The Leader of the Opposition announced on Budget night that the 1.5 per cent surcharge would be backdated to 1 July. That is disgraceful when one considers that the honourable member for Bennelong now claims that he is opposed to retrospective legislation on bottom of the harbour tax avoiders. Yet in his 1978 Budget he imposed a retrospective 1.5 per cent tax surcharge on every ordinary Australian. In that 1978 Budget the honourable member for Bennelong also abolished full tax indexation. In the 1979 Budget he abolished 50 per cent tax indexation. What is the record of the Opposition on tax cuts? It did not deliver a thing: Everything it gave was taken back after the following election. Honourable members should compare this record with that of Treasurer Keating. (Quorum formed) The pathetic rabble opposite have been alleging that we have not delivered tax cuts. Let me go through our record. They imposed tax surcharges of 1.5 per cent and 2.57 per cent. They made them retrospective. Last year we delivered $7.60 a week to the average taxpayer in tax cuts. In the next two years we shall be delivering another $4.5 billion a year in tax cuts. In September this year we shall be increasing the tax-free threshold by $505. We are cutting all the marginal tax rates, so that by 1 July 1987 the top marginal rate for income taxpayers will be reduced from 60c in the dollar to only 49c. Compare that with the tax surcharges that were applied by Treasurer Howard. The Leader of the Opposition questions our ability to deliver tax cuts, but I assure him that 4,000 million pieces of egg will be on his face, when we deliver $4,000m worth of tax cuts. In today's debate the Opposition attacks our policy on the pricing of petrol. Let us look at Treasurer Howard's record on raising revenue through the petrol bowser. In 1978, when the present Leader of the Opposition was placed in the position of Treasurer, crude oil and liquefied petroleum gas excise made up 1.4 per cent of tax revenue. In 1983, when Treasurer Howard left his position, crude oil and LPG excise provided 9 per cent of tax revenue. So during his period of government it went from 1.4 per cent to 9 per cent. That was when the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) was a Minister, and what did he do about it? What did he do to protect farmers? During that period Commonwealth oil revenue rose from only $476m in 1977-78 to $3,486m in 1982-83. When honourable members opposite were in control there was a 700 per cent increase in Commonwealth oil revenue. That is what they delivered on oil prices. Returning to the question of expenditure restraint, we all remember the famous Liberal Party razor gang flop. They raised only $250 million, and it took them 18 months to raise it. Every time there was an outcry from the community, they backed down. Under the Labor Government we had, in 1983 and 1984, the expenditure review committee examining all operations of the Government. Last May that committee shaved expenditure by $1,259m. What did honourable members opposite do? In their typically opportunistic manner they ran around the country seeking to stir up outcries amongst the community-whether it was on child care, participation and equity program funding, or the first home owners scheme. Yet, at the same time, the cargo cult supporters on the other side still claim that a new Darwin airport must be built and the Alice Springs-Darwin railway must be built. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) and the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) claim that we must build the Sydney-Melbourne super-train. These great people are supposedly in favour of expenditure restraint, but every time the crunch comes they would not know what that term meant. This Government has been more successful in restraining expenditure than was former Treasurer Howard. This Government has delivered more tax cuts and applied fewer tax surcharges than former Treasurer Howard. After March the Australian people will know that this Government has provided more substantial reductions in the price of petrol that former Treasurer Howard ever could. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The incorporation of a document into Hansard requested by the honourable member for Dobell is in order, and leave for the incorporation has been granted. The document read as follows- Total Budget Outlays Increase $m Per cent 1978-79... 28,934 8.4 1979-80... 31,470 8.8 1980-81... 36,020 14.5 1981-82... 41,206 14.4 1982-83... 48,812 18.5 1983-84... 56,460 15.7 1984-85... 63,739 12.9 1985-86... 69,067 8.4 Extract from 1985 Budget Paper No. 1. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed from 17 February, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(3.44) —As I was saying last night, before I was rudely interrupted by time, when we look at what has happened in Australia, we see that in 1954 Australia's world lead in computers was stifled by a government that believed our culture was not mature or not confident enough to survive. We also see that, for instance, in 1963 a very effective aircraft industry in this country was stifled by a political decision of the Government to buy the F111, which later became justifiably known as the Flying Opera House. This decision was taken in the full knowledge that it would destroy the Australian aviation industry, and it certainly did. It wreaked havoc in an industry that had every potential for being viable, and it stopped the transfer of state of the art technology from the United Kingdom to Australia under an agreement which the United Kingdom was prepared to make in its desperation to get us involved in the TSR2. I believe that these remarks are germane to the protection of our portable cultural heritage. Unless we face up to what has happened to this country since the war-and since the end of the last war we have tended to become a sycophantic country imitating the worst aspects of American culture-and unless we are prepared to rejoice proudly in our own initiatives and develop our own rich cultural achievements, we deserve no future. I believe that the time has come for Australia to take stock of itself and to reassert that proud culture and those proud cultural achievements that we did have, and go forward with a confidence that I do not think we have had in the past. I support the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill, but, as I said earlier, movable cultural objects are merely the trappings of the ideas; it is the ideas we must be pursuing. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(3.46) —The subject of this debate is the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1985. I listened last night and in the last few minutes to the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), and I do not dispute some of his claims. I thought he raised some extremely interesting aspects of our heritage. Of course, at one stage yesterday evening he complained about the lost heritage of innovation, particularly in respect of farm machinery, and he pointed out that it was Australians who invented the first harvester, the stump-jump plough and other great agricultural innovations, particularly affecting broad acre farming, on which Australia is so reliant. However, the honourable member probably should have asked himself why Australia lost this wonderful advantage given to us by our inventors. I must remind the honourable member that the first ever major industrial case settled in Australia was the harvester case. I do not think for a moment that the Australian work force should be denied the benefits of our inventors, but it seems to me a pity that, in pursuing its own aims, it has somehow lost the right to build harvesters, which are now nearly all imported, as the honourable member and I know. Some time, I think, the work force will agree that it has been ill advised in this area and that we are building a new heritage of `play now, pay later'. It is a heritage which, unfortunately, Australia Incorporated may wish to scrub out of its heritage of the future. This legislation is interesting and has the support of the Opposition, but nevertheless it deserves comment, because there are aspects of it that, in my mind, need comment. For a start, it is interesting for me to note that in some ways this legislation could have been of considerable help to people in my electorate. I have talked to the brothers of the Benedictine Community, New Norcia. Admittedly in their case they were the victims of theft, when, in broad daylight, thieves assaulted the curator of their museum, which is an art gallery, and stole extremely aged and valuable paintings which have been displayed in the monastery for many years. It was fortunate and a great credit to the Australian Federal Police that the people who stole those items of art and culture were apprehended before they left the country. No doubt, as they were stolen, there would have been opportunities to have them returned had they been discovered in the countries for which they were destined. On the other hand, however, I see advantages under this legislation, as reciprocal agreements are made, in the expedition of those sorts of arrangements. I note that the Minister in his second reading speech was at pains to point out that in some instances the systematic looting of cultural treasures is known to be organised by black market operators in big buying centres. This theft was a form of that-it was theft carried out purely and simply to make those treasures available to other people. I am sure we are all quite pleased that this legislation will protect that sort of movement of treasures. Another aspect where the legislation could apply-no doubt its introduction has been facilitated by this-is the recent removal of the Strehlow collection of Aboriginal artefacts from Australia. The Government expressed great concern about that. I have talked to various people who had an interest in that matter. This was a slightly different situation. The concern of the trustees was that the collection was going to be stolen from them by the Government and that they had to be protected in performing their responsibilities as trustees. Let us hope that this legislation is not used in that fashion. The trustees, in their own words, had no faith in the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who has just moved to the table. He is not responsible for this Bill but he is certainly responsible for the protection of Aboriginal artefacts. The trustees distrusted the Minister and his motives and the motives of some of his officers to the point that they spirited that collection out of Australia. As I say, let us hope that this legislation is not used in that fashion at any time because that would be most unfortunate and not what we in the Opposition perceive as its use. In that regard, I again refer to the Minister's second reading speech, where he said that the Canadian experience is that we need not to be too worried about how it will work, that Canada's experience with similar legislation is that, in any given year, fewer than 20 objects are prevented from export. The obligation to ensure that we not try to keep things for keeping's sake must reside with the committee that the Minister proposes to create. Objects that we keep must be of genuine and substantial heritage value. It must be remembered that people are often forced, if I might use the comparison, to hock the family jewels or family assets which may be of a heritage nature. There are plenty of examples of this in our rural areas at the moment. When people are under great financial pressure, which is probably the only occasion on which they would seek to dispose of these treasures-they are as much treasures to them as they are treasures to the nation-it is imperative that the Government has the means to expedite it so that those people are not the losers from this type of activity. Recently within my own electorate a farmer was on a hunger strike. His only crime was to discover a botanical rarity on his property. His real crime was that he was silly enough to tell the authorities about it. They came in, fenced off half his farm and told him that he would have to live with it. To gain eventual justice-in this case he was dealing with State authorities-he has to go on a hunger strike. We must realise that when we create this sort of legislation those who have the task of administering it must carefully consider their responsibilities in these regards. If people do apply to transfer goods overseas because there is a ready market there and the committee that the Minister proposes to create is of the belief that they should be retained in Australia it should act expeditiously to ensure that people can get adequate compensation. There will be the occasion when these things are sold for pure capital gain by people who may have plenty of money, but there will certainly be occasions when there is a great need. When that need exists it is imperative that those involved do not delay the activities that occur. These are some of the positions that I take in commenting upon this legislation. As time goes by we will be able to have reciprocal arrangements with foreign countries and expedite their interests in recovering items removed from their countries, and that is what international understanding is all about. I believe that can do nothing but good for Australia in its relationship with other countries. I do not want to take a huge amount of the Parliament's time on this issue. In fact, I wish to state my reasons for that. It is notable, as it has been notable in the past, that this legislation, as important as it is in its own way, would not normally rate eight speakers a side and 20 minutes for each speaker. I note that the Community Employment Amendment Bill which is to come before this House later today has been allocated 24 speakers a side and presumably 20 minutes each speaker. It is of considerable interest to those people who are being supported by that legislation but, as is the case with this legislation, it is not opposed by the Opposition and as such it probably does not rate that type of exposure in the Parliament. The reason that it will get that sort of exposure in the Parliament is that, as is usual, the Government has not got its legislative program in place. All of the very important issues which I wish to mention are not being debated at this time. Yet as I understand it the very reason why the Parliament was brought back a little earlier was the great importance of those issues. However, that legislation is not available. Let me say how difficult it must be for the business community, and for the small business community for which I have special responsibility in this place, to be trying still to do business but not know what the fine print of the capital gains tax legislation says. It is more important that we should be debating that issue now. Mr Holding —On the point! Mr TUCKEY —I am on the point. The Government has allocated eight speakers to this legislation. It has not touched on the fringe benefits tax, the quarantining of farm losses or the complexities of imputation. Mr Cohen —On a point of order-- Mr TUCKEY —The Minister is wasting his time because I will only take another minute and I will sit down. I am making this final point and if he keeps interrupting me I will just use a bit more time. Mr Cohen —We do not mind about that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to cramp the shadow Minister's style in any way, but he is introducing irrelevant matter into the debate on this Bill. He has made his point. As long as he sticks to his reference to it and does not go into a long-winded attack on the Government on fringe benefits and what have you I will let it go. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —The point of order is taken. I call the honourable member for O'Connor. Mr TUCKEY —I make this plea to the Government to get on with its job. As much as we do not object to its introducing this legislation and as much as we are here to support it, we could have disposed of both those pieces of uncontested legislation in a day and given the Government, and this Parliament, the time necessary to debate these other important issues. Let us hope that we do not have a repeat of what we did with the companies legislation last year when a most complex 200-page Bill was guillotined down to two speakers. The issue that I am putting to the Government now is that the responsibility it has is to get to these issues which are worrying Australians and to let them know what those taxes mean, because at the moment people do not know. That is the Government's first responsibility. The people want to know and the Government brought the Parliament back early to ensure that they do know. They are matters of great importance to the Australian people and I would be remiss if I did not draw the attention of the people of Australia to the fact that we are spending hours and hours on an uncontested piece of legislation, we are going to spend three times that amount of time on another uncontested piece of legislation and yet we have still to see the legislation on these important issues. People are presently subject to a tax which has not been explained, particularly the capital gains tax. I have almost completed the few things that I have to say. I think I have made the point quite clearly that, beneficial as this legislation will be to Australia's heritage, the Minister must be very careful that those who eventually have the power to administer this legislation do so expeditiously. Section 28 refers to inspectors, section 29 refers to identity cards and section 30 refers to search warrants. I am glad all those powers exist when my constituents, the brothers of the Salvardo Monastery at New Norcia, were able to recover their stolen property, property which I think the Minister would agree had heritage value. Section 31 refers to search warrants being granted by telephone. Section 32 refers to searches in emergency and there is reference to the powers of arrest. All those powers are there, but let us make sure that we do not continue what has happened in the past. When people are subject to this legislation and have a financial need to dispose of heritage property that they may own in their own right-I think the Minister will admit that those circumstances exist-let us make sure that they are treated expeditiously and in a helpful manner. With the present situation in our rural sector, where some of these assets are held, people may be seeking to do just that. I thank the House for its time. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(4.00) —I take issue with the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) who takes the Government to task for allowing members of the Opposition to discharge their obligations by fully participating in the debate and putting any view that they want. This Opposition is so bereft of ideas that when it is sometimes necessary to apply the gag we are criticised and yet when we have legislation-which is of only passing interest to the honourable member but on which he feels the need to make a contribution-on which the Government says `All right, we will let the debate run through' -we are criticised. The honourable gentleman comes into the House from time to time clutching copies of the Standing Orders in order to impress some of his colleagues. There is ample provision for him and any of his colleagues to use the Standing Orders to bring forward by notice of motion, censure motion or other processes available such issues as they believe are their responsibility as members of the Opposition. The honourable gentleman made only passing reference to the legislation. He said that the Government is to be criticised for allowing the Opposition-I remind the honourable gentleman that many members of the Opposition have spoken on this-a full opportunity to debate the issue. The second issue which I want to take up with him and on which he is grossly inaccurate is his reference to the action of the trustees of the Strehlow collection in removing aspects of it from Australia because they did not trust the Minister. Of course, that is only half the truth. I have no doubt that Mr Bannon and Mr Little do not have a great regard for me, as they do not have a great regard for any member of the Australian Labor Party, both being members of the National-Liberal Party coalition. Mr Bannon, the chairman of the trustees, was a candidate for office. Mr Tuckey —Is that a crime? Mr HOLDING —It is certainly not a crime, but they were making an ill-contrived political gesture so that Mr Bannon could get some publicity. If he was concerned about the Strehlow collection being taken over by me or the Government he needed only to consult a good lawyer who would have told him that within the framework of the existing heritage legislation that was not merely not possible but it was certainly not even considered. Not a single statement by me or anyone in my Department could give anyone any reason to believe that the Strehlow collection was of great concern to the Government. In order to get some cheap publicity Mr Bannon spirited the collection out of Australia. It is now back. It was the subject of negotiation with the Government of the Northern Territory with the full involvement and support of the Commonwealth of Australia. Just as the honourable member for O'Connor is an expert in the half truth or the misstated fact-he would never want to destroy a good argu- ment-- Mr Tuckey —I take a point of order. I ask that the Minister withdraw the assertion against me. It is not true and the facts are that the people to whom I referred, by his own admission, do not trust him. There are no half truths about that. I ask that the reference `expert in half truths' be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —There is no point of order. Mr HOLDING —I stand by what I said. The assertions made by the honourable gentleman are consistent with the whole range of suggestions that he makes in this place-- Mr Cohen —Withdraw the word `expert'. Mr HOLDING —No. I say that the honourable gentleman is an expert in the half truth. He will not ever allow the facts to encumber any conclusion-- Mr Tuckey —The point of order is that I am offended by that remark. I ask for it to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It is not an unparliamentary remark. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member should go back to the Standing Orders and look again. Mr Tuckey —I will go back to the Nicholson inquiry to refresh my memory on what it says about Clyde Holding. Mr HOLDING —I would rather stand by anything said about me than the decision made by a magistrate when he convicted the honourable member for bashing an Aboriginal. Let him stand on his record; I will stand on mine. He is the member of this House with a conviction for a very nasty, cowardly and brutal assault. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Will the Minister come back to the matter before the House. Mr HOLDING —I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I allowed the honourable gentleman to move me from the relevance of this very important Bill. The Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill is particularly important to the whole matter of Aboriginal cultural heritage. It strengthens the protection for Aboriginal cultural material. Implicit in the legislation are the special arrangements for dealing with that material which will be included in the general framework of the Act. Most importantly, the Bill allows the continuing participation of Aboriginal people and organisations in the arrangements which will be made to carry out the effect of the administration of the legislation. Prior to the introduction of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Bill in 1984, Aboriginal cultural property which was not merely of great relevance to Aboriginal people but to Australia's heritage and objects of considerable significance had been offered for sale on the open market with minimal government restriction or control. Many State governments had certain powers over relics but could not interfere with interstate trade. In spite of Customs regulations declaring significant Aboriginal objects to be restricted export items, there has been no effective policing of these controls. For many years Aboriginal cultural material, including important secret sacred objects, has formed a significant portion of illicit cultural exports. The incentive for unscrupulous people to export illegally has been considerable, with rare objects fetching very high prices among collectors in Europe and the United States. In the past couple of years, with increased interest in rare examples of oceanic art in overseas collecting centres, including Japan, there has been a boom in underground marketing and smuggling abroad of privately owned material. Increased illegal activity in this area also reflects a response by some private owners of Aboriginal material to the greater interest that government has given to the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage and to the increasing concern among Aboriginal Australians for the protection of their cultural material because much of this material is related to the spiritual values and collective spiritual security of Aboriginal communities. When those items are taken out of Australia we are stealing not simply an object which has some commercial value on an overseas market but part of a culture and heritage which are amongst the oldest known extant cultures in the world. The importance of this legislation is that it will now provide the Government with the ability to protect those very significant objects of Aboriginal culture and heritage. The Act will supersede existing Customs Act regulations and give the Government the weapons to deal with trade that takes place overseas. It will give the Minister and the Government the capacity to act to deal with one segment of activity in Australia which does not reflect highly on those involved. For many years the only agent providing any degree of control over the export of Aboriginal material has been the Australian Customs Service. It has sought co-operation from people like curators and anthropology and archaeology experts in Australian museums to identify material declared to be prohibited exports under the Customs regulations. But it has long been recognised in all quarters that these arrangements have needed a good deal of improvement. There are difficulties in defining categories of prohibited exports and in identifying objects which are subject to restriction. No redress or access to review exists at present for owners of material who have been refused an export permit. The lack of legal procedures to ensure the proper handling of objects prohibited for export is a significant difficulty for both the authorities and legitimate community interests. Most importantly from an Aboriginal point of view, there has been no formal machinery for consultation with Aboriginal people in these matters. The proposed legislation provides for the establishment of a comprehensive export control list and procedures for expert examination and a national heritage fund to help with the acquisition of important cultural objects prohibited from export, and for associated purposes. The detailed regulations and arrangements will be determined by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) and administered with the assistance of a National Cultural Heritage Committee. The key element in the legislation is the provision for membership of the National Cultural Heritage Committee to include a nominee of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This provision is intended to provide a formal point of reference so that the special nature of the Aboriginal cultural heritage is taken into account. Of course, that nominee will have available to him the resources of the portfolio of Aboriginal Affairs. He will be able to call upon the resources of the Institute of Aboriginal Studies and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the various agencies within the portfolio. So, there will be very considerable backup and expertise available for the Aboriginal nominee to discharge his or her obligations under this legislation. The Department will be closely involved in these matters to ensure that suitable arrangements are devised to ensure that this important aspect of Australia's heritage is protected. It is intended that these arrangements will consider the identification of significant classes of Aboriginal cultural material and the presentation of Aboriginal material in the national inventory, including categories of material which may be embargoed for export, which may require export permits, which may require conditions to apply to permits or which may be freely exported. They will require the establishment of appropriate consultation procedures for seeking expert advice on Aboriginal cultural objects. There is the issue of the acquisition and long term placement of prohibited exports of Aboriginal material and associated arrangements such as public education. It is extraordinary how the average Australian living in a society which possesses the oldest extant culture in the world still tends to be abysmally ignorant of both the depth and the tradition of that culture and its enormously important and present relevance to Australian society. I believe that the educational aspects that can take place under this legislation will enhance the knowledge of the average Australian citizen and, in enhancing that knowledge, some of the tensions that exist in many places of Australia today in terms of black-white relations will inevitably diminish. Aboriginal people wish their expertise, their knowledge of their culture and their belief in their traditions to be part of and available to the Minister and the committees operating under this legislation. Aboriginal people wish to establish the classifications for their cultural objects and criteria for control within those classifications. The legislation provides the framework within which these very proper and legitimate concerns of Aboriginal people can be met. It is important that the legislation will enable Australia to become party to the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation which provides the basis for the return of cultural property illegally exported to other countries that are parties to the Convention. One of the aspects of the settlement of Australia was that, because of the unique nature of Aboriginal society operating as it was outside the framework of a European cultural tradition, the early settlement of Australia saw not merely the decimation of Aboriginal tribes but also many aspects of their culture simply picked up and removed. Those objects can be found in the museums of Europe and, indeed, in some very odd places around the world. The fact that it will be possible, once this legislation becomes law, to go through the processes of having many aspects of that culture brought back into Australia is not merely of significance to Aboriginal people-of course, it is of prime significance to them-but also a matter that ought to be of concern to all Australians. It is noteworthy that New Zealand introduced legislation as early as 1901 requiring special licences for the export of Maori antiquities which additionally had strict domestic controls on even the transfer of ownership of such materials. It has taken Australia some time to catch up. I commend this legislation to the House and I thank the Minister for the way he and his Department have been prepared, with regard to Aboriginal cultural heritage which is my prime responsibility, to consult not only with the Department but also with the Aboriginal people themselves. This is one of the occasions when not only has legislation which affects Aboriginal cultural heritage come before this Parliament but also have speakers on both sides of the House given support to it. I, therefore, wish this legislation a speedy passage through both Houses of the Parliament. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(4.17) —I rise to take part in this debate out of a long-standing interest in conservation matters generally. I commend the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) for introducing this Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill to protect Australia's heritage of cultural objects and, as he explained in his second reading speech, to extend certain forms of protection to cultural heritage of other nations. In this country we possess objects which illustrate our history and culture in significant and unique ways. As the Minister said, some of these objects date back beyond recorded history to the deep roots of Aboriginal life. Others relate to the period of exploration and settlement and to the progressive growth over the last 200 years of a distinctively Australian society. I think it can be truly said that the decade of the 1980s has been a period in which sharp focus has been on the inevitable and necessary demands and pressures which we place on our total environment and which must be balanced by our obligation to conserve that environment and its resources for future generations. Conservation is one of several fundamental concerns which determine not just whether we survive as a nation and as a race but also how we survive and what sort of world it is that we look forward to. Over recent years there has been a marked increase in the level of understanding throughout the community by governments, by industry, by individuals and others whose decisions and actions have an impact both on those around us and on the environment of which we are all part. That understanding has led to a greater sophistication in our ability to sustain the finely balanced cycle of use and replenishment which is nature's own survival mechanism. Discussion papers prepared for seminars which formed part of the process of the development of the national conservation strategy made the point that we have not inherited the earth from our parents; we have borrowed it from our children. Put another way, it is no longer acceptable for any generation to base its activities on the use now pay later principle. More and more, as users, we have to pay now so that others to come will be able to use later. That is true not just for our natural and built environment but also for our environment in the widest sense, embracing the culture and history of Australia before and since European settlement. The relics and records of a nation are an important contribution to our total environment, on which we can have such a beneficial or adverse impact. I am pleased that when the previous Government was in office I for a time had responsibility for the areas that are generally within the responsibility of the Minister at the table, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, because the legislation he has introduced into the Parliament this week is legislation which forms part of a mosaic, or network of legislation designed to protect that conservation and cultural heritage to which I have referred. The Minister would be aware of the significant role of the Australian Heritage Commission, the environment protection legislation and the legislation dealing with protection of the Great Barrier Reef-legislation complemented in many instances by State legislation. He would be aware also of the initiatives taken both by the previous Government and by his Government to protect our native flora and fauna. He would be aware of the continuing work of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the legislation he administers designed to control strictly the trade in native Australian wildlife. But it does not end there. This legislation relates to the establishment of the great collecting institutions of the nation-the National Library of Australia, the Australian War Memorial, the Australian National Gallery, the National Film Archive and many others. When I was Minister I was concerned, as I know the present Minister has been concerned, at the lack of protection for our movable cultural heritage. While Minister I gave as much encouragement as I could to an interdepartmental committee that was then working in the area of movable items of cultural property because such items do form an important part of our national history and our future cultural development. The committee was charged with the very complex task of examining ways in which more effective protection could be afforded to these unique and sometimes precious items. I said in a speech I made while Minister that I looked forward to receiving the committee's report. Because of the complexity of the area and changing political circumstances it was not until the present Minister had responsibility that that committee's report came to government. As I indicated earlier, I commend the Minister-although it has taken some time; I acknowledge the complexity of the matter-for now bringing into this House legislation which is a step in the right direction. I hope the Minister would agree that this legislation is really only a first step towards the ultimate and appropriate protection of our movable cultural property. I have spoken of the importance of recognising the wide-ranging area with which this legislation must necessarily be concerned, including collections in libraries and art galleries and in official government archives such as the Australian Archives, in the archives held by the various State governments and in film archives. I refer also to the collections from theatrical and dramatic performances in this country. Some of those archive collections could be regarded as private archives for they have been collected by non-profit organisations trying to maintain a record of the drama produced in Australian theatres. That, too, is an important part of our cultural heritage. On that point I want to draw to the attention of the House and to the Minister my concern that we recognise that governments should not be the only bodies that protect our movable cultural heritage any more than they are the only bodies that can protect the natural or built environment. Governments will never have the resources to purchase all the valuable cultural property of this country and its people. Whilst this legislation can be significant in the protection of very valuable and especially significant items of movable property, we need to create an environment in which all Australians are concerned to preserve their cultural history. The State of Victoria has just concluded its sesquicentenary and South Australia, my home State, is celebrating its sesquicentenary this year. As a result of that many South Australians, and I have no doubt Victorians and probably Australians at large, as we approach the Bicentenary, will become very concerned about and interested in their family history; they will become interested in valuable items of family heritage such as books and papers, pottery and china, and silver and furniture-in many instances items that were brought here a long time ago by early settlers in this country, or perhaps items brought here more recently by the later waves of immigration. Those items, brought as they may have been from Eastern Europe or from South East Asia as the special personal belongings of people coming to this country to seek freedom and a happy future for themselves and their families, will form part, if they have not already formed part, of the historical and cultural heritage of this country. At present many people do not know of the value of their own personal collections, or if they do they are concerned as to the way in which they should preserve those collections. They worry that if they take them to museums or libraries they will be told that the only way they can preserve them is if the items are given to them. Alternatively, people are concerned that if they retain such collections at home and as they become older leave them to their children, or perhaps leave them to their children upon their death, their children may not have, at their age at the time they receive those items, that sense of history, that sense of value for the cultural significance of those belongings. I hope that the Government might give consideration through the Museum of Australia, through the Film Archive and through the National Library, to encouraging people throughout Australia, as a result of the education budget to which the Minister has referred as being set up under this Bill, to identify that which is of value in their personal collections and have it assessed and catalogued. Such a plan will not mean that such articles are taken from people; it will enable them to be kept in private collections. It is important that art works, valuable historical documents, family diaries and histories, old books about the early settlement and even the more recent settlement of Australia, when in private collections, be recognised by whoever comes across them as being of value. It would be a marvellous idea if the National Library or the committee that is to administer this legislation or a whole range of collecting institutions were to establish some mechanism whereby private citizens could not only have their personal family collections of cultural value identified and catalogued but also have attached to them some sort of indicator that they have been so assessed. So if another generation comes across an old family diary that looks as though it is good enough for the rubbish tip when seen by someone lacking the perceptive eye, because of its cover and because of a certificate inside it can be recognised and identified as being of significant value. Then it can be handed to a collecting institution or retained by a member of the family, if that family so chooses, in a way that recognises its value and its significance. Both in private collections and in some of the private museums one of the great problems is that the indexing of our heritage is inadequate. The cataloguing and description on those indexes is insufficient, but more important perhaps is the identification of the history of the items, the provenance. The art world, that world of experts, has come to understand the importance of firstly identifying an important art work and then maintaining a continuous diary of its history, its whereabouts, who has used it, who has had it on his or her wall, and what has been the history of that painting. The history of a painting is sometimes as important as the painting itself, and that is true of other items of movable cultural heritage. While I was Minister it was drawn to my attention that there was a great danger that many of the early Australian-produced films would be lost because they were on a process that had a lifespan of some 50 or 60 years. So the National Library-now the National Film Archive-undertook a program called the Last Film Search-the last search for films that would disappear because the celluloid on which they were recorded would be degraded to the point that they could never be seen. There is an urgent need for the last diary search and the last letter search because many families, whether they are one, two or three generations removed from arrival in Australia, still have amongst their papers many valuable documents which tell the story of early Australia. It is important that steps be taken to identify and preserve that history for future generations, just as I think it is important that we, in our own era, should recognise appropriately the value of the history we are creating. That is sometimes more difficult but, nevertheless, governments do it. They put documents into archives and progressively sort them out. Perhaps we should devise a community understanding of how people should similarly preserve the history of their families, the history of their work place, the history of the organisations of which they have been members. The organisations of which they are members today, for example, may not exist in 50 years time, yet they have been of significant importance in the development of the society in which we live over the period for which those organisations have continued to survive. Whilst some of the other speakers on this legislation have talked about highly important and very significant movable cultural property, I think we need also to be concerned about the cultural property that is held in private collections. We must not allow ourselves to be captivated only by the high drama of the international black market. We also need to be mindful of an equally important area-the wealth of items held by ordinary Australians. I turn now, very briefly, to focus on a similar concern with regard to the protection of Aboriginal movable cultural property. I, too, had the opportunity of being Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for a limited period. Whilst I was Minister I became concerned about the ways in which very valuable Aboriginal movable cultural property was being looked after. The difficulty is cultural because the culture of many Aboriginals is not to preserve such items once they have passed out of the significant use of Aboriginal people. Yet many Aboriginals, because of cross-cultural influences, are now recognising the great significance of those items. Whilst the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is not in the chamber I hope that he and his Department will put more and more resources into providing the means whereby the Aboriginal people can build where appropriate the necessary museums and repositories for their artefacts. As I mentioned earlier, one of the problems with the museums we have is that they have within them many items of great value but the value of the items to some extent has been lost as a consequence of the fact that the history of those items, when they were given and the time the donor made them available, was not recorded. The donors have long since passed on and the history relating to those items has been lost. In the tourist industry we find that many people visit places of historic import in their holidays and value seeing the items in those collections. They will value them the more if the history is appropriately recorded. Whilst commending the Minister for bringing this legislation into the House, I hope that it is only a first step towards a major effort on the part of the Australian people to preserve their cultural heritage, with particular reference to the movable cultural heritage that is held by so many Australians within family and private collections, so that it can be identified and preserved by those families, and, where and when appropriate, brought into public collections. But the public collections will never be able to hold all that is of value to the Australian nation. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(4.38) —I begin by complimenting the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) for his comments about opening up private collections and encouraging Australian citizens to forward their prize heritage and heritage considered by some as commonplace to places where it can be shown. I also compliment him for returning that side of the House to a bipartisan debate. I was very disappointed when the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) soured the bipartisan debate by making disparaging and unnecessary comments about why people participated in this debate. The honourable member for O'Connor suggested that people were filibustering, trying to waste time. On the contrary, all I have heard from honourable members on both sides of the House-with the exception of the gentleman in question-is a superb contribution and an acknowledgment of the need to preserve and retain our cultural heritage in this country. I think it can be said, from listening to speakers on both sides of the House, that members of this Parliament are far from uncivilised, uncouth or uncultured. Let me return to the contents of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill. As has been outlined by many speakers, the purpose of the Bill is to protect Australia's heritage of cultural objects and to afford similar rights of protection to other nations as well. The Bill is clearly based on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property-and that refers to our national property. What do we mean by cultural property? I think we mean cultural property dating right back from early Aboriginal times, 40,000 years ago, through European history in Australia, right up to today. Even yesterday's cultural contribution must be protected because we will appreciate it in the future. I will refer later to the culture forming the deep roots of Aboriginal life and society which has developed over the centuries. Speaking of cultural objects, we are not simply referring to works of art, although the cultural heritage obviously embraces paintings, prints, crafts, sculpture, manuscripts, books and other art objects. I think that we are really referring to the full range of cultural heritage material, including archaeological finds, artefacts from Aboriginal life and, as the honourable member for Sturt emphasised, photographs, films and the like. The 1970 UNESCO Convention and this Bill will protect our movable heritage in several ways. It is not the complete answer, but it will strengthen and be a right step in the protection of our movable heritage. It will do this first of all by stopping the loss of material through sale or even misappropriation to overseas collectors. Others have spoken about that and I do not wish to dwell on it, but I point out that much of Australia's movable culture and heritage is sought widely and earnestly by overseas collectors. There is the constant danger that we might lose some of the most cherished contributions of our past. Although its primary focus is on this illegal international traffic, the Convention proposes other forms of protection, including a national inventory of protected cultural property, support for collecting institutions, rules for curatorial conduct, educational measures, controls on antique dealers and supervision of archaeological sites. They are a few of the things I want to mention in the few minutes available to me. These steps have long been advocated by our museums, galleries, libraries and archives, so we are taking up in the legislation the sensible course that has been advocated for some time by the curators of our heritage. I want to deal in turn with some of the steps the Bill brings about to protect our movable heritage. As to export and import controls, a national cultural heritage control list will be drawn up, using certain criteria such as age, rarity, quality, monetary value and the extent of inclusion in public collections. The Minister in his second reading speech said that two lists would be developed. List A would comprise culture which was inalienable to Australia-there would be no permission to export that culture. List B would comprise controlled export and permits would be given. Other nations have rights and expectations in this respect, and it is a good thing that they should enjoy and study our culture at certain times. I refer not to such work being seen here in Australia but to its being taken to other countries for people there to enjoy, too. Therefore, we need permits for the export of our culture. The process works both ways, so that if other nations find that their treasures and culture turn up in our country in the wrong hands we should be able to return those treasures to them. One important statement made by the Minister relates to occasions when the export is refused. It seems that some people in this chamber, and more so people in our community, see heritage as a commodity to be bought and sold-prized not for its intrinsic value but as something to be invested in to make money and profit. In such cases the Minister can refuse export, and the material will be acquired wherever possible for display in a public collection for the appreciation of all people, not just the single owners. This is not new of course. Governments have acted in the interests of Australian culture before, using powers under the Customs Act 1901 or the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act 1984. Let me give the House an example of how the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) was able to assist in retaining some of our culture. I wrote to the Minister a while ago when some publicity was given around last April to the intention of a Mr Hogarth of Murrumburrah in New South Wales to dispose of his magnificent collection of recordings of Nellie Melba-a collection of some 135 titles, recorded over 22 years from 1904 to 1926. This was to be disposed of possibly to American collectors. Nellie Melba is of great significance to the area in which I live around Lilydale because it is in the Mt Evelyn region and Lilydale that members of the Mitchell family-she later became an Armstrong-lived and worked. In fact, Coombe Cottage, which was her own residence at Coldstream was in my former electorate and now is in the electorate of the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson). The association with Nellie Melba is strong in my new electorate and there was some alarm among long term residents in the area that we might lose this valuable collection overseas. It seems that a few years ago Mr Hogarth offered the collection to the sound recording section of the National Library of Australia and to the Performing Arts Museum in Victoria. However, unfortunately the funds were not available so they were not able to acquire it. Mr Hogarth was disappointed that this collection of 78 rpm records valued at some $18,000 could not stay in Australia. The records were made in America, France and Britain and many were labelled in Dame Nellie Melba's own hand; some are studio recordings never published. Mr Hogarth had acquired them over years of collecting; they had cost him from #5 to #30 each. Here we have an example of a collection that is uniquely Australian, a product of one of our greatest internationally renowned singers. I wrote to the Minister to ask whether something could be done, and indeed it was. He advised me a couple of months later that the collection had been acquired by the National Film and Sound Archive in Canberra. They will not be sold to the United States collectors. I thank the Minister for his intervention and for the role he played. I also asked him that consideration be given to publishing these titles as a commemorative disc for the public at a reasonable price during our Bicentenary in two years time. This is where the Bill before the House is important. It will give an impetus, a drive, an underpinning for saving our culture through acquisition, publication, display and education for the public. The Minister advised me that the Archive now holds sets of all 156 known titles of recordings by Melba and they are to be reissued as a commemorative project. This is a large project involving a publication set of 50 LPs to be called `Australia's Heritage in Sound', a uniquely Australian production. There will be 20 categories involving music, speech and natural sound produced over 100 years. The Melba recording, the Minister said, could have an important place in this project. I repeat the request that I made last year to the Minister. For the ordinary person in the street who cannot afford a 20-disc collection I suggest we make one single LP. This would be within the pocket of ordinary people to enable them to have a sample, a bicentennial disc of Melba's singing made from perhaps the former Hogarth collection or the other Archives holdings. I put that request again to the Minister and ask him to reconsider it. I turn in the few minutes available to me to a matter referred to by the Minister in his second reading speech and reiterated by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), namely, the particular importance of Aboriginal artefacts and culture for Australia. In establishing the national cultural heritage control list to which the Minister referred a committee will be established not only to assist in the administration of the legislation but also to help in the compilation of this important control list. It is a very complex task. It will involve State and Federal governments and the committee will draw members from a wide source-from archives and museums and experts from libraries and galleries. The important thing is that the committee will also include a nominee of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. This recognises that special provisions may be required for the protection of our unique Aboriginal heritage and, in particular, rare artwork or secret sacred objects. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment will consult on these matters his colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in order to ensure that the administrative arrangements will accommodate the particular needs of Aboriginal tradition and society. It is most important that we do not leave these things to the white persons in our country-that we do not leave it to a European-derived culture to make decisions overall on how we should deal with, display and use these items, and that we educate people about. Aboriginal tradition and society. Surely the Aboriginals are the very people who should be doing these things. Therefore, I am glad to see a member to be nominated by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on that committee. It is to be greatly commended. It must be said that our culture will be defended and protected only if the people, the ordinary people, are educated as to its intrinsic value, are able to have access to it and to understand more about it. This is even more important with Aboriginal culture. Aboriginals do not place a price on their culture. They do not have a commercial attitude to their culture and to their artefacts. It is important to realise that they see these things spiritually. They see their culture tied to the land. They see their artefacts, their objects with spiritual eyes and are totally against the export of their culture from this country. Our Aboriginal culture and heritage are one of our nation's richest resources. With the co-operation of our Aborigines, and with the means provided in this Bill, we should be able to tap into that heritage and increase the general public awareness of the diversity and depth of Aboriginal culture. Opposition members, despite their support for this Bill, still say time and again that they regard as a right the buying and selling of culture and heritage but it is also something to be interfered with. They acknowledge that there is a right to interfere with it. I go further and say that when a recognised cultural object or contribution is discovered, through a search or whatever, every action should be taken to have it publicly owned by the nation. The honourable member for Sturt made that point very well. Even if it is not owned by the nation, it should be displayed and made available to the people. State governments are working very well in this direction. Let us take Victoria which, last October, established an Aboriginal resource centre and keeping place at the Museum of Victoria and developed an education program for schools. The education program will be developed in consultation with the Aboriginal community for the general public and for use in Victorian schools. Two of the only three remaining possum cloaks in the world, fragile feather aprons, vegetable fibre basketry and implements, including boomerangs, eel traps, fishing gear, digging sticks and spear throwers are among the several hundred Aboriginal artefacts from south-eastern Australia held by the Museum and displayed in Kershaw Hall. It would be a tragedy for the Aboriginal people, and for Australia, if the possum cloaks and the other items I mentioned were to depart from our shores to overseas collectors. I refer to the position in Queensland. In January this year the Minister, Mr Cohen, announced the establishment of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Centre at Rockhampton. I will not dwell on that, except to say that the project will consist of a museum which will display a collection of Aboriginal artefacts already held by the Central Queensland Aboriginal Corporation for Cultural Activities, along with other historical items. The Centre will include an amphitheatre for traditional type dances and displays and an area where tourists can learn the art of boomerang and spear throwing. The object of the Centre is obviously not to have a dead museum, its shelves covered with dust, but to bring the museum alive, to have a living museum and to show that Aboriginal culture is not dead, not a thing of the past, not rooted in a time 40,000 years ago, but that it is still with us, still developing and very much has a future. I received a letter from a constituent who had gone to Victoria and who had visited Kershaw Hall. He wrote: I was most impressed with the many Museum changes, giving a remarkable feeling of vibrant interest and excitement-so different to the stuffy old place of my child-hood memories (late twenties and early thirties). However, I'm mainly writing to express my disappointment and concern over one particular aspect of Museum display-namely Kershaw Hall-having recently been given to understand that this area is to be used by the Victorian Aboriginal Community for the housing of artefacts, special displays et cetera. I'm sure that the Museum can play a most significant role-not only in the preservation of items of Aboriginal cultural heritage, but in the education of children and adults of our community on the life of the original inhabitants of our fine country-and how white settlement affected this culture-and the life and times of Aboriginal people in Victoria today. He goes on, and this is the important part: I do look forward to the time when Kershaw Hall too, will give an `alive' impression, and Aboriginal people, with pride and dignity, will be able to assist all members of our community to learn about their past, present, and future. The point is that the right place to display Aboriginal culture, and to educate Australians about it, is perhaps not in our European-derived style of museums but in a setting which is as close as possible to the setting that existed before the white man came to our shores. I think the Rockhampton project is the way to go. I also mention that during my trip to New Zealand last year I had the opportunity to go to Rotorua and inspect the New Zealand Maori Arts and Crafts Institute at Whakarewarewa. I was most impressed with what was happening there. Not only were there artisans and carvers, for which the Maoris are so well known, but also we were able to see a Maori village. We were able to see, in the setting of the sulphur geysers there, the Maori culture and way of life. I would like to see that sort of thing happen in Australia so that the artefacts and culture we are preserving through this Bill are able to be appreciated by the ordinary men and women of Australia. An opportunity exists for a similar cultural setting in Victoria. The Australian Government is about to dispose of the Army School of Health at Healesville. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) has asked me to convene a consultative committee to advise him on future uses of the school building. We have invited submissions. I understand that the Committee can expect to receive submissions from Aboriginal groups and a combined submission from the Healesville Council. the Victorian Tourism Commission and the Regional Director of Education to establish a living museum adjacent to the world renowned fauna park-the Colin McKenzie Sanctuary at Healesville. Such an arrangement would permit the 300,000 annual visitors to the sanctuary to visit, at the same time, the living museum of Aboriginal culture and heritage. Aboriginal studies for school children would be conducted. The land is most important to the Aboriginal people because it is the site of the old Coranderrk Reserve. It is a suitable setting for such a museum. There could be displays and the sale of modern artefacts to overseas collectors who wanted to see an example, not of heritage, but of its reproduction. What the Minister and this Government have done for Rockhampton, I would like to see them do for Healesville. This Bill and the bicentennial program appear to be ideal vehicles through which to make such a project a reality. Our culture is priceless. It must be identified, retained protected and enjoyed by all Australians. Overall, it must be cherished and shared. This Bill is a big step in achieving these objectives. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(4.57) —I am delighted to have the opportunity to enter the debate on the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill 1985. I was a member of the New South Wales Parliament in 1977 when New South Wales introduced a heritage Bill to protect real property, that is, buildings and structures. In this Bill the Commonwealth, which also has a heritage Act, is protecting movable property, personal property. The idea behind this legislation is to stop items of immeasurable value which have enormous significance for our nation from being exported to other countries, taken out of Australia's jurisdiction. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen), in his second reading speech, pointed out that in Canada no more than, perhaps, 30 items a year come within the ambit of similar legislation. I believe that would be the situation in Australia. Perhaps, given the smaller population and the shorter period of settlement, even fewer items might come forward for consideration. The legislation is based on a 1970 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation convention. When the Act is proclaimed the Government will sign the UNESCO Convention which not only will enable the protection of items which are not perhaps covered by the Customs Act and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act but also will operate on a reciprocal basis in regard to items which are spirited out of other countries and which are of immeasurable value to them. Might I illustrate one problem which has even confronted me in my electorate office, that is, the problem involved in establishing the worth or significance of an object in relation to our heritage. Shortly after I was elected to the New South Wales Parliament I became very friendly with a Mr and Mrs Symes in Concord West, Sydney. Mrs Symes told me that her father had been a Labor member of parliament and President of the New South Wales Labor Council. She was always very friendly. Ultimately, she passed away. During the Lowe by-election I met her husband, Ben Symes, in the Repatriation General Hospital at Concord with the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), the then Leader of the Opposition. We were campaigning and were photographed together by the Sydney Morning Herald with Ben. Ben Symes later died. The Symes have a daughter who is in the diplomatic corps. She was sorting out the estate from a great distance; she was in some eastern country. Two large framed pictures were left over when the family home was sold and a neighbour who was helping out was reluctant to throw them out. The daughter suggested I might take care of the pictures. One was an illuminated address-it hardly fitted into my car-which was presented in 1920 to the Honourable Edward J. Kavanagh, JP, MLC, the President of the New South Wales Labour Council. The other item was a photograph of the Storey Ministry in 1920 of which he was a Minister. I notice that Sir Edward McTiernan who served in the House of Representatives probably when it sat in Melbourne and is still alive-he is a good friend of mine-was also in the photograph. Every week I write a column in the local paper which is one of the burdens of office and one of the means by which I will redeem some of my purgatory. In that column I stated that I had received in my office and was caring for a very large illuminated address. This stirred up some constituents in Strathfield who said that their grandfather had been an artist named Whitbread. He had painted illuminated addresses and trade union banners-work which is now largely lost. It turned out that the constituents' grandfather had painted this address. They told the Power House Museum in Sydney, which quickly got in touch with me and took possession of the very beautiful hand painted illuminated address, which was covering half a wall in my office. It was cleaned and much to my surprise and joy it was featured in the Hyde Park Barracks exhibition in Sydney. Mr Cohen —I was there last week. Mr MAHER —It was not there the last time I looked. The people there change the exhibits from time to time. (Quorum formed) One of the hardest problems for Australians is to identify items of great cultural significance and national importance. I was telling the House that when Mr and Mrs Symes died a large illuminated address was deposited in my office and it was extremely hard to know whether it had any significant value whatsoever or to assess its value. I now find that it is an important part of our heritage. It has been taken into custody by the Power House Museum, which now has written wanting to keep it permanently. During my recent visit overseas I met an ambassador's secretary who told me that she was the daughter of the late Mr and Mrs Ben Symes and that she would be pleased if the illuminated address could be deposited permanently in the Power House Museum in Sydney. So that solved a problem I had. Other speakers have dealt with the problem of Aboriginal artefacts. Recently when I was in Vienna I found that the skull of a Tasmanian Aboriginal native is in the natural history museum there. This has caused great embarrassment to the Austrian authorities, particularly as they have had a visit from an Australian Aboriginal who was demanding return of this skull. I am sure that many overseas museums are becoming very conscious of the significance of Aboriginal artefacts to the Aboriginal people. I will touch on several other matters that the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment might note. One is the composition of the National Cultural Heritage Committee. A representative of antique dealers should be on that Committee because these are the people who have to assess items which are brought in for sale. They meet together at auction sales in Sydney, Melbourne and all our other cities. I even think there should be a representative on the Committee from some of the big auction houses in the main cities such as James R. Lawson Pty Ltd. It is not sufficient to have just academics and university people on the Committee; it is important to include people in the antique trade because they not only need a clear definition of the law, but could give much advice to and bring skill to the Committee. A final point I want to make is the manner in which such items are valued because many of them are very hard to value. Let us take the illuminated address to which I referred or an antique silver belt seen in an auction room in Sydney a few years ago which had been awarded for a world rowing championship in about 1860, I think, on the Parramatta River. The silver belt came up for auction in Sydney. In the last century Australia staged a number of world rowing championships. Rowing was the first world championship that Australia ever held. Many world rowing championships were held on the Parramatta River in my electorate or on the Clarence River on the north coast of New South Wales. When I was contacted about this silver belt I had no way of persuading any instrumentality to acquire it. I drew it to the attention of certain government departments but I still do not know what happened to it. I hope that it was not exported; it was probably sold for its weight in silver and little else. I want to ensure that a fair, honest method is used for establishing the value of significant items that come up for sale in auction rooms. If an item is subject to notification that it is of great significance to our country, its value for resale in an auction room maybe reduced because it cannot be exported. People who have in their custody items that may be of great national significance will be reluctant to put them up for sale for fear of receiving an order that the items cannot be exported. That worries me because owners may bring forward an item for auction without notice and by illicit means have its value increased in the belief that the Government will buy the items at the alleged established market value. The Minister and his advisers will have to be very careful in accepting values allegedly obtained at auction sales, particularly if it is clear that the item is not really being sold genuinely to a buyer. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill. It is based on a 1970 UNESCO Convention. It will bring Australia into line with many other countries that have similar legislation. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(5.10) —in reply-First of all, I commend those speakers who have taken part in this debate. This is one of those occasions where many honourable members have had the opportunity to speak. I commend the Opposition for its strong support of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill. I particularly pay tribute to the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who made an excellent speech on the Bill yesterday. The honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) was his usual brilliant self. I also commend the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb), the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) and the many other honourable members who made contributions. I also take this opportunity of paying a tribute to our Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, for the encouragement, support and enthusiasm he has given to me in getting this Bill up. He is an amazing man. He has not changed. His enthusiasm now is as great as it ever was. He is nearing 70 years of age, and he still pays the same attention to detail as he did when in government. As a matter of fact, I think perhaps we should institute the Japanese system of having national living treasures-and perhaps he should be declared one of Australia's national living treasures. I also pay tribute to Dr Jean Battersby, who did so much preparatory work on what has been described as the lovable property Bill. As to more serious matters, the honourable member for Bradfield and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) have raised the question of aircraft exports in the context of the lack of a national aviation museum, which has made and will make it difficult to protect certain aircraft from export. I have personally expressed my support for a national aviation museum. It is important to stress that the lack of a specialised collecting institution for aircraft, steam engines, stamps or any other objects will not impede our assessment, in the first instance, of their heritage significance in Australia. This Government has a record that is now second to none in regard to the protection of Australia's heritage. As the Minister responsible for heritage, I have been delighted that we have been able to take so many significant steps. I do not know whether even our own members are fully aware of what we have done. The Museum of Australia will be, I believe, the greatest museum in Australia. It is now under construction at Yarramundi Reach. We are about to start work, in the next few weeks, on the Maritime Museum in Sydney, which will be a great accomplishment and a magnificent museum, designed by Philip Cox and Partners Pty Ltd. The National Film and Sound Archive is now well and truly established in the old Institute of Anatomy. Hopefully, we shall start work in the near future on the National Archive buildings in the Triangle. I think that is an incredible record for only three years in office. Incidentally, I understand that we have just passed the record of the Whitlam Government, having been in Government now for six hours longer than that Government. There is a little concern about the enormous number of proposals for museums, and I think it is unrealistic to expect the Government to implement all the proposals that are around. The aviation museum is probably our next priority. I know that the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren) has a deep interest in that, and I shall be in his electorate this weekend. The Antarctic museum is another one that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) and many others want to establish in Melbourne. There is a proposal for a migration museum. A national sports museum is a pet of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). A folk life museum has also been proposed. These institutions are very costly. I think we are looking at $100m-plus for the Museum of Australia. The cost of running them is extremely high. Very few of them can pay their own way or get even remotely close to that. There is a limit to what any government can do, but I think we have an amazing record for only three years in office. A number of honourable members have made reference to this Bill implementing the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and to the Government using the foreign affairs power as the authority for the legislation. It is important to correct both these misconceptions from the outset. Australia has not ratified the 1970 Convention. The Convention and, therefore, the foreign affairs power do not provide the basis for the legislation. It is for this reason that the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) was unable to find a copy of the Convention appended as a schedule to the Bill. Australia has already indicated its intention to ratify the Convention, and that could well follow this legislation; it is not the basis for it. This legislation will provide a greater degree of sensitivity and discrimination in dealing with the export and import of cultural property than is possible under the existing Customs regulations, which spread a very broad net. This will be very specific. Its effectiveness will not depend upon which foreign countries are signatories to the Convention. The Convention is not mentioned in the Bill. The honourable member for Bradfield asked what progress is being made in ratifying other UNESCO conventions aimed at further protecting cultural property, and he referred in particular to the 1954 Hague Convention. Let me assure him that these are under active consideration-prompted by the honourable Ambassador, Mr Whitlam. We are examining the implementation of the Protocol to the Hague Convention into domestic legislation. The honourable member for Bradfield and others have made reference to actions being taken to secure the return of Aboriginal material previously exported from Australia. As I made clear in my second reading speech, there is no provision for retrospectivity in this legislation or, indeed, in the UNESCO Convention. It is true that the signatories to the Convention come largely from the Third World, but increasingly the major `collecting countries', such as the United States of America, are joining the negotiations. In the broader sense, by indicating the Government's concern for international illicit traffic in heritage property, this legislation provides a basis for goodwill in bilateral negotiations which could result in the return of previously exported Australian heritage property. The honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) asked for assurance that the legislation would not affect adversely dealers and private citizens importing cultural property from other countries. The import controls established by this legislation are limited in focus and operate on a principle different from that of the existing controls under the Customs Act. The new controls will be invoked only if the Government has received a formal request from the government of a foreign country for the return of an object illegally exported from it. It is important to note that these controls are not confined to countries which are parties to the UNESCO Convention but may extend to other countries with which Australia has special bilateral or multilateral cultural arrangements. It will not affect normal and legal import of cultural objects. The honourable member for Bradfield and, I think, the honourable member for Wentworth raised the question of the cost of the National Cultural Heritage Committee. It is the Government's clear intention for this Committee to be established on a part time basis. There is no intention nor does the Government see any future requirement for it to change that status, nor to make it an administrative nightmare. As I said, the honourable member for Bradfield made a superb speech. He mentioned the Batman Deed. The facsimile was prepared by John Batman on his return to Hobart after negotiating the transfer of land in Melbourne and Geelong from the Aboriginal tribes. It is not one of the `major deeds' which where signed by the Aborigines but one of a number of replicas given to the members of the Port Arthur Association, which was formed to undertake the settlements at Melbourne and Geelong. The facsimile was seized by the Comptroller of Customs during 1985, as an illegal export, on re-entry into Australia after the failure to sell it in London. Export of the Batman Deed is governed by item 1B of the Second Schedule of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations. In the view of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) the Deed, as an illegal export, is now the property of the Crown. The power to dispose of it lies with the Comptroller-General of Customs on the advice of the Minister responsible for Customs, Senator Button. My Department has advised Customs that it is the Department's view, given the circumstances, that the Deed should be returned to the owner. I conclude my remarks by once again saying how appreciative I am of the support of the Opposition. It is a pity that the people of Australia do not know that in many instances in this Parliament we are united and bipartisan. The only headlines people see are the times when we disagree with each other. I commend all honourable members who have participated in this debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(5.20) —I move: Clause 25, page 11, at the end of the clause add the following sub-clause: ``(4) Without limiting the generality of paragraph (3) (f), regulations made for the purposes of that paragraph may confer powers and functions, and impose duties, on the Auditor-General and, in particular, may apply section 63G of the Audit Act 1901 in relation to the Fund with such modifications as are specified in the regulations.''. This is a technical amendment, the effect of which is to ensure that the National Cultural Heritage Fund is subject to audit by the Auditor-General. The need for the amendment follows from advice from the Auditor-General's Office and the Attorney-General's Department that an anomaly would exist between the provisions of the Audit Act 1981 and the Bill as originally drafted. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(5.21) —The Opposition has no objection to the proposal by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to include this amendment in the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill. The proposal that the Auditor-General should have the responsibility for auditing the National Cultural Heritage Fund is in accordance with a recommendation some years ago of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts when I was then the Chairman, to the effect that the Auditor-General should, in fact, be responsible for the auditing of all government instrumentalities. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Young: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.24) —The purpose of the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1986 is to amend the Ministers of State Act to increase the maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries of Ministers from some $630,000 to $660,000. In that, it is quite unexceptional. It would be totally unobjectionable if the root causes of the 3.8 per cent increase were to be ignored. Honourable members will recall that section 66 of the Constitution prescribes, subject to the Parliament otherwise providing, a maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries of Ministers. Amendments to the Ministers of State Act which sets this sum are thus required to cover increases in ministerial salaries. As the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) pointed out in his second reading speech, following the Remuneration Tribunal's 1984 review national wage case decisions flow automatically to officeholders within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, including to Ministers of State, without the need for the Tribunal to make a separate special report on the particular increase. The amount involved is $30,000 or so and as such is relatively small. Its real significance is a discrete but perfect example of the centralised and often automatic wage fixing system in action. As the Minister advised in his second reading speech, this increase is required to cover the effect-$13,851 in 1985-86 and $23,746 in a full year-of the 3.8 per cent national wage decision handed down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 4 November 1985. Those members of the Ministry planning to celebrate the 3.8 per cent increase might more profitably pause and deliberate on some wider considerations. Mr Slipper —Champagne socialists. Mr ROCHER —Champagne socialists, my friend suggests. I am not sure of that. This Government has a tendency to treat any criticism of the Arbitration Commission as somehow un-Australian. However, I put it to the Minister and to the House that the Commission's decision not to discount the 3.8 per cent wage rise for the inflationary effect of the devaluation of the dollar on the consumer price index on the grounds that the Commission does `not believe that the case can be sustained on the basis of exceptional and compelling circumstances', must leave any intelligent observer pondering just what the Commission would consider exceptional and compelling. The unpleasant facts that our current account deficit is at a record high, that our trade outlook is far from favourable and that both our real and nominal interest rates are at their highest level for decades with our foreign debt commitment accelerating rapidly, formed sufficient evidence to the Commission that they had had a real and immediate effect in the market-place. Honourable members will recall that the Commission's decision was followed by a 10 per cent drop in the value of the Australian dollar. The role of the Arbitration Commission was aptly described by Professor Richard Blandy, the distinguished economist and Director of the National Institute of Labour Studies at Flinders University, when he said in October 1984 that the Commission acted as an `enforcer' for the trade union movement. In fact, the whole centralised wage fixing system is a perfect example of Professor Mancur Olson's thesis that small economies such as Australia's develop highly influential special interest groups disproportionately damaging to the overall economy. While the $30,000 or so involved in this Bill is only a trifle compared with the billions of taxpayers' money we handle and commit in this Parliament, it is a practical outcome of our centralised wage system with its implications for the measure before the House. When considering the centralised wage fixing system, we might profitably recall the observations of Professor Larry Krause at the National Press Club just prior to the 1984 general election. Professor Krause was the head of a team of American and Canadian economists who reviewed both the long and the short term performance of the Australian economy and released its report as a special Brookings Institution survey published simultaneously in Washington and Canberra. Professor Krause looked, as he described it, at the `lacklustre performance' of the Australian economy over the last decade, and he said: . . . inflation was the critical issue involved in why the economy could not recover and sustain further growth to reduce unemployment. Having noted that inflation was the critical variable that economic managers had to worry about, he went on to say that the issue seemed to revolve around the question of `wages, wage settings and wage explosion'. He asked why the Arbitration Commission, which was not by any means a new institution, had caused major problems in the period under study. His conclusion was: That the old institution was being mixed together with new conditions and this was rather causing an explosive mixture. Krause noted the opinion of Daniel Mitchell that the arbitration system can push wages up but has a very difficult time keeping wages down, even when the capacity of some employers to pay cannot be demonstrated. As Krause said, the system that is built on the principle of so-called wage justice has a very hard time controlling wage levels. In reviewing the Krause publication, the Australian Financial Review editorialised: All the authors who consider the issue are clearly greatly worried about the implications of wage indexation. It would not be incorrect to say that they share the view that wage indexation is the greatest current threat to employment and price stability in Australia. As Ministers consider their 3.8 per cent increase, they might ponder the carefully considered opinions of the distinguished economists I have just cited. On current trends, this is distinctly unlikely. The Government's specially commissioned Hancock report, the report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems, a whitewash job on the Commission, advocated greater powers for the existing centralised wage system. But the fundamental weaknesses of the Government's position are highlighted by the Hancock report's remarkably self-effacing treatment of the key area in which the industrial relations system impinges on the economy and the economic performance of this country. The Committee refrained from expressing an opinion on the key issue of wage indexation in spite of the fact that Australia is about the only Western economy that has a system of full wage indexation. The Committee declared that `there are both pros and cons' associated with full wage indexation. But it argued that it was up to the Commission to balance these pros and cons `having regard to both economic consequences and realities of industrial relations'. The report proposes that the Commission in all proceedings take into account `the state of the national economy' and make `special reference to likely effects on the level of employment and on inflation'. The Hancock Committee does not indicate exactly how economic sophistication is to be added effectively into the deliberations of the Commission. What is worse, it ignores the fact that a macro approach to the state of the national economy overlooks the plight of individual industries and enterprises within the economy. Pursuing economically irrational policies that give rise to national wage increases is not a new activity for members of this Ministry. The Prime Minister, for example, as he enjoys his 3.8 per cent increase, might ponder his significant contribution to this nation's economic problems. Mr N.A. Brown —Will the gang of seven get this pay rise? Mr ROCHER —I think that they are in the hat. They will get their cut. A levy might be imposed-I am not absolutely certain about that. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has noted, for years the then advocate of the Australian Council of Trade Unions advocated higher wages and shorter hours as if Australia were an economic island totally isolated from the harsh realities of the world economy. Honourable members may recall that Max Walsh has analysed the consequences of the Prime Minister's initial achievement as ACTU advocate. He said: Hawke's first great arbitration victory was in 1959 when he persuaded the Commission that the policy of wage fixation it had pursued from 1953 was incorrect. Hawke won a 15 shillings (i.e. 6 per cent) increase in the basic wage and, soon after, went on to win a 28 per cent increase in margins for skill. That combination of these victories caused a trebling in the rate of inflation (from 1.3 per cent to 3.9 per cent) and ushered in the corrective credit squeeze of 1960 was a lesson never understood fully by the Labor movement. The plain fact is that in economic matters Mr Hawke in his previous position and now as Prime Minister has had an extended learning curve. He shows no sign of having learned his lessons well. In 1970 he proclaimed that 1971 should be the year of the 35-hour week in Australia. There was no talk then of productivity deals. The demand was merely for more pay and less work. Four years later he severely criticised the Whitlam Government for opposing a 27 per cent wage increase for airline pilots. Around that time the present Prime Minister expressed the ACTU's policy on wages in these terms: We know inflation is at 16 per cent and we believe it is quite likely to reach 20 per cent in the next two quarters. But we will not indulge in a trade-off in wages for some conjectural reduction in inflation. In March 1975 the Prime Minister, in his previous position, proclaimed that the ACTU wanted full indexation in addition to unions having the right to have collective bargaining for wage increases above the consumer price index. He said that this was the very essence of the industrial policies of both the Australian Labor Party and the ACTU. It is no wonder that dignitaries such as Gough Whitlam, Clyde Cameron, Jim McClelland and Frank Crean criticised the present Prime Minister's appalling economic irresponsibility during the period of the Whitlam Government. Former senator, Minister of the Whitlam Government and latterly judge, Jim McClelland, summed up the Prime Minister's attitude at this time. He said: I remember him saying to me `Yes, we'll cop wage indexation but only if we can get anything else we want on top of that'. This is the man who now claims to have invented wage moderation. In 1976 as ACTU President, the now Prime Minister opposed the discounting of wage indexation to take account of the depreciation of the Australian dollar. In October 1982, as the honourable member for Wills, he said that it was simply stupid to blame wage levels for Australia's record unemployment. Some months later he opposed the Fraser Government's wages pause and supported the demand of extremely well-paid oil workers for a new round of wage increases. I invite the Special Minister of State to take his attention away from his 3.8 per cent pay increase and direct it to these thoughts of Professors John Hewson and John Nevile who make clear in a chapter of their recently published book Inflation and Unemployment: Theory, Experience and Policy Making: There is no doubt that large rises in nominal wage rates are inflationary and have some adverse effects on unemployment. High real wages also probably increase unemployment . . . Real wages that are rigid downwards certainly limit the ability of Government policy to reduce unemployment. The policy conclusion is clear; Limit the rise in wage rates as much as possible. David Clark, whom I respect greatly, wrote in the Australian Financial Review: The book has a most timely message. Over the past decade, the economies which have been most successful in adjusting to the radically changed circumstances brought on by the `second slump' have been those with the most flexible wage policies. Lest it be argued that David Clark, John Hewson and John Nevile, despite their divergent views on politics and economics, are either misguided or partisan, I refer to the most recent book of Professor Lester Thurow of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a renowned economist, the Zero-Sum Solution, which includes two important points. They are that real wages must fall in the short run if unemployment is to be reduced and that wage indexation is a disaster. A notable enthusiast for many years of Thorow's earlier book, the Zero-Sum Society, was a then Opposition shadow Minister, the honourable member for Wills, the now Prime Minister of Australia. I suggest that the Prime Minister use a portion of his 3.8 per cent increase to buy and read the latest book by the same author whom he was once so ready to cite when it suited his purposes. If he does, we might see some correction of the disastrous policies which are being pursued by his Government and which give rise to this Bill. As Ministers contemplate spending their 3.8 per cent, they might also bear in mind the result of their stewardship of Australia Incorporated. The Hawke Labor Government, which regularly engages in enthusiastic self-congratulation, has given us the highest interest rates, after inflation is taken into account, since the Great Depression. It has given us an inflation rate that is twice that of our major trading partners and three times that of Japan. It has given us a dollar that was devalued by 25 per cent in 1985. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! I draw the attention of the honourable member to the fact that I have been trying to give plenty of leeway in the tying of his comments with the Bill before the House. But that is the second time he has referred back many years and I draw his attention to the fact that his comments must be pertinent to the Bill under discussion. Mr ROCHER —If I have not made that apparent in what I have already said, I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will do so before I have finished. I remind the House that the 3.8 per cent increase which is germane to and the reason for this Bill is the result of the Government's economic policies and as such we have to examine the causes which have led to the need to legislate in this way. As I have already mentioned, this Government has given us a dollar that was devalued by 25 per cent in 1985. It has landed us with a foreign debt which has dramatically risen to the extent that the cost of servicing it takes up over 40 per cent of our earnings from the exports of goods and services. We are stuck with an unemployment rate that appears to have stabilised at about 8 per cent for adults and a totally unacceptable 20 per cent for youth. We are also left with a level of spending increases that is twice that of the Fraser years. What is worse is that under Prime Minister Hawke Australia has government of the people by former trade union officials for the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Never before in Australian history has the trade union movement been given such political clout. As those taxpayer funded advertisements told us a year or so ago, the prices and incomes accord has placed trade union bosses at the very centre of national decision making. Recent comments by Mr Bob White, President of the Business Council of Australia and Chief Executive of Westpac Banking Corporation, to the effect that business finds itself a poor cousin of the ACTU when it comes to meaningful government consultation, confirms again the simple fact that the Hawke Government has an appalling record of unquestioning acceptance of the union movement's power, privileges and pretensions. The Government-ACTU axis pre-empted the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decision in the September wage case, which has given rise to this legislation. It also pre-empted the April national wage case which will give rise to subsequent legislation of an identical nature. Now its ridiculous policy on superannuation has again pre-empted the Commission's hearing of a so-called productivity case and locked it into granting a 3 per cent increase on the basis of probably illusory and definitely unproven growth in the national economy. The Hawke Government has engaged in unprecedented, secretive bargaining, giving the ACTU material which has been denied to the Economic Planning Advisory Council and other responsible organisations. The Government has dismantled or attempted to dismantle virtually all legislation introduced by the previous Government to thwart union militancy in the public sector. It supported the Arbitration Commission's granting to the union movement very substantial benefits in the areas of redundancy, termination and technological change. It has given the ACTU a power of veto over the original tax reform package proposed by the Government's own Treasurer (Mr Keating). This Government allows the union movement to undermine the youth traineeship scheme-its own scheme-and it has refused, at the behest of the unions, to introduce reforms to the labour market to give unemployed people generally, and the young in particular, a chance to work. The most appropriate precedent for the ACTU-Hawke Government axis was in 395 AD when Theodosius the Great gave control of the Roman Empire to his two sons. The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire records the disaster that followed. I suggest that we are along that track. I recommend that book also as reading material for the Minister at the table, the Special Minister of State, the Prime Minister and his Treasurer. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(5.45) —I rise to support the Ministers of State Amendment Bill before the House and I do so with a great deal of pleasure because I firmly believe that there is a great need to reward properly Ministers of the Crown for the work that they are engaged in as Ministers. Most of the time in his work a Minister is placed under a great deal of pressure. A Minister of the Crown finds himself frequently having his privacy invaded. He finds that his family and wife or spouse are frequently also dragged into the lifestyle and the work in which he is engaged. At times a Minister also finds that there are great personal risks and dangers associated with his work as a Minister of the Crown. I also have a great deal of pleasure in supporting the Bill because I believe it is necessary to pay people well enough as Ministers to attract the right sort of person into our Parliament to become a Minister so that this Government may be better administered, or any future government better administered, so that we have the best people with the most talent to do that job. I mentioned a few moments ago that Ministers find themselves under a great deal of pressure, or risk and sometimes personal danger. If I may, I would like to use an example of one Minister, who is in the chamber at present, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) who is in charge of this Bill at present. One has only to have a quick glance at him to understand the pressure he is working under and to see how that is affecting him. But this afternoon not only did the Special Minister of State find himself in that position; also the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in the matter of public importance, was obviously showing great signs of pressure. But, to return to the Special Minister of State, I will point out the reasons why the person in his portfolio is placed in these very dangerous and sometimes difficult situations. The portfolio of Special Minister of State is a very interesting one. It is a very diverse one. One of the aspects of it is responsibility for and management and administration of the Australian Federal Police. As we all know the Australian Federal Police is a very effective and well regarded police force. It is perhaps small in world terms, or even in Australian terms, but it is still very effective and made up of dedicated people performing a great task. One of the main priorities-in fact, the top priority-of the Australian Federal Police is to fight the drug problem that occurs in this country. I am sure we all agree that the drug trade is one of the most insidious and dangerous trades or exercises that occur in this country. Mr Slipper —A trade in death. Mr SHARP —As the honourable member for Fisher points out, it is a trade in death-a slow death for those people unfortunate enough to be addicts. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! Will the honourable member for Gilmore please listen very carefully to the direction that I am about to give. Whilst his concern about the drug trade is commendable, legislation cannot be used as a means of talking on a variety of other issues. After listening to the speech of the honourable member for Curtin, it is pertinent to outline what this Bill is about. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Ministers of State Act 1952. The Minister's second reading speech stated that, following the Remuneration Tribunal's 1984 review, national wage case decisions will automatically flow to officers within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, including Ministers of State, without the need for the Tribunal to make a special separate report. Passing reference to the national wage case decisions, et cetera, is quite in order and also any other comments. The Chair continues to give leeway on these but they must be tied in directly to the Bill under consideration and not go wide of the mark. Mr SHARP —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your advice is well received and I hope that by going further I will be able to connect the statements that I am making with the reasons why appropriate remuneration is necessary. I was indicating the great risks to Ministers of the Crown because, for example, the Special Minister of State is responsible for the Australian Federal Police and at times could be privy to information which could do great damage to people in the drug trade who are trying to profit, as they do so greatly, from being involved in that trade. That is the connection I am trying to make and if you will allow me that bit of latitude. I will keep coming back to the very point you raised just a moment ago. I have mentioned that the drug trade is a dangerous trade. People are being killed all the time. There are murders; there are shootings, stabbings, beatings and so forth. We see this every day in the paper. We remember the Mr Asia syndicate, a powerful organisation led by an Australian who allegedly was involved in various murders and other criminal activities. These are the sorts of people who are engaged in the drug business. I remember a case featured on the front cover of the Bulletin a couple of years ago. A pharmacist was murdered in his pharmacy by a couple of people who were just trying to get a few dollars out of his till. This is the sort of risk that our Ministers face because they are in charge of the activities of bodies such as the Australian Federal Police. Remuneration is also important because the drug trade is such a vastly profitable business. I was only recently in South East Asia and discovered that the farmers who produce the raw products which become heroin and other narcotics get about $5 a kilogram for their product. I am told by those people who know that, by the time the product is refined, the price could rise from $5 a kilogram to $1m on the streets of Sydney. These obvious huge profits are also being used to corrupt our society and because of that corruption people are losing respect for the way our society is administered. We see it so often when in the Bulletin or the newspapers respect for the various professions is given a grading. People in important positions in our society are now losing respect because of the way in which corruption is taking place, and we now find that because people do not respect the system that operates in society they do not so voluntarily adhere to the system and so we need more and harsher laws, more police and so forth. With all these profits and because there is a huge amount of money to throw around to get what one wants, there is the potential to bribe. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I really do not like to destroy the speech and the points that you have to make but as Deputy Speaker I cannot allow you to go so wide of the Bill. Would you please confine your comments at least partly to the Bill before the House. Mr SHARP —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will endeavour to do so. In fact, I shall be brief. As I was saying, it is important that correct remuneration be given, for example in the case I am illustrating, to the Special Minister of State. From time to time as an individual in the Parliament he is harassed by all sorts of people. He would be harassed by members of the public and by parliamentarians, including members of the Opposition. We have to be able to give the correct remuneration to such people so that we can attract the right people into our Parliament. We also need to give correct remuneration to these people so that the risks of their falling prey to corruption are minimised. Mr Slipper —This is a very good speech. Mr SHARP —I thank the honourable member for Fisher. I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting the Bill. By giving adequate remuneration in these circumstances we will ensure that we have the best people in these important roles-people who will be able to give good administration to our nation, people who will be able to help to do such things as better fight the drug war in our country, people who will not be placed in financial circumstances whereby they fall prey to the corrupting methods of those who I believe to be the lowest form in our society, those people who quite often, as the honourable member for Fisher has pointed out, are murderers or are selling and distributing drugs in this country. If we have this sort of legislation, these sorts of amendments, we will have a society which will not be twisted by people who are presently able to corrupt and mismanage our society. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(5.56) —I am pleased to join my colleagues in speaking on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill. As the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has pointed out-I am pleased to see him in the chamber-section 66 of the Commonwealth Constitution sets out, subject to other provision by the Parliament, a maximum annual sum for the payment of salaries of Ministers. As a result of the Remuneration Tribunal's 1984 review, national wage case decisions are automatically passed on to Ministers of state and other positions within the Tribunal's area of responsibility without it being necessary to have separate special reports. This Bill seeks to amend the Ministers of State Act 1952 to give effect to the 1985 national wage case decision. Nobody would deny the pressures and responsibilities placed on Ministers of the Crown, especially those in the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia who served the nation well before the unfortunate change of government almost three years ago. Opposition members-Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I am pleased to receive the support of the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) and the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp). Of course the honourable member for Menzies was an excellent Minister and will no doubt go on to even greater achievements in the future. A Minister holds an important position. I endorse the comments of the honourable member for Gilmore in this regard. I also endorse his remarks in relation to the Special Minister of State, a man upon whom great pressure has been heaped in recent times. I draw the attention of the House to the description in the MacMillan Dictionary of Australian Politics: A Minister is in charge of one or more departments. A Minister is held to be responsible to Parliament for his actions and the actions of that department. Wilding and Laundy in An Encyclopaedia of Parliament say in reference to a Minister's role: He receives guidance on the affairs of his department from his expert advisers, the permanent officials, but it is a weak Minister who will rely on his experts to such an extent as to be led by them. It is a tragic state of affairs that the Government's front bench, which is almost empty at this time of day, is crammed with Ministers heavily dependent on the bureaucracy or perhaps their factional supporters. Unfortunately the Government's failure to reassure the nation that the full 7 cents per litre fuel price drop will be passed on indicates that Cabinet has not accepted the truth of the quotation in Gilmour's The Body Politic: The Minister exists to tell the Civil Servant what the public will not stand. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! No doubt the honourable member for Fisher heard me address the last two honourable members who spoke. As I said to the honourable member for Gilmore, there is a certain amount of leeway. Comments cannot be addressed directly to the Bill for the entire time, but all of the comments must be directly related to the matter before the House, and the Chair just will not tolerate an honourable member who, having been pulled up, goes on in a pleasant manner of speaking with a speech quite divorced from the matter before the House. Mr SLIPPER —Madam Deputy Speaker, I respectfully submit that my speech is relevant; it relates to remunerations for Ministers of the Crown. I have referred to the office of Minister, the role of a Minister, and the way in which the Ministers who are seeking this increase are performing their roles in this place. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will note the comment of the Chair. I have made my evaluation. I would not have brought the matter up in the first place had I thought the honourable member's speech was relevant. My ruling was that it was getting too wide of the mark. I ask him to bring his comments directly in line with the Bill. Mr SLIPPER —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry about your ruling. I submit that what I have said is relevant- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member does not have to be sorry about the ruling. I have ruled. The honourable member for Fisher- Mr SLIPPER —Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue to be relevant- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Fisher will wait. Mr SLIPPER —I thought you called me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, I have asked you to hesitate. It is not the purpose of members in this House and the Chair to argue backwards and forwards. I have asked the honourable member to be relevant and I ask him now to continue without further comment. Mr SLIPPER —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will continue to be relevant. Ministers are entitled to reasonable payment for their services and I am quite certain that the community would not object to this. I suppose I could be forgiven for suggesting that some Ministers are perhaps more entitled than others. Along with many other members on both sides of the House, I have been disturbed by the way in which it is difficult sometimes to obtain a reply, or even an acknowledgment, from some members of the current Ministry. I am approached constantly to make representations to government on behalf of constituents and, depending on the nature of the problem, a phone call may be made or perhaps the relevant government department will be contacted in some other way. In appropriate circumstances an approach is made to Ministers themselves. The Special Minister of State, who is at the table, is unfailingly courteous and the facts that I intend to outline do not relate to his conduct. I have found that many Ministers reply, though not always promptly, in an informative way, and I include the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in this group. There would obviously be others who take a similar approach to their duties. Sadly, though, even these Ministers often take weeks to reply. It ranges from an average of four weeks for the Attorney-General and the Minister for Social Security to eight to 10 weeks for the Minister for Health. The rest are somewhere in the middle. It is tragic that members of parliament must wait for such a long time to obtain replies to representations being made on behalf of their constituents. Mr Smith —It is shameful. Mr SLIPPER —It is shameful. Alas, there are some Ministers who pretend that correspondence simply does not exist. On this list we have the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who takes an average of 12 weeks to reply. We also have the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), who takes up to 16 weeks. Mr Sharp —Good lord! Can't they buy a stamp? Mr SLIPPER —The honourable member could be right. Also worthy of inclusion, or condemnation, is the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) who does not seem to have heard of the post office. I am not suggesting that the promptness or tardiness of replies is caused by political considerations, and I daresay that members of all parties would have similar complaints from time to time. In fact, I feel that I am an advocate for the back bench members of the Government who, in the present state of Australian Labor Party politics, would not be game to stand up and say what I am saying in the House because they would probably have their heads chopped off. In reality the situation is merely a matter of whether or not a Minister is competent to run an efficient office. I hope the Government will look at this problem seriously so that members are not hindered in serving their constituents. To return to the Bill, its passage raises the limit on sums appropriated for ministerial salaries to take into account the 3.8 per cent increase resulting from the national wage case decision determined by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 4 November 1985. The Opposition does not oppose it. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(6.05) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Opposition's shadow Minister is unable to be in the chamber for this debate. The Opposition does not object to this legislation. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(6.06) —in reply-Mr Deputy Speaker, I will narrow my remarks down to answering some of the matters that have been raised by various speakers without provoking you into ruling that I am getting outside the guidelines, as did the previous occupant of the chair. I think some of the matters raised by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) have to be answered. The Ministers of State Amendment Bill is a procedure which Ministers need to alter their remuneration. This will bring them into line with what happened with members a little earlier, when their remuneration was automatically adjusted following a decision by the Remuneration Tribunal. Firstly, I think the system we have now established is as adequate as any system we have had previously in this House. Even those honourable members who have not served in the House for very long will know that when we talk about remuneration for members and Ministers we are talking about possibly the most sensitive political issue in Australia. I do not think anyone in his wildest dreams believes that he is going to serve in the Parliament, and end up wealthy. That is not the objective and it is certainly not something that can be achieved. If I may say so, my experience is that back benchers serving in this parliament are grossly underpaid. A comparison with the salaries of anybody else in the public or private sector would show-the Tribunal has said this in its last three reports-that members of parliament, not Ministers but back benchers, have fallen behind the level that was set many years ago. It is now a question of whether action will be taken for members to catch up, but that is not what we are dealing with today. Today we are dealing with Ministers and, as honourable members know, by and large Ministers receive something like $20,000 a year more than back benchers. Mr Rocher —Not enough. Mr YOUNG —Perhaps not, but that is the way it is going to be. The honourable member for Curtin, who had the responsibility of responding to this Bill, raised a whole range of issues. He must have been looking around for weeks to find something to speak on so that he could relate what he saw as being the economic and industrial relations problems of Australia. Mr Rocher —And the causes. Mr YOUNG —And the causes. He named almost every economic academic he could get his hands on in the Parliamentary Library. The only thing I say to the honourable member for Curtin is that not many of those people who give us advice have stood for parliament and have actually had to carry out all their theories. If they got into the Cabinet room they might find that their theories were not all that good. Sometimes I wonder whether we ought to adopt the Irish system, where a couple of people from the universities are invited to take seats in the Parliament. I note that the honourable member for Curtin shakes his head in disagreement. Anyhow, it is good to read all the advice they give us, but the practice of running government can be a little different from what we read in books. The indexation system which we now have operating in Australia and from which this Bill stems arose out of this Government extracting the work force from the wage freeze we inherited in March 1983. No one knew exactly how it would be done, whether we would find an acceptable system, whether we would get the economy going to achieve the sort of job creation we were hoping for. There is no doubt that one of the major reasons, if not the major reason, that the Fraser Government was defeated in March 1983 was that the people made a value judgment that the Fraser Government really did not seem to be concerned about unemployment. It was a major issue. I note that the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) shakes his head in disagreement. It may not have been a major issue in the country areas, where there was drought, but unemployment was a major issue in the cities. In the year leading up to March 1983 an additional quarter of a million people had been put on the dole queues, so it was a very big issue. We had to extract the work force from the wage freeze and get some sort of agreement with organised labour in this country that would give us an opportunity of getting the country moving again. We adopted a system of indexation which was agreed upon. People may argue that it is not the best system and that there are better systems. Although the honourable member for Curtin said that increases in real wages have had all these damaging effects, it is pretty difficult to point a finger at indexation at the moment when 608,000 jobs have been created in the less than three years in which we have had indexation applying. Mr Rocher —Yes, but you can't attribute that only to indexation. Mr YOUNG —No, but the member for Curtin has got to do better than just criticise the present system. He has got to say what would have happened if a conservative government had continued after March 1983. Mr Rocher —The wage pause was in place. Mr YOUNG —The pause was in place but no job creation was going on. If the honourable member is saying that if we had kept freezing wages forever we would have created a few jobs, perhaps that is true, but it might have brought with it a wave of industrial strife on which the then Government would have had no impact at all. Indexation has also given us a great deal of industrial peace. One cannot argue against the fact that industrial disputation is at the lowest ebb it has been for 16 or 17 years. That comes with indexation. It also comes with part of the deals that have been done with organised labour. The last wage case embraced a full flow-on of 3.8 per cent; the next case is discounted 2 per cent because of devaluation, then the tax cuts will come into place in September of this year and July of next year. By the time the people go to vote at the next election, one of the things the Opposition will have to argue with is that the Government has not done its job-despite the fact the tax of 60c in the dollar will be 49c, tax of 48c and 46c in the dollar will fall to 40c, and all the way down the line people will be paying less tax. That is not a bad achievement in our five years of government. The Opposition is experimenting and seeking some system arising from their discussion to take over what Opposition members think will be our argument in industrial relations. For a long time before the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) became Leader of the Opposition opting out was very popular. It was a little cliche people were using that looked attractive. It still looks attractive to some but it does not look attractive to very many. As I have been saying for quite a long time, the only people who will opt out are the strong because they can get more. If we were to do away with indexation a lot of people in the work force-hundreds of thousands of them-could go out on the grass and get a great deal more out of the system than they are getting under indexation. Mr Rocher —I doubt it. Mr YOUNG —Yes, they could, there is no doubt about that. When Opposition members talk about opting out, they mean opting out at the bottom so that perhaps those industries without the capacity to pay can have a small part of the burden lifted from their shoulders. But that is not what it will achieve. When the monster of opting out is set free, those who are opting out will be everybody in the highly profitable industries who will do a lot better than they do under indexation. There would then be a surge of leap-frogging in the wages system which has happened previously in Australia, during the days of the Whitlam Government and during the days of the Fraser Government. Surely the Opposition appreciates the damage done by such a process. There is an extreme build-up in unemployment when the wages are allowed to be let go in that way. We now have a system that operates with the agreement of organised labour. Of course there will be pressures on it. Opposition members talk about the superannuation case and align it with the indexation system. It also means under the agreement that if a 3 per cent productivity deal is granted the Government gets no tax clawback. The sacrifice is being made by the Government. If we had given 3 per cent productivity in wages, it would have overcome a lot of problems on the receipt side for the Government, but in terms of meeting the pressures that are building up in the community, one cannot expect 40 to 45 per cent of the people to have superannuation and the other 55 to 60 per cent to forget about it for the rest of their lives. They will not do so. There is an unassailable case for them to establish some form of superannuation in their industry if they can see that the other 45 per cent, basically in the white collar area, are looking after themselves. Superannuation was on the industrial relations agenda whether we liked it or not. It was a question of how we dealt with it and how we built it into the system. Hopefully, we have built it into the system with as little disputation as possible in a way in which the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has overall surveillance of what will happen so as not to disrupt the Australian economy. When one looks at these things and at the package the Government has put together over three years, obviously one can debate these matters but there have been some achievements. There will have to be a lot of Opposition thinking before it can come forward with a package that may prove to be acceptable to the electorate in replacing what the Government is now doing. I do not see it as any mortal sin of industrial relations that one sits around the table with the trade union movement. We happen to be a highly unionised country. The fact that one can sit around a table and get some agreement about the way this is going to operate seems to bring a touch of sanity rather than be regarded as some vision of capitulation by the Government. I suspect that in the past there have been instances where conservative governments have seen some political value in wanting to show the electorate that they are at loggerheads or at war with the unions. Perhaps they have sought to prolong the debate about union power, union strength-union this, that and the other-but the fact is that if one can harness union reserves in getting their representatives to discuss problems governments will face in this area, which hopefully is what we have been able to do in the last three years, results can be achieved. Union forums, congresses and so on are open and people listen to what is said, and those events are well publicised. The present leaders, Bill Kelty and Simon Crean, are not shrinking violets. They are always on the media explaining their position. I think that we are in a new era in what is happening in industrial relations. It is a sensible one and Australia will benefit from what we have been able to achieve. Points were made in the debate relating to remuneration for Ministers. I think that we are virtually just following the pattern that has been established for many years. There will always be arguments as to whether Ministers are properly paid for the job they do and the hours they put in, but that is a minor part of our occupation here. As I said earlier, I think that more emphasis should be put on the role and the remuneration of back benchers than on the role and remuneration of Ministers. I thank honourable members who have participated in this debate. 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 Young) read a third time. Sitting suspended from 6.19 to 8 p.m. Debate resumed from 12 February, on motion by Mr Willis: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(8.00) —The Opposition does not oppose the Community Employment Amendment Bill 1986 for the simple reason that if this is the way in which the Government proposes to tackle the problem of long term unemployment, it is a matter for the Government to go about it in this way if that is what it wishes. We do not, therefore, oppose the Bill. We will, however, in the course of the debate be drawing attention to several aspects of the community employment program to which we think it is reasonable to draw attention. The first aspect is the very substantial cost of the program. The second aspect is the limited success which has met the first three years of the operation of the scheme. The third aspect is the way in which the Government is using the scheme to finance, in many cases, its favourite left wing causes and to reward its friends. We will also be suggesting that, at least on some occasions, the scheme is being used, not for the purposes of providing employment opportunities for the long term unemployed, but simply to undertake capital works programs and others sorts of works which could not properly be described as employment programs for the simple reason that they do not employ anyone who would not otherwise be employed. The fourth aspect we will be drawing attention to is that we can see from the operation of the community employment program, as we can see from the youth traineeship scheme, that what one can say about the Government's employment schemes is that when it turns its hand to a specific scheme it meets with very limited success. It is fair to say that the youth traineeship program has met with almost no success so far, despite the fanfare of trumpets with which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) launched it. One can say the same, at least to some extent, with respect to the community employment program. As I will be pointing out in a short time, that scheme also has met with limited success. I turn to the first of the matters to which we wish to draw attention, that is, the cost of the community employment program. It should be understood, when we are assessing the value of the community employment program, which it is proposed now to extend for a further three years, that this scheme has had committed to it $1 billion in three years. It has provided 87,000, or thereabouts, short term jobs. In many cases those who have participated in the scheme have not received the great benefit which is held out for the scheme, namely, permanent employment after their period in the community employment program has come to an end. This raises very grave doubts as to whether we as a nation are getting a fair reward for the enormous investment-I repeat, $1 billion-which has so far been put into this scheme. We suggest to the Government that what should follow is that the operation of this scheme and projects funded under it should be subjected to very close scrutiny to make sure that each project is worth while, that individual people who would otherwise be unemployed are engaged under the program and, above all, that there is no waste of the money which is appropriated to programs under the scheme. The first matter to which we draw attention is the very substantial cost of the program. The second matter that we draw attention to is that, despite the fact that the Government relies heavily upon the community employment program for its campaign and its general approach to reducing unemployment, it has had a very limited success. There have been a couple of surveys designed to assess whether the scheme has been successful. The latest survey shows that 46 per cent of participants in the program were in employment some six months after leaving the program and that about 61 per cent of participants were in employment some time during that six-month period. So, if that is fact-I am assuming for present purposes that the survey is correct-it shows that at very best the return on the investment of that $1 billion is that only 46 per cent of the participants in the program were in some form of employment six months after their time in the program came to an end. It is fair to say, therefore, that the scheme has had only limited success. What must be understood is that neither the community employment program nor anything else that this Government is turning its hand to has resulted in any lessening of the period of unemployment to which individual unemployed people are now being subjected under this Government. It can fairly be said, beyond any shadow of a doubt, on the figures, that the average duration of unemployment suffered by individual unemployed people is lengthening. Let me cite simple statistics to make my point. In July 1983, shortly after this Government came to office, the average duration of unemployment to which an unemployed person was subjected was 39.9 weeks-almost 40 weeks. By July 1984, when this Government was well and truly into its straps, that figure had increased to 47.8 weeks. By July 1985 it had increased to almost 52 weeks. So, thanks to the great efforts of this Government and the much-heralded success it has had in the unemployment field, the average duration of unemployment since this Government came to office has increased from 40 weeks per person to almost 52 weeks, or a year's unemployment. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that over 95,000 of Australia's unemployed have been out of work for two years or more. So, before the Government starts to pat itself on the back about its great achievements in employment and unemployment- Mr Robert Brown —They are great achievements. Mr N.A. Brown —The honourable member who interjects claims that there have been great achievements. Let us put the situation into perspective and acknowledge that the duration of unemployment suffered by the unemployed is getting longer. The situation is getting worse. Honourable members opposite would be well advised to address themselves to other programs that can curtail the lengthening period of unemployment suffered by the unemployed. The particular area of unemployment which is of great concern to all Australians is youth unemployment. On any test and on the figures, that situation is deteriorating. On the Government's own figures, it is getting worse. If one looks at the latest figures, one will find that last month the rate of youth unemployment increased from 20.8 per cent to 21.4 per cent. So, whatever the history of the statistics may be, the unemployment situation for young people is getting worse. We can look at it over a longer period, if that is what the Government wants, and compare 1980 with 1985. So far as teenagers were concerned, the unemployment rate during 1980 was 16.6 per cent. By 1985 it was 18.2 per cent. So, before Government members go around slapping themselves on the back and saying what remarkable success they have had, they would be very well advised to consider the current youth unemployment situation, which is bad and getting worse. If the Government's answer is the youth traineeship scheme we have no hesitation in saying that it has no answers to youth unemployment. On present evidence its youth traineeship scheme will not provide any solutions whatsoever to youth unemployment. That is the second matter to which we draw attention. There has been limited success with the community employment program. Whatever success has come from this program the unemployment situation, and youth unemployment in particular, is getting worse. It is worse for the long term unemployed and it is worse for youth. The Government would be well advised to adopt different policies, policies which would give employers more of a chance and more encouragement and incentive to take on more unemployed people, particularly young unemployed people, than they presently are. The third matter to which we draw attention is the types of projects which, in some cases, are being funded-to use the new fashionable word-under the community employment program. Although some of them are odd sorts of programs, I suppose one would have to say that they are fairly harmless. For instance, the community employment project on the Great Barrier Reef for 50 unemployed people who have spent nine months on the reef studying the movements of the crown of thorns starfish at a cost of over $1m is a fair assessment of the way this Government thinks it is appropriate and reasonable to spend taxpayers' money. It is probably a fairly harmless project. I suppose the same can be said of the long weed walk, as it is called, where eight Aboriginal women have been employed to walk slowly along the standard gauge railway from the South Australia-Western Australia border to Koolyanobbing once a season to search out and remove the evil skeleton weed. I suppose that project is fairly harmless too and probably provides some useful activity for those eight Aboriginal women but it does not tackle the serious problems of unemployment that are faced by this country. Those sorts of projects are fairly harmless but there are other projects to which we draw attention and which we believe are worthy of censure of this Government. Far worse than those sorts of projects is the use to which this scheme has been put by the Government to finance, in many cases, its own favourite left wing causes which are run by its own favourite left wing people and to promote one side of those issues which it thinks are worthy of promotion at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. In this sort of project-I will give some examples in a moment-improving the employability of the long term unemployed is the lowest of the motives. In this sort of case improving the employability of those who are concerned about and working in these projects has a very low priority, if any. I have said that I will give some illustrations of those cases in a moment. One can fairly say that the money is simply being used to finance political dogma, usually of a left wing sort, and to finance biased axe grinding of one side of particular issues, of course always to the exclusion of the other side of the argument, so that individuals in favour with the Government and organisations in favour with the Government can promote their own left wing views. Let us look at some examples of the projects that have been financed so far out of this honeypot for left wing causes. Let us look at some of the areas where taxpayers' money has been spent. We can start, of course, with the old favourite the Nuclear Disarmament Co-ordinating Committee which received money to organise Palm Sunday marches. The People for Nuclear Disarmament are helping themselves, no doubt with the easy assistance of the Government, to almost $80,000 for five people to run a peace bus. The Campaign for International Co-operation and Disarmament has been paid almost $50,000 to employ three people for a year on that organisation's twenty-fifth anniversary project. Mr Peacock —How much was that? Mr N.A. Brown —That was almost $50,000. Of course the Opposition is being denied money from the Government for a legitimate project to promote an alternative point of view: It is allowed money under these projects provided that it promotes government views. How absurd! This is a government that holds itself out as the representative of the working people of Australia. I suggest that the Government ask some of the working people of Australia how they feel about their hard earned taxes being spent on peace buses for some extreme left wing outfit to promote one side of its axe grinding cause. We find that the Victorian Trades Hall Council, to spread the money around a bit further, jumps in for its chop-a mere $81,000-to help it along life's rocky road. We find that the Tasmanian Wilderness Society has been given $17,000 for a wilderness shop co-ordinator. The Friends of the Earth, to give a balanced approach to these sorts of issues, has done very well; it got almost $24,000 for a little exercise it was running in New South Wales. It put out a magazine and got another $34,000 for that. The Total Environment Centre, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Native Forest Action Council got a fair slice of the action. I repeat, because these are legitimate views which can be expressed in a democracy, that the money is being spent not to help long term unemployed people. Oh, no. The money is not being used for that purpose. The money is being used to promote the cause and to promote one side of a particularly contentious issue. Mr Peacock —It is a rort. Mr N.A. Brown —It is not only a rort, as my colleague from Kooyong says; it is an absolutely improper use of this scheme and an improper use of government money. One could mention the old favourite 3CR, the radio station in Melbourne. It needs to renovate its studios so the Government gave it a cheque for $26,000. The radio station felt that that was not enough so it got another $29,000 to employ a further three people to develop one of its favourite programs. To keep a proper federalist approach, 2XX jumped in for $112,000. The Australian Union of Students, which is virtually moribund and has been for several years, was not left out of the action; it got $31,000. The Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labour Council was not left out either. Actors Equity got $15,000 to promote a project to eliminate the current exploitation of announcers by employers. What on earth has that got to do with the long term unemployed? Announcers perform a very good job but the announcer in the box here does not need a handout from a socialist government to help him along life's road and of course he would not expect it. He believes in working for a living. We say that these projects are not being provided with funds to help the long term unemployed. The money is being used simply to promote a cause, and one side of the cause at that. The list goes on. A whole range of trade unions, of course, get money, it seems, almost automatically. No doubt they fill in a form and they get money-$10,000, $20,000, $40,000. If they name a figure they will get it. One thing one can almost guarantee about all those sorts of projects is that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of the long term unemployed. As I have said already, the Government has just to look at the figures to see that the situation of the long term unemployed is getting worse. When the Labor Party came to Government the average period of unemployment was 40 weeks; it is now a year, thanks to the efforts of the Government and the failure of its programs. So it should not pat itself on the back about its great achievements in employment and unemployment, because the situation in so many areas of unemployment is getting worse. When the government gets the unemployment rate down to the rate that it was during virtually the whole of the period the Fraser Government was in office, I will come to its celebratory party. Mr Hand —How can you say that? Mr N.A. Brown —The honourable member should look at the figures. How can I say that? I can say it because members of the Labor Party are in government and they run the Australian Bureau of Statistics, at least administratively. If Government members look at the figures, they will find that for virtually the whole of the Fraser years unemployment varied between 4 per cent and 6 per cent. It is true that during a drought and a world recession the rate went up. It is equally true that the rate is now in a trough. If honourable members opposite want to go along fooling themselves that unemployment is steadily coming down, I encourage them in that exercise of self-delusion. Unemployment in Australia is now at about 7.8 per cent; it has been there for about three months. It looks as if it is stuck in a trough and, frankly, the actions this Government is taking in so many economic areas seem calculated, so far as I can see, either to keep it there or to increase the level of unemployment. So I will come to the Government's celebratory party when it gets the rate of unemployment in this country down to what it was during the years of the Fraser Government. I said before that the scheme was being used to finance not only these ratbag left wing causes but also capital works programs. One program in particular, of course, has been the subject of some comment and observation recently. Mr Shack —Where is it? Mr N.A. Brown —It appears that it is in the Minister's electorate. Of course, is it a great program to take in off the byways and highways the long term unemployed and teach them how to read, write, use tools and get into work habits? No, of course it is not. It is a project to build a swimming pool, and the taxpayers of Australia have put into this capital works project, so far, $2.8m. Honourable members may well ask: During this summer will the happy people of Footscray be able to use this swimming pool? The answer is no, and it is no because of the normal, ham-fisted organisation and administration of so many aspects of this scheme under the present Government. There is another aspect of this matter, of course. Senator Short has raised in the Senate some very serious questions about this project. Why was it so large-$2.8m-and why was it in the Minister's electorate? Why is it that there was some funny using of companies with peculiar names in the running of the project? Why is it that Senator Walsh, the Minister for Finance, only a few days ago was able to say this in the Senate: I understand that there is an unconfirmed report that one of these companies was associated with a bottom of the harbour operation a few years ago. I do not know whether it was at the bottom of the harbour, the bottom of the swimming pool, up the creek, or wherever it was. I simply say that one of the ministerial colleagues of honourable members opposite is saying that there is a suggestion that one of the companies involved in building and promoting this exercise was such a company. I believe that the people of Australia are entitled to know what is going on with respect to this project in the Minister's electorate. Why was it so much? Why are these funny companies being used? Why is the project so long overdue in being completed? Why was there some hanky panky to get around the Victorian Government and Federal Government guidelines on the Builders Labourers Federation? These are questions which may well admit of easy answers, and I will be very interested indeed to see what the answers are, if and when the Minister gets around to providing those answers. I come to the end of these remarks by addressing the last point I wish to make. When one looks at individual schemes for which this Government is directly responsible, when it actually turns its hand to setting up an unemployed persons relief project or some scheme to generate employment, one sees that the Government is a dismal failure. When one looks at employment growth-which, of course, there has been, because the American economy started working again, or because the drought came to an end, or because the wages pause of the previous Government had its full effect-one sees that, yes, of course employment growth has occurred. Honourable members opposite stand up and say: `We, the comrades of the Australian Labor Party have created'-to use the words of government members-`so many jobs'. Frankly, I am amazed that they have the gall to make such an absurd suggestion. If what honourable members have said is correct, when we find, as the economy goes into a tailspin, that employment declines, I presume that they will have the good grace to say: `We have destroyed so many jobs'. We will question them on that when the inevitable day of reckoning comes. I have said already with respect to the community employment program that there is enough in that to give us very great concern. Let us look-it is in the same field-at the youth traineeship scheme. That must surely be the daddy of them all-so far, the great disaster, the ultimate monument to the incompetence of this Government. Let me say at the outset that when this scheme was announced we supported it-we still do-as a half solution to the problem of youth unemployment. The other half of the solution to the problem of youth unemployment is to put into operation what the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, who is at the table, has said. In a televised discussion I had with him, which I think was one of the historic events that have occurred in this country, he was asked specifically whether he agreed that it was necessary to have youth wage rates put into awards. He said in answer to that question, yes. So that is common ground. He was then asked `What are you doing about it?', and he said `At this stage, nothing'. He was not doing anything about it at all. I suggest that he get on with the job and fix up that other half of the solution to youth unemployment. Let us come back to the first half, the youth traineeship scheme, which we support but which has been so far, on present evidence, an absolute disaster. It has been a disaster for several reasons. The first is that it has, from beginning to end, been a monument to the ego and arrogance of the Prime Minister. We know and everyone knows that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations-who has, I would say in fairness to him, a more balanced appreciation of life-has said that the target should be 5,000. But no, of course; the little Napoleon says, `Five thousand is not enough; we will make it 10,000'. So far we have had nothing. In fact, I would venture to say that there have been more photographs of the Prime Minister used in promoting this program than there have been individual jobs `created', to use the Government's word. I would say that thousands of photographs of the Prime Minister have been used in this campaign. They seem to have deterred everyone rather than encouraged them, and, as far as I know, there are very few, if any, people actually working on the job in this youth traineeship scheme, despite the fact that the Government set it up in August last year. That is the first reason that it has been a failure so far-because it is a monument to the Prime Minister's ego. The second reason is that the Government has strangled it with red tape. The Government has set up as many committees as one would need to administer the British Empire. It has established so many training bodies and sub-committees that it is a dazzling display. It is almost impossible to find one's way around them. I invite honourable members to look at this chart, which is a handy, easy guide for the average employer who wants to avail himself of the traineeship scheme. Honourable members should just look at it. It is like a snakes and ladders chart designed by someone suffering from the DTs. How on earth can one expect any employer to find his way through that gobbledegook, that labyrinthine mass of red tape and confused programs? How is the employer to know where to go? It is just ridiculous. This volume here, which I indicate to honourable members, must surely contain over 100 pages- Mr Shack —A telephone book. Mr N.A. Brown —It is like a telephone book, as my colleague says. It is not even for the whole of Australia. This is only for Victoria. It is not even for all employment areas in Victoria. This is for keyboard and clerical officers alone-and that is 100 pages. How on earth does the Government propose and have any real hope of getting a traineeship scheme when it suffocates proposals with paper and labyrinthine mumbo-jumbo of that sort? Unless the Government cuts out all that nonsense its scheme is doomed. Of course, the third reason why the scheme has so far been a failure and why, so far as I know, there are very few, if any, individuals working under this scheme, is that, like everything else this Government turns its hand to, it is ordered and pushed around by the trade unions. Of course, the trade unions say `Here is the almighty award system; here are award wages; we will not agree to trainee wages; we will not agree to a reduction in the wage even if the young person is going to be working only- Mr Hand —That is right. Mr N.A. Brown —The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) says that is right. I give him full marks for honesty. I suggest that when he is joining in the correspondence avalanche to the Prime Minister he make that point in his own letter-that the Government will not get a scheme like this off the ground while the trade unions take the attitude that employers must pay full award wages under awards and determinations despite the fact that the young person is going to work on the job for only three days out of five. Why doesn't the Government have some compassion for them? Why doesn't it give them a chance? Why doesn't it set up a special training wage? The employers are keen to do it and the unions refuse to do it. Give them a go. Why not propose a trainee wage which is less than the current award wage, which would give them a chance to get some training and give them a chance to get a job? If the Government does not do that, I can tell honourable members opposite that what I have already described as the current event is going to continue; that is, youth unemployment is going up and unless the Government wakes up to itself, youth unemployment is going to continue to go up. For those reasons, although we support the legislation, we believe the Government would be very well advised to look at some of the defects in its present operations. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(8.31) —Madam Speaker, firstly, I congratulate you on your election. I know that you will carry out your duties with fairness and distinction, and that has been proven to date. I find it difficult to believe that any member of this House could honestly quarrel with the concept and effectiveness of this great job creation program. Such remarks as those just heard and allegations emanating from the Opposition during Question Time in another place today can only be construed as a rather smutty attempt to discredit this very successful employment scheme. I am certain that the people of Australia will not be fooled by the sour grapes that members opposite are asking them to swallow. I suggest that their vitriol is matched only by their incompetence. Contrary to the figures quoted misleadingly by the honourable member for Menzies, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr N.A. Brown), a few moments ago, the $1 billion allocated to this program will result in an estimated 100,000 jobs rather than the erroneous to date figure of 87,000 that he used. Secondly, the cost per six-month job under the wage pause program was almost $12,000, with a labour intensity of 64 per cent. By contrast, the cost per six-month job under the community employment program is only $9,892 and labour intensity is almost 76 per cent. The criticism by the honourable member for Menzies of the peace and disarmament projects is totally unfounded. It is directed at fewer than 15 projects, which represent less than 0.1 per cent of the 16,635 projects approved under CEP. It is misleading and mischievous to attack the program based on an unrepresentative sample of projects. The `peace bus' attracted some criticism, but it is interesting to note that the Liberal Party of Australia utilised the bus for the distribution of its policies on peace and disarmament prior to the last Federal election-not that its peace policy was worth printing, let alone reading. I come back to debate this Community Employment Amendment Bill. This Bill seeks to extend by three years the life of the community employment program originally established under the Community Employment Act 1983. I congratulate the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Cabinet on the decision to continue the community employment program which has made such a great impact on unemployment in this country in the past three years. I am delighted to be able to speak in support of this Bill and of the program which it seeks to extend. The community employment program has been highly successful in achieving its fundamental objective of assisting the most disadvantaged groups of unemployed people in obtaining permanent employment in the general labour market through the provision of work experience and incidental training in short term jobs on worthwhile projects. The program was not and is not intended to be a direct source of permanent jobs, although many individual projects do have the potential to be self-sustaining and to create on-going employment opportunities for both participants and others. Mr Blanchard —And in fact have done so. Ms JAKOBSEN —As the honourable member for Moore has said, they have done so. A common criticism of past job creation schemes was that participants were engaged in meaningless work and failed to gain any lasting benefit from their employment in them. The community employment program does not warrant this criticism. It provides productive and meaningful work by requiring that the projects approved provide facilities and services of social and economic benefit to the community. Participants, therefore, have the satisfaction of knowing that they are doing something constructive for their local communities as well as for themselves. This program has also been very successful in improving the employment prospects of the participants-its ultimate objective. Research has shown that CEP has had a significant impact in helping thousands of Australians to break through the long term unemployment barrier. According to a survey undertaken by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations last year, 46 per cent of ex-CEP participants were in employment six months after leaving the program and 61 per cent had been employed at some time during that six-month period. This is, indeed, an excellent result and vindicates the Government's decision to commence, continue and now extend this scheme. I am very pleased to reiterate the Minister's comment that the Hawke Labor Government has allocated $1 billion to the community employment program in the three Budgets to date. I ignore the comments of the earlier speaker about how this money relates to jobs. This funding allocation makes the community employment program the largest labour force program ever implemented by a Federal government in this country and indicates the importance which our Government places on the right of all Australians to work. The community employment program has as an important objective the achievement of equal female participation. This Government acknowledges the impact of long term unemployment on women as well as on men. Women can be seen to bear a disproportionate burden of unemployment as a result of the limited job opportunities and lower wage structures which apply to them, even though their economic responsibilities are often equally onerous. To date the overall participation of women in the community employment program has been 38.6 per cent, including the jobs on local roads program component which did not initially have any target for the employment of women. CEP is also targeted towards migrants with English language difficulties, Aboriginals and disabled persons, and the Minister pointed out earlier that participation by people from these groups has increased progressively since the program commenced in 1983. More than 16,000 separate projects have been sponsored by community organisations, by local government authorities and by State and Federal government departments with the assistance of the funds allocated to date by the Federal Government through the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. As a result of these projects, more than 87,000 short term employment opportunities have been created to date for long term unemployed people and for the other disadvantaged job seekers described earlier. It is estimated that the 100,000 jobs talked about earlier will be the ultimate figure. The decision to extend the community employment program is based on evidence of the need to continue to assist the long term unemployed and the program's level of success to date. As the Minister indicated, although the number of people unemployed for nine months or more has declined by a creditable 50,000 over the two years to November 1985, there are still more than 92,000 people who have been unemployed for two years or more. I submit that this is a tragically high figure when seen in terms of individuals, families and lost opportunities. Australia is the loser as long as unemployment of this type is a factor of our economic and social life. Research has shown that the longer people are out of work the more difficult it is for them to re-enter the work force. The Government's commitment to continue the community employment program will offer very real hope to all of these people. In my electorate of Cowan, CEP projects have contributed substantially to the local social infrastructure. They include about $400,000 which was allocated to assist the Wanneroo City Council in developing the Southern Whitfords Node; $155,000 to enable the Burbridge Special School to develop an educational farm for handicapped children at Lansdale; and $13,000 to assist the Freemasons Lodge to landscape the area surrounding the Kingsley Social Centre at the Keith Simpson Masonic Home for elderly citizens. These projects may not seem significant but they are very important when one recognises the need for such facilities and services in the northern suburbs of Perth. As some members of this House may be aware-I know that my colleague the honourable member for Moore is-my electorate is in a growth corridor in which development is struggling to keep pace with population expansion. The projects are also extremely important to the people whom they have employed and whose lives have benefited as a result. The community employment program has proved to be cost effective, with 75 per cent of funds being spent on labour, and administrative costs being contained to 3 per cent of the budget. The cost to the Commonwealth of a six-month equivalent job has also declined considerably over the past year. I have always been impressed with the willingness of the officers of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations to assist with applications and consider ways around particular problems where a proposed project is obviously within the guidelines but requires some streamlining. It is with pleasure that I note the Minister's assurance that the Government is engaged in consulting those administrators and sponsors who have participated in the community employment program so as to gain constructive input into the formulation of the programs guidelines in the future. Let no one outside this Parliament forget that this Labor Government had to pick up the pieces from the incompetence of the previous Liberal Administration and turn the tide of economic recession. (Quorum formed) I repeat the last remarks because they bear repetition. Let no one outside this Parliament forget that this Labor Government had to pick up the pieces from the incompetence of the previous Liberal Administration and turn the tide of economic recession. It has succeeded in this task overwhelmingly. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government also made a courageous undertaking to create 500,000 new jobs in the first three years of office. This undertaking was achieved last November and 608,000 new jobs have now been created. The Minister has already commented on these great achievements, but honourable members on this side of the House will forgive me if I consider that they are worth repeating. Naturally, honourable members opposite may not be so charitable as our successes serve only to emphasise the enormity of their failures. Mr Maher —There is only one there. Ms JAKOBSEN —That is right. Unemployment has been reduced from over 10 per cent to less than 8 per cent-a remarkable achievement which serves to strengthen our determination to continue to tackle the predicament confronting the long term unemployed by extending the life of the community employment program. The Government has pulled Australia out of the economic mire in which the Liberal-National Party coalition left it. In doing so, it has proved that sound economic management tempered by compassion is a workable formula on which to base the nation's recovery. I congratulate the Minister on his personal commitment to reducing the impact of unemployment on the face of Australia. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(8.47) —The honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) is long on concern and compassion, which we share, but she is very short on practical solutions to the persistent problem of unemployment. There we differ greatly. The Community Employment Amendment Bill represents the Government's failure to solve Australia's massive unemployment problem. Let us be very clear about this. It is a direct expression of the manifest shortcomings of the Government's economic and employment policies. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill but we deplore the fact that large-scale job creation is still necessary after three years of the community employment program's existence. If the Government and its Ministers responsible for economic and employment policies are as competent and successful as they would have us believe why does the community employment program need to be renewed for another three years? The answer is simply that, first, the Government's economic and employment policies are not as good as it would have us and the Australian people believe; secondly, its policies, particularly in the vital labour market area, are long on public relations value and hype and very short on substance; and, thirdly, many of the factors which operated in the 1970s and 1980s to create high unemployment still operate today and the Government steadfastly refuses to address them. I intend in the time available to canvass these matters with particular reference to the plight of young Australians in the labour market. The background of CEP was that it was modelled directly on the Fraser Government's wage pause program initiative. It was created as part of a response to record post-war unemployment levels and designed essentially as a short term labour market measure, not as a permanent feature of the labour market landscape. This latter fact is central to the consideration of this Bill. We on this side of the House are frequently subjected to the self-congratulatory harangues from the Government about its glowing successes in improving the unemployment situation, in `creating'-to use its favourite words-half a million jobs since its election to office and thus supposedly bringing the unemployment rate down. This Government seeks to maximise the glory to be wrung out of favourable aspects of the employment statistics released monthly while conveniently shoving underneath the carpet those figures which cast doubt on the very effectiveness of its policies. In his contribution earlier in the debate, the Deputy Leader cited these statistics. I seek leave of the House to incorporate a table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- UNEMPLOYED PERSONS (SEASONALLY ADJUSTED SERIES) JANUARY 1985 AND JANUARY 1986 Number looking for full-time work Aged 15-19 Aged 20+ Total No. looking for part-time work Total Males January 1985... 72,000 265,400 337,400 25,900 363,300 January 1986... 65,400 (-6,600) 233,900 (-31,500) 299,300 (-38,100) 32,000 (+6,100) 331,300 (-32,000) Females January 1985... 58,600 121,500 180,100 70,000 250,400 January 1986... 58,000 (-600) 121,600 (+100) 179,600 (-500) 72,600 (+2,600) 252,200 (+1,800) Total January 1985... 130,600 386,900 517,500 96,200 613,700 January 1986... 123,300 (-7,300) 355,500 (-31,400) 478,800 (-38,700) 104,600 (+8,400) 583,500 (-30,200) Figures derived from ABS The Labour Force, Australia, January 1986 (Preliminary), Table 5. Mr SHACK —This table is a comparison of unemployed persons in seasonally adjusted figures from January 1985 to January 1986. Honourable members will be able to look at this table when Hansard is published. They will see that, despite the half a million jobs line recited here ad nauseam by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and others, the figures in this table make the Government's progress look a little more moderate indeed. In fact, in some areas the Government has gone backwards, not forwards. Over the last 12 months, although the Government is loath to admit it, in some areas it has gone backwards. For example, as the honourable member for Cowan was at pains to express her concern about women, I point out that there are now more women looking for work in January 1986 than there were in January 1985. There are 1,800 more women looking for work this month than in January 12 months ago. That is some achievement! I would not trumpet that fact too loudly. This year, 8,400 more Australians are looking for part time work than were looking for part time work last year. Some achievement! The decline in the number of people searching for jobs is extremely modest. For the work force as a whole, the number of people looking for work has ever so slightly declined from 613,700 in January 1985 to 583,500 in January this year. That is a very modest achievement indeed. In my own special area of interest, youth unemployment, the modesty of the Government's achievement is again evident. The number of young women aged between 15 and 19 years looking for full time work declined by only 600 in the last 12 months to January 1986. The number of young people overall looking for full time work declined by only 7,300 from 130,600 in January 12 months ago to 123,300 in January this year. While any improvement in unemployment is welcomed by the Opposition, these extremely minor dents made in Australia's massive unemployment problem hardly merit the triumphant fanfares which we hear day after day and hardly merit the self-congratulatory pats on the back with which the Government showers itself on the release of the employment statistics each month. Let me turn again to youth unemployment. The very mixed results which the Government has achieved are evident. In January this year, youth unemployment actually rose-not fell, but rose-by over half a per cent from 20.8 per cent in December 1985 to 21.4 per cent in January 1986. These are the seasonally adjusted figures. The small gains made over the last eight months have been wiped out completely with unemployment in the 15-year to 19-year age bracket now running at the same rate as in April 1985. Youth unemployment is still running at three and a half times the rate of unemployment amongst the 20-plus age group. Honourable members on the Government side must recognise that the average duration of unemployment shows no sign of diminishing. In fact it is running at post-war record levels almost across the board, no matter which age group one looks at. The average duration of unemployment among young people, having peaked in 1983 at 31.9 weeks, is again approaching those same levels. At June 1985, the average duration of unemployment amongst 15-year-olds to 19-year-olds was running at 30.3 weeks. Amongst older sections of the work force, the duration of unemployment is even more serious. The average duration of unemployment amongst 20-year-olds to 24-year-olds is running at 46 weeks and in the 25-plus age group at 60.5 weeks-well over 12 months. That is the highest it has ever been in the post-war period. I seek leave to incorporate another table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AVERAGE DURATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BY AGE, 1982-1985 Age (years) 15-19 (weeks) 20-24 (weeks) 25+ (weeks) Total 1982... 23.8 32.3 37.6 32.6 1983... 31.9 41.9 45.5 41.4 1984... 28.9 45.9 53.5 45.5 June 1985... 30.3 46.0 60.5 50.3 Figures derived from 1985-86 Budget Paper No. 13, Table 2.8. Mr SHACK —I thank the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is at the table. This table will remind honourable members of the worsening of hard core unemployment in all age groups. The table shows the average duration of unemployment by age in the three-year period 1982 to 1985. When they look at this table, honourable members should note particularly the tragic lengthening of periods of unemployment in the 25-years-plus age group. The figure has nearly doubled between 1982 and 1985 with, as I said earlier, an average duration of unemployment among this group running at 60.5 weeks. In the light of these figures, it is not surprising that the Government wishes to extend the life of the community employment program. Its extension reflects the Government's true failure to make any substantial in-road into Australia's enormous unemployment problem. The figure of half a million jobs used by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) is misleading and mischievous. It is clearly designed to encourage the grossest misinterpretation possible of the Government's true employment policy achievements. New jobs are always being created in net terms except during periods of negative economic growth which we in Australia are fortunate enough to experience only rarely. What the Government does not say when it talks about the half a million jobs that it has so-called `created', is that this level of employment growth has only barely covered increases in the size of the labour force which have occurred since the Government took office. The rate of employment growth in Australia over the past three years has not been enough to stem the tide of rising unemployment or to effect major improvements in unemployment levels. Further, it is an absolute nonsense for the Government to say that it has `created' these jobs. Apart from jobs funded by the Commonwealth through schemes such as the CEP and jobs created in the Australian Public Service, it is the private sector which creates employment. It is firms, large and small, which are engaged in productive economic activity, that create the real job opportunities for new and existing labour force participants; it is not the Government. In passing, I would like to remind honourable members of the degree of the Commonwealth's intervention in the labour market in order to try to improve the unemployment statistics. In his 1985 Budget Speech, the Treasurer said that 85,000 jobs would be subsidised by the Commonwealth in 1985-86. When one adds those 85,000 jobs to the number temporarily funded through the CEP, that is an awful lot of subsidised employment. Despite all the Government's claimed triumphs in the employment field, despite all these jobs subsidised by the Commonwealth-or in fact subsidised by the Australian taxpayer-and despite all the jobs created by the CEP, the Australian community, especially its young people, is still suffering from an intolerably high rate of unemployment. This does not indicate a successful employment policy to me. It indicates an employment policy which has not been successful at changing the factors that are causing continuing high unemployment in Australia and which will not be capable of doing so in the future. The policy relies more on temporary, band-aid boosts provided by large scale labour market programs than it does on solid, sound and effective policy which would provide the foundation for real employment recovery in our nation. We do not oppose the passage of this Bill but in exchange for that support the least the Government should offer is some candidness about the true efficacy of its employment policies. The renewal of the community employment program is an admission of defeat-an admission that, even after its employment policies have had three full years to take hold and truly turn our unemployment problem around, large scale, short term band-aids are still necessary to make the unemployment statistics look respectable for the Government. If the Government wants to hark back to the period before it came to office, let us remember that 15-year-olds then are now 18-year-olds, 18-year-olds then are now 21-year-olds and it is long past the time when it can explain its failure by reference to the past. The CEP is a specific program of a complex labour market arrangement. Let me turn to the overall complexities. There is a pervasive view within the Government that an array of schemes and programs will somehow solve the very deep and serious difficulties faced by individual Australians in the labour market, as well as the difficulties faced by employers in obtaining the skilled employees which they need. The Opposition does not dispute the need for, and value of, labour market programs designed to tackle discrete employment problems. Individual programs can and do assist in the resolution of special employment difficulties, but this Government is trying to solve a fundamental, deeply rooted social and economic problem-a problem measured in terms of hundreds of thousands of individual fellow Australians-with a clutch of ill-designed and poorly-implemented labour market programs. It cannot cure a disease by treating the symptoms. The Government will not be able to make any real headway with unemployment while it continues to rely on inappropriate and inadequate policy measures. It is a grave mistake, too, for the Government to look at labour market and education measures in isolation. I see no evidence of close contact and co-ordination between the Department of Education and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations-both of which impact on young people. Indeed, they often seem to be at cross-purposes. Priority One is the classic example. If one has ears to listen with, it is a first rate example. While the technical and further education system is being dumped with ever greater responsibility for absorbing the unemployed and giving them marketable skills at the behest of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations under the banner of Priority One, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) is busy cutting Commonwealth funding allocations for TAFE. If that is not working at cross-purposes, I would like to hear what is. The Economic Planning Advisory Council, the Government's own advisory council, has graphically portrayed the tragic lack of co-ordination between the education and employment ministries in its excellent report `Human capital and productivity growth' released yesterday. In that report-I accept that honourable members would not have had time to read it-EPAC described how shortcomings in our education and training system had resulted in poor average productivity performance relative to other economies; a significant decline in international competitiveness over the last decade and a half; and, tragically, a slower than necessary improvement in Australian living standards. This, of course, all has direct consequences on employment. Because of these shortcomings in Australia's education and training policies, and the lack of co-ordination between the Government's education and employment policies, there are fewer jobs, for young people especially, than there might otherwise have been. EPAC's specific recommendations for improving the education system so that our social and economic progress as a nation can be enhanced include, firstly, substantially upgrading the quality and quantity of training for young people in the technology and business related disciplines; secondly, the introduction of regular and systematic reviews of the standard of skill levels in Australian school students; and thirdly, the ending of the Government's prohibition on tertiary institutions opening their doors to fee paying students over and above the existing quotas of free places. EPAC's recommendations on opening up the tertiary system to fee paying students on top of existing quotas is a major vindication of the coalition's economic and education policies. Mr Barry Jones —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This discussion about EPAC is rivetingly fascinating but it is increasingly remote from the subject of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SHACK —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have no confidence in this Government's ability and willingness to take up EPAC's good advice. In fact, it does not even want to listen to it. Even when evidence mounts up which indicates that the Government's policies are not effective in solving Australia's problems the Government simply does not want to know about it. Its employment policy is a classic example. One can have no confidence that this Government appreciates the mish-mash and mismatching between employment and education policies and one can have no confidence that it understands the true underlying nature of unemployment and how to solve it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(9.07) —I share the disappointment expressed by the Minister at the table, the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), in the remarks of the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). Those remarks were no more meaningful or relevant than the drivel he inflicts on a long-suffering public through the medium of his column in a weekend newspaper. The purpose of the Community Employment Amendment Bill is to continue the community employment program for another three years. This program was commenced in August 1983 in the context of the legacy which this Government inherited after seven years of Liberal- National Party government. This Government had to tackle the Fraser-Howard recession-the worst recession that this country had experienced for 50 years. Our first task was to tackle the high and growing unemployment that was a product of that recession. Unemployment continued to grow for a time after the 1983 election, to a post-war peak of 10.4 per cent in September of that year. But since then the Hawke Government has recorded a number of spectacular successes on the job front. Unemployment is now down to less than 8 per cent and, in the context of rising participation, discouraged job seekers now have new hope and are returning to the job market. We have enjoyed a growth in employment of 9.7 per cent over the last three years. Last year employment grew by 3.8 per cent, against an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of one per cent. Small wonder that OECD Secretary-General Paye referred to Australia's performance as brilliant. The Australian Labor Party promised in 1983 to generate half a million new jobs in its first three years in government. In fact we have delivered more, and we have delivered them ahead of time. That promise was fulfilled in November of last year when we passed that half a million target five months ahead of time. We have now created 608,000 new jobs. No wonder the OECD refers to our performance on the employment front as brilliant. Australia under the Hawke Government has been consistently performing at or near the top of the OECD league. Despite these successes, some areas of dissatisfaction and concern remain. It is a matter of concern to us all that young people and the long term unemployed bear a disproportionate share of the unemployment burden. It is true that the problems of the young people are being addressed. Participation rates in education are rising and of course the excellent Priority One package will continue to address many of the problems of young people. The community employment program is aimed at addressing the needs of the long term unemployed and other people disadvantaged in the labour market. Aboriginal people, migrants with English language difficulties, those with disabilities and women are the target groups of the community employment program. The objectives of the program are to create short term jobs for these people, to restore their job skills and their self-confidence, to improve the employability and to facilitate their re-entry into the work force. The greatest challenge facing the program was the problem of long term unemployment-one of the most serious problems facing Australia. Despite the inroads that the Hawke Government has made into unemployment, around one-third of those out of work have been so for more than nine months. A high proportion of them are young people, many of whom have never worked. Of course, the longer the period of unemployment the more difficult it is for those people to re-enter the work force. The reasons are obvious. A lack of recent work experience or of any experience at all leads to the vicious catch-22 situation where one cannot get a job without experience but one cannot get experience without a job. The longer a person is trapped in that vicious catch-22 situation the more the feelings of inadequacy grow and there is even a loss of identity. If one asks a stranger `What are you?', that person will frequently answer in terms of his or her occupation: `I am a teacher' or `I am a nurse', or even `I am a politician'. A lack of employment contributes to a lack of identity in that way. It is not just the lack of routine associated with work; it is not just the lack of confidence and loss of identity; it is more that the community cannot afford to write these people off. It is not just because they deserve an equal chance in an expanding economy; it is not just because they deserve the dignity and the self respect which flow from meaningful employment. It is more that the existence of a cohort of long term unemployed people has imposed and will continue to impose costs on our society. Those are not just direct costs like the costs of the unemployed benefit and lost income tax but also the continuing social costs which flow from the continuing disadvantage and deprivation of this group. This is the problem which CEP set out to address. Is CEP achieving its objectives? Let us apply a test. Is it, for example, a sufficiently extensive program? I point out that, in its first two years, 13,800 projects were approved under the program at a total value of $1 billion. Eighty thousand jobs were approved and there were 75,500 placements. Given the budgetary constraints and the need for overall supervision, I believe that the answer is yes, there has been a remarkable coverage under this program. Secondly, has it reached the long term unemployed? Again the answer is yes. The average participant has been out of work for 57 weeks. Thirdly, has it catered for the disadvantaged groups that it set out to cater for? Eleven per cent of the placements were disabled people-9 per cent of total unemployed. They are doing better. Eleven per cent of placements were Aborigines compared with 3 per cent Aboriginal content of total unemployed. Migrants with English language difficulties made up 7 per cent of the placements. So the answer again is yes. It has catered for the groups it was intended to cater for. Fourthly, is it meeting the employment needs of women? Yes, it is. Female placements reached well over 40 per cent. Fifthly, is it meeting the needs of the young unemployed? Again the answer is yes. Forty-four per cent of placements have gone to people aged under 25. Sixthly, and I guess the most important question, is it providing that essential stepping stone back to the work force that it was intended to provide? If one examines the results of the 1985 survey one sees that the answer is certainly yes, because more than 40 per cent of participants had re-entered the work force and were in jobs six months after leaving the program and almost 60 per cent of former participants had gained some employment since leaving. So by any test-by the scope, by the impact of the program on target groups, and the improvement in employability of those who participated-CEP has been an outstanding success. That is the big picture, but what about the impact at a local level? That is the impact that interests many back bench members. I point to some of the examples in my present electorate and in the electorate I represented in the last Parliament to give an idea of the job that CEP can do locally. In the electorate I represented until the last election, $2.4 million was spent on the Blue Mountains National Park over an 18-month period. Shelters were provided, walking paths were constructed, and erosion control work was carried out. A number of important historic restorations have been carried out under the program. The Mamre Homestead at St Marys has been restored. The Wentworth Falls School of Arts and the Woodford Academy have been restored at a cost of $275,000. Work on the former Emu Plains post office and the police station has been carried out. A great deal has been done in the area of urban improvement. The St Marys commercial centre in my electorate has received a great deal of work under the program and a magnificent park has been constructed. A number of parks along the Nepean River have been constructed-an area that was in a great mess before assistance was provided under this program. Bus interchanges were constructed at local schools. A shopping mall has been constructed at Blaxland, but I will say more about that later. Administrative support has been provided to local councils. A whole range of projects have been assisted in the areas of sport, recreation, tourism and the arts. Leonay Oval has been redeveloped. Penrith Golf Club has been assisted. Co-ordinators have been provided for St Marys Arts and Craft Centre. The Q Theatre at Penrith has been assisted. The Penrith Tourist Association has also been funded under the program and the Lower Blue Mountains Tourist Information Centre is presently being constructed. Only in the last couple of weeks approval has been given for $441,000 for the development of a museum of fire at Penrith. In conjunction with the New South Wales Board of Fire Commissioners, the New South Wales Government and the Penrith Rotary Club, the Board of Fire Commissioners historic collection is to be relocated to a new site at Penrith. Young people and children have been assisted as well in my area under the program. The youth program run by the Penrith Uniting Church was commenced under CEP and the Siding youth refuge has been assisted. Local child care centres have received over $100,000 under the program. The First Penrith Scouts have received more than $100,000 to construct a hall which will also be available for community use. I note in passing that the foreman on that job is an unfortunate man who has lost both his legs but who is doing a marvellous job of supervision on that project. In fact, he has gone on since to start his own business in home renovation. Local small schools that would not otherwise have qualified have been provided with general assistance. A number of important projects in the community development area have been assisted locally. Local community aids and neighbourhood centres have received a great deal of assistance. All the five hospitals in my former electorate and the two in my present electorate have received assistance under the program for renovations and, in one case, for new work. The disabled have also received great assistance. For example, the Blue Mountains Handicapped Centre was assisted to start a laundry service. Cherrywood Village was provided with $112,000 for a sports amenities building. These are just some of the worthy local organisations that have been assisted. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) might look through those organisations in the Hansard tomorrow and identify those left wing causes that he was talking about before. Perhaps it is the local Rotary Club, the local Boy Scouts or the Uniting Church that he was referring to as these dangerous, subversive, left wing organisations. In fact, they are all very worthy local organisations that have received assistance and I am very proud of the contribution the Government has been able to make to them. I want in this connection to congratulate the staff of the Nepean zone office of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The contribution that its manager, Alan Pope, its CEP project officer, Judith Melocco, and her predecessor Cathy O'Farrell have made to the success of the program locally has been inestimable. Those benefits have flowed through to the target groups, the people the program set out to assist. It has also provided very important facilities and services to the local community as a whole, to particular sponsor groups, local councils and, of course, the State Government departments that co-operated in the program. Attending to the needs of target groups provides a less direct, less obvious but, nevertheless, very important benefit to the community as a whole. Unfortunately, the specific benefits to the community in terms of the facilities and services that have been provided tend to get most of the attention. This leads occasionally to a loss of focus. It is very important to remember that CEP is primarily a participant-oriented program and not a services and facilities oriented program. Its very success in delivering facilities and services has led to an occasional loss of focus away from the target groups for whom the project was designed. This has occasionally led to confusion and misunderstanding. For example, a couple of community groups locally have complained about the failure of the program to re-fund projects which they have believed to be desirable. They have complained about a reluctance in the assessment process to tailor approvals of projects to individual applicants they have in mind. I take the opportunity to point out that re-funding and tailoring in this way are not elements of the community employment program, and never have been. Successful as the program has been, I believe that we should continue to work for better understanding of the program among sponsor groups and in the community so that they understand the nature of the target groups that we aim to assist, and in particular the short term nature of the job. Occasionally misunderstanding will arise. A particular example to which I would like to refer and which has come to notice in my area in the last couple of weeks concerns the funding of the Blaxland Mall project. This matter has occupied quite a bit of space in the local Press. In fact, over two weeks the Press has devoted 98 column centimetres to the topic. I shall not attempt to cover it all but shall seek to give the flavour of the criticism. In the Blue Mountains Gazette of Wednesday, 5 February, under the heading `CEP ``screws up'' business, says alderman' the paper printed the following comments: By helping people out of work, through the Community Employment Program, the Government was ``screwing up'' those who were already in work, according to Alderman Ralph Williams. He was then reported to have referred to the recent problems in the construction of the Blaxland shopping mall, saying: The idea of the mall was to allow people to walk conveniently around the shopping centre, but how can this happen when the thing takes 6-12 months to build. We've just sent the fish shop broke, the Chinese take-away is down to half its normal business and I imagine it wouldn't be any different for any of the other shops in Station Street. The whole thing's a farce, the female workers run around scantily clad and the blokes spend half their time looking at them. It doesn't make the council look good, most of the community believes these people are council workers and they are not. CEP workers should be trained properly, before they go on the job. The general rule of thumb for a CEP project is that it takes twice the time and twice the money to complete. The Government can't justify that sort of waste. It goes on, and that is the kind of criticism that was recorded in that newspaper on 5 February. The facts are of course that CEP is not primarily a public works program. Because of parliamentary sittings I have not been able to check the accuracy of some of those statements. I have not been able to check the state of the fish shop or the Chinese take-away, or indeed the dress standards of the female participants, but I intend to do so during the break. Apart from that lack of correct focus, the basic question is whether there would have been any mall at all without CEP funds. The criticism to a large extent was corrected in the following issue of that newspaper by some of the participants, and in fact by the supervisor. The site foreman, Mr Roy Seabrook, said the two problems highlighted by Alderman Williams, which included a wall and a set of stairs which had to be demolished and then reconstructed, were due to plans being changed after the work had been started. He said that manual labour had caused delays to the mall, with workers having to hand-dig a two-metre deep trench the length of Station Street. Mr Seabrook continued: We were informed that we had six months to complete the mall and this target could have been met if Telecom and other services connected with the job had been more co-operative. As well, there had been further delays to the work caused by a drainage problem, with water running off the Great Western Highway straight into the mall. As a result, every time it rained, work on the top end of the site was delayed for four days and workers had to hand-clean several deep holes to remove the water. The article in the newspaper continued: In reply to Alderman Williams's comments on scantily clad CEP females, Mr Seabrook said he considered their dress to be satisfactory and to council requirements. The only perverts were the passers-by. The matters raised in the second article are matters for intense debate at the local level and they concern questions of design, supervision and indeed the weather, which even this Government cannot control. The question raised by the critics relating to the qualifications of the participants raises an important issue. Anyone would admit that, considering the objectives of the program, there has to be a certain trade-off between that efficiency objective and the objective of providing work experience and developing skills. I regard these as simply minor hiccoughs in a program that continues to enjoy remarkable success. I underline the continuing need to restate those objectives and the focus of the program so that they are clearly understood, at least by the sponsors and, hopefully, by the community in general. I commend the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations for his work in the program, for his calm persistence and patient application of reason. I believe those to have been essential ingredients in the success of this program. I commend the Bill. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.25) —The Community Employment Amendment Bill extends the Community Employment Act which was passed in May 1983. As we are led to understand that some $1.1 billion has been spent over the last three years in job creation projects, it is for the Government to satisfy members of this Parliament, and consequently those who elect us to this place, that such huge amounts have been accounted for and used responsibly. Sadly, there are a number of question marks about the community employment program in concept as well as in practice. If I may turn to the matter of the concept of CEP a little later, I wish first to deal with the program in practice. Opposition members will bring a number of specific projects to the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is at the table, for his investigation and his subsequent explanation to the Parliament. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) has already touched on a number of those projects. One project that is of particular concern has been described as the `long weed walk', where some eight Aboriginal women have been employed to walk along-wait for it-the standard gauge railway line from the South Australian and Western Australian border to Koolyanobbing once a season to search out a certain weed which farmers have been battling to keep out of the State for 20 years. The number of weird and wonderful projects funded by taxpayers continues. Apparently 50 unemployed people have spent up to nine months on the Great Barrier Reef studying the movements of the crown of thorns starfish, at a cost of $1.1m. If these are worthy projects, where are the concrete results? What are the benefits flowing from this large expenditure of taxpayers' money? In my electorate there is a small town called Boolara bordering on the Latrobe Valley. I understand that a motley collection of travelling clowns and performing artists have been awarded a large sum of money by both the State and the Federal governments. It is difficult to know quite what this group of supposedly talented people does with the several thousands of dollars that have been handed to them. We know only that they make very few performances before even smaller audiences. It is difficult for any single member, indeed for the whole Opposition, to put together a list of the excesses and abuses of this system. Suffice it to say there has been a disturbing number brought to our attention, either within our own electorates or within Australia at large. Perhaps within my knowledge the piece de resistance is a scandal-no other word can describe it-in the Minister's own backyard. I refer to the infamous Footscray Pool CEP project. This has been an extraordinary story which was thoroughly canvassed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I shall be very interested, as no doubt will taxpayers in the Minister's electorate, to know the future of this project. We know that the initial estimate of the cost of the pool was $3.6m, of which $2.8m was to come from a CEP grant. The remaining $800,000 was to be raised by the Footscray ratepayers. No doubt they thought they would be happy to make that contribution because of the benefit that would be returned to them. Sadly, even though the CEP scheme was approved in 1984, it remains uncompleted. There has been a series of delays, inconsistencies and confusion. Despite the fact that some $2.5m has been expended to date, the project is hardly under way. I am sure that the Minister drives past the site on numerous occasions. He may wish to tell us whether even the basis of the swimming pool has been laid. A number of questions which surround this CEP project remain unanswered. I understand that, on the advice from the State industrial relations task force, the State Ministry of Employment and Industrial Affairs has requested that an independent company be established to act as a construction company in order to overcome union demarcation problems. Perhaps the Footscray City Council and, for that matter, the Footscray ratepayers, are not to blame. However, a number of single minded, disruptive unions are to blame. We certainly await the Minister's reply at the conclusion of this debate to the allegations of a very serious nature involving millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds. Turning to the matter of the community employment program in concept, I have a number of very serious reservations. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures recently released show that an almost equal number of Australian adults are dependent for their income on either a government salary or a government pension. That means that, for every person within the private sector, there is one person within the public sector. In other words, one of the real revolutions attributable to this Government's three years in office is that the private sector, the wealth creating sector, is diminishing. Governments distribute wealth. They do not create wealth. It seems that we are incurring an ever-increasing list of people who are dependent on a private sector which, under this Government, is not able even to get about the business of creating wealth, reinvestment, growth and, hence, jobs. I was interested to read the figures also released today by the Bureau of Statistics which show that one-third of all workers are employed in the Public Service-a total of 1,713,400 people as compared to 3,678,000 people employed by private companies. Why is this Government, without any apparent gains, spending hundreds of millions of dollars-not only over the last three years, but also in the three years to come-on the public sector which is engaged, purely and solely, in distributing wealth? Unless this Government changes tack and seeks to assist the private sector, we will not have a meaningful turnaround of unemployment figures. Heaven knows, for all the Government's propaganda, for all its proclamation of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures, the con does not wash with small businessmen or primary producers. In my view, it suits big unions and, in most cases, big business to adhere to the prices and incomes accord because the unit cost of labour to big business is minuscule in most cases. For the small businessmen and primary producers, it is a very large percentage of their costs. I regret very much the fact that the Business Council of Australia and other business organisations have sought to criticise the Opposition's yet to be released wages and industrial relations policy which seeks to deregulate the labour market in the same way as the financial market and primary industry have been increasingly deregulated over the past few years. The Opposition unapologetically and unashamedly seeks to assist the wealth creators, those who will take risks for what is only a proper reward. The pouring in of $1.1 billion to job creation projects over the last three years and a similar-indeed, increased-amount over the next three years is misguided and fails to hit the target. The target is creating employment. One has only to talk to so many of those who have been engaged on CEP schemes to know at first hand their disillusionment. They have spent some 26 weeks with no real training and without acquiring any real skills. No matter how much this Government attempts to dress up the CEP scheme in the same way as it seeks to dress up OECD figures, claiming some mythical 4 per cent growth rate, the harsh reality remains. But it seems to remain only for those honourable members who circulate in the community, who see at first hand the sufferings that the tax regime, not only promoted but also implemented by this Government, imposes on individuals. It does not behove the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to come into this chamber and seek to put over all of us this grand scheme of his, which has one purpose only, that is, to reduce artificially, and as a short term measure, unemployment figures. For all the $1.1 billion, for all the benefits from the improvement in the world economy, particularly America's economy, for all the breaking of the drought and for all the benefits that flowed from the wages pause, we have the unemployment rate down to only 7.8 per cent-and that is with the greatest fiddling effort that anybody in this place can recall. Where is the long term benefit of the expenditure of such huge reservoirs of taxpayers' funds? I mentioned earlier that the private sector ought to be of paramount concern in this place. It is not a matter in any way whatsoever, as no doubt some Government members will allege, of attacking people who receive government benefits or wages. It is a matter of balance, of priorities and of doing away with waste, duplication and excesses. It is a matter of encouraging and freeing up the private sector, upon which all of us who receive either a government benefit or a government wage are dependent. Where is the evidence of this Government seeking to assist the private sector in the last three years? We have tax proposals, a capital gains tax proposal, withholding tax that is too widely spread and the quarantining of farm losses-one could list them all-which take away incentive. Does this country have to hit rock bottom before we realise that the private sector and the efforts of those engaged in reaping rewards to allow reinvestment are paramount? Do we have to hit rock bottom before we turn around the direction of public sector funding? Do we really have to reach the stage the United Kingdom reached after 15 years of Prime Minister Wilson's socialism? Sometimes I fear that we do. Certainly, all the signs are there. We have a foreign debt of some $72 billion, which is some $4,600 for every man, woman and child in Australia. We have a trading deficit which, over this financial year, is expected to be $13 billion, an extraordinary statistic. Australia, a trading nation, has a trading deficit of $13 billion. Our international competitiveness is declining at a rapid rate. There are any number of measures which this Government can adopt to reverse that trend. Of tremendous and immediate concern to those on this side of the House is the price of fuel. The Government can easily pass on the full benefits of the lower oil prices, not just to fishermen, primary producers and the timber industries but to all motorists. The Government can abolish the fuel price indexation; it can restore a more equitable fuel freight equalisation scheme. The list goes on. The Government can change its economic strategy to ease interest rates; it can back off the 3 per cent productivity superannuation deal. We can allow a clean float to the Australian dollar. Tariffs on agricultural chemicals, farm machinery and parts ought to be replaced with bounties. There ought to be steady, predictable cuts to tariff protection. These are matters that my colleagues in the National Party and the Liberal Party raise day after day. It is not some dawn of Aquarius with us: Any person, either inside or outside this chamber, can check the Hansard records. All of us have been engaged in promoting these stimuli for primary producers for the last three years. One of the grossest acts of hypocrisy is that of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who in the last few days travelled like a thief in the night to three isolated properties in the company of a television crew. He has been in power for three years. The disastrous rural crisis has been building up over that time and has hit all of us in the face over the last two years. What is this sudden striking of lightning on the road to Damascus by the Prime Minister? What responsibility to all Australians, not just the trade union movement and a number of sycophants in big business, has he shown over three years? Nobody but nobody is fooled by that type of behaviour, by that type of glossy public relations manipulation. Moreover, nobody is fooled by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations telling us that he will spend $1.3 billion over the next three years on artificial job creation programs that lead nowhere not just for the participants but also for the economy at large. Many of us feel strongly that there have been serious abuses in this scheme but leaving aside those very serious abuses-I wonder whether the Minister has collated those abuses; we have certainly put a number of them to him tonight-the concept is wrong, the economic direction is wrong. There is no doubt at all that a number of privileged Australians are doing very well out of the Government's public sector, big business, big unions strategy but it is not the unemployed and it is not the young unemployed. As if this project were not bad enough, as if this project had not been an attempt to fiddle and manipulate the unemployment figures, we have Priority One: Young Australia. A grand promise was made that by June 1986 there would be 10,000 traineeships. That will not occur; that target will not be reached. The figure will not be anywhere near the figure promised. In the country-as is the case with so many other Government policies-Priority One is a total failure. Priority One combines on the job training with off the job formal training. How are unemployed youth in relatively isolated or remote areas expected either to afford to travel or to have the means to travel to technical and further education colleges or colleges of advanced education? The project is a farce; it is known to be a farce throughout Gippsland, where those who live in outlying areas cannot reach educational institutions to complete that part of Priority One. Moreover, union intransigence, the refusal of unions to allow a traineeship wage, has stopped this program dead in its tracks. Priority One is a failure; CEP does not live up to its rhetoric; CEP highlights, and is a glowing example of, this Government's selfish, misdirected economic policy which will not only lead this country into bankruptcy-if it is not already technically bankrupt-but also throw on the scrap-heap the young unemployed and the adult unemployed, those to whom all of us on this side are dedicated to giving the security they deserve. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Ms FATIN(Brand)(9.46) —I certainly hope that voters from the electorate of the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) are listening to him tonight. I hope that they are aware that in recent years over $10m has gone into his electorate for community employment projects and that more than 1,000 jobs have been created. I hope that the people of Australia know that all of us in this place-every Federal member-are asked to comment on the sponsorships and on the projects that are being put forward. I certainly hope that the honourable member is as keen to do that as he was tonight to criticise this magnificent program. I am very pleased to speak in this debate on the Community Employment Amendment Bill. I was amongst the many Government members who argued strongly for the continuation of the community employment program. I am glad to have this opportunity to talk about some of the reasons why I have supported the extension of the program. The community employment program is one of the most successful schemes implemented by the Hawke Government. It has gone straight to the heart of the fundamental problem we inherited from the previous Government, which seemed to be at least unwilling, if not incapable, of addressing the question of rapidly increasing unemployment. The CEP tackles the problem of unemployment head on by focusing on the people who are experiencing the worst problems. This is job creation at its most effective. It centres on groups which, according to whatever yardstick one chooses, are disadvantaged in the job market. During the first two years of the scheme's operation the interest shown by people throughout my electorate of Brand in Western Australia in the community employment program has grown beyond all expectations. Looking around the electorate one sees evidence everywhere of the effectiveness of the CEP. Women and men are working on road improvements. Projects are sponsored by State Government departments in the forests and waterways around Brand. Research projects are helping community groups and organisations plan for their future needs. I want to talk more about some of the specific projects in Brand in a moment, but first I must put on record my appreciation of the way the eight local government authorities in Brand have supported the CEP. I know that initially many local government officers and individual councillors had some pretty major reservations about the scheme. When I first held meetings in my electorate office to discuss the CEP with various people, all sorts of difficulties were raised, from the integration of CEP workers to insurance and workers compensation. It is surely an indication of the quite remarkable success of the scheme that all these potential difficulties were resolved as quickly as they were. As local councils saw the extent to which the Federal Government was committed to implementing the CEP as an efficient, effective scheme, they were the first to offer their co-operation. When preparing for this debate tonight I looked at some statistics about the operation of the CEP in the Brand electorate. My statements about the extent to which local government was participating in the scheme are amply borne out by the figures. Out of the 10 projects which have employed the most people seven have been sponsored by local councils. Many councils have also been quick to take advantage of the jobs on local roads section of the program. I am pleased to note that these projects also rank highly in the number of employment positions created. There is one other group of people who deserve particular mention at this stage, and that is the South West Metropolitan Local Authorities Management Group, headed by Richard Grounds. Despite their limited human and financial resources, members of the group have forged a community of interest amongst people in the Rockingham, Kwinana and Fremantle districts, so that the idea of a regional identity is finally becoming a reality. Just as an aside, it seems to me that one of the most interesting things about the CEP is the way it has been able to work in tandem with other programs. I suppose the most obvious example, at least in Western Australia at present, is the America's Cup defence program. Indeed, it is the joint exercise mounted in this regard that has resulted in one of the most exciting projects in the electorate of Brand-namely, the Armadale Tourist Walk. This project, devised by the Armadale City Council, has the distinction of being awarded the highest level of funding of any project in Brand. I pay tribute not only to Mayor Ian Blackburn and his officers, who helped devise the project and steer it through the various phases of development, but also to Graham Hope of the America's Cup secretariat in Fremantle who provided valuable advice and encouragement during the final stages of the approval procedure. Let me say a few more things about the way the CEP has been operating in Brand. To date, we have had a total of 112 projects formally approved. Total CEP funds in Brand so far amount to $7,620,075-that is more than $7 1/2m on job creation in just 2 1/2 years. The total number of jobs to have been created from CEP projects in Brand is 649, and I know that my colleagues will agree that this is an extremely encouraging situation. What makes this figure particularly hopeful is that 44.2 per cent of these jobs have been given to young people under the age of 25. That is 296 young people in Brand who have found employment over the last couple of years through the community employment program. I think it is worth stressing at this point that the CEP is not just a job creation program. The benefit which has accrued to the community in places such as Rockingham, Mandurah, Pinjarra, Harvey and Armadale through the completion of CEP projects is enormous. We have improved foreshores, built better children's playgrounds, restored heritage buildings, constructed new tourist facilities and upgraded sporting facilities-all through CEP funded, locally sponsored projects. One question that is often asked of me as I move around the electorate is: What happens to people once a CEP project comes to an end? It is gratifying to note that there are very positive indications arising from the data being collected by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. According to a study carried out last July, 61 per cent of people who completed CEP jobs had found some employment during the six months after their CEP project finished. This would seem to be a very encouraging figure, particularly in the light of the fact that the CEP is targeted to priority groups who have had particular difficulty obtaining employment. I know that the Minister and his officers will be paying particularly close attention to some of the statistical differences being highlighted by the data between the various target groups and age groups when it comes to finding subsequent employment. In the meantime, it is pleasing to note that the figures for subsequent employment seem to be improving all the time, proving that the CEP is, first and foremost, a job creation scheme. I would like to add just one more thing about the effects of the CEP on the people who are employed on the projects. We all know that one of the most difficult things about being unemployed, whether one is 16 and looking for one's first job or 55 and has just been made redundant, is the growing feeling of despair as the period of unemployment extends. Bureau of Labour Market Research data is now showing that one of the biggest bonuses of schemes like the CEP is the continuous improvement in the psychological well-being of employees, even if they have been unemployed for a significant period beforehand. This extends into the period after the project has concluded, making it much easier for people to cope with whatever eventuates jobwise. Many of my Government colleagues are waiting to speak on this highly significant piece of legislation and I have limited my remarks so that the debate can proceed. However, I cannot conclude without making special mention of the contribution the CEP secretariat in Western Australia has made to the overall success of the CEP in the State. Right from the start of the whole operation, the secretariat has performed extremely well, from the point of view of both the sponsors and those of us who became involved in promoting the CEP in the community. The Western Australian staff have matched an effective program with efficient administration, and the result has been one of the best run exercises I have ever witnessed. I must also pay tribute to both the Federal Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Western Australian State Minister, who have shown an unceasing commitment to the aims of the CEP. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(9.56) —In discussing the Community Employment Amendment Bill 1986, we are talking about a government expenditure program that has already involved a significant financial contribution, and which, by extending the operation of the community employment program, will clearly involve an even greater financial allocation of taxpayers' funds. In 1983-84 the Commonwealth contribution to the scheme amounted to $285.4m; in 1984-85 the expenditure on CEP was $409.9m; and the estimate for 1985-86 is $292m. So since its inception in August 1983 and including the 1985-86 estimate, the Commonwealth's contribution alone will have been in the vicinity of $987.3m. Since this figure does not include the 30 per cent State government contribution or the 20 per cent local government and community group contribution, the actual expenditure by Australians is much higher. If we were to add the 26 per cent departmental sponsor contribution figure to the Commonwealth's $987.3m, we would find that over $1.3 billion had been allocated to this particular short term government sponsored make work scheme. It is important, therefore, that we do not embark headlong into further significant expenditure without being quite sure that such expenditure is going to be in the best interests of taxpayers and recipients and that this sort of activity is the best way to overcome the problem it is aimed to address. To continue the community employment program for a further three years, we would be asking Australians to make a financial contribution, at a conservative estimate, of a further $1 billion. There is no doubt that the amount will be much more because of normal inflationary trends and because there are reliable indications that the pressures brought about largely through the inadequate economic policies of this Government will cause private investment not to reach its optimum level and consequently add further to the unemployment problem. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), in his second reading speech, has said that it is the Government's intention `to continue the highly successful community employment program . . . for a further three years beyond 30 June 1986'. This being the case, it is only proper that the Government should be able to unreservedly justify this `highly successful' claim to this Parliament, whose members represent not only those disadvantaged unemployed persons but those hard-working Australians who must fund all these assistance programs. The original aim of the program, according to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations' second year CEP report, was to create `short-term employment opportunities which would provide appropriate work experience for unemployed persons . . . through the funding of labour-intensive projects of social and economic benefit to the community (with) assistance directed to . . . the particularly disadvantaged in the labour market . . . (and) priority given to . . . those persons who had been unemployed for 9 months or more and unemployed Aboriginals, disabled persons and migrants with English language difficulties. A further objective was to provide equal access for women in CEP jobs'. However, when measured against the program principles recommended in the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labor Market Programs, the very principles which the Government has supposedly adopted as the basis for the work scheme component of its latest employment experiment, Priority One: Young Australia, the community employment program does not rate highly. A major problem which is central to the operation of the community employment program is that it focuses on the needs of the program sponsors rather than on the needs of the prospective participants. This is clearly demonstrated through the practical operation of CEP projects, where project design and approval occur in advance of the recruitment of the targeted unemployed. Indeed, it is only in the few cases under this job creation scheme that projects have been designed with the close consideration of the needs of the individuals in mind. Although a diversity of projects has been funded under CEP there are still important limitations applying to program operators. These limitations occur in areas such as the allocation of funds within a project, project duration and the length of employment provided. As a result, this scheme, along with similar government make work schemes, has suffered from conflicts stemming from design contradiction; that is, between an expressed aim to assist the more disadvantaged unemployed and guidelines which preclude provision of the type of assistance needed for many in this group. Even when the more disadvantaged have a chance of participating in the programs their employment prospects outside CEP may not appreciably improve. Under the current community employment program no distinction exists between those individuals who could benefit from simply a temporary period of employment and those people who need special assistance because of their more disadvantaged situation. Those disadvantages could take the form of physical or mental disabilities, age and language difficulties and the general loss of self-esteem-not just the fact that they suffer from lack of work experience. In talking about those persons who are particularly disadvantaged in the labour market, I refer to Bishop Peter Hollingworth, whose book Australians in Poverty provides some interesting comment and relative statistics on the makeup of the long term unemployed. According to Bishop Hollingworth, a survey carried out by the Commonwealth Employment Service indicated that 18 per cent of the long term unemployed were unemployed because of physical disability, 13 per cent because of age, 13 per cent because of lack of skills, 7 per cent because of lack of education experience, 7 per cent because of alcoholism, 6 per cent because of lack of confidence, 4 per cent because of minor psychiatric conditions, 3 per cent because of family obligations and 3 per cent because of mental retardation. According to this CES survey 74 per cent of the long term unemployed are unemployed because of some special disability. Bishop Hollingworth argued that these people should not be classified as unemployed. The sad truth of the matter is that under CEP the needs and special considerations of those particularly disadvantaged people are not and cannot be catered for. An article by Anthony King of the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research which appeared in the National Economic Review in June 1985 suggests that `job creation schemes are not an adequate response to the problems of the long term unemployed'. He argues that this is because the very nature of such programs can go little way to `eliminate the effects of occupational segregation on recruitment' into the program `or overcome the barriers which certain groups face in gaining access to labour market programs, let alone employment'. He goes on to reinforce the points made previously about the inability of the programs to `assist people whose labour market disadvantage stems from causes other than the mere fact of having been unemployed or having no recent relevant work experience'. Mr King concluded that while job creation schemes `may help new entrants to the labour market, the cyclically unemployed or people seeking employment after a period out of the workforce, in their present form they show limited scope for assisting the `specially' disadvantaged `or those suffering from' the effects of occupational segregation'. It is also the case that many projects fail to teach marketable job skills. Due to the labour intensive nature of the programs, which is a deliberate program objective, much of the work experience is wasted. If a participant is taught to work with a pick and shovel, there is clearly going to be little opportunity to put that experience into practice when modern techniques of construction use sophisticated mechanical equipment. The second year report on CEP from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations boasts a 75 per cent labour intensity achievement to June 1985. Further doubt is raised about the effectiveness of CEP by Mr John Burgess, lecturer in economics at Mitchell College of Advanced Education, who said in a spring 1984 edition of the Australian Quarterly: CEP suffers from one of the major deficiencies of all Australian job creation schemes in that it is short term and remedial and anticipates a substantial improvement in the labour market. This may work for the cyclically unemployed and the workers with marketable skills, but it is at best a temporary relief for the long term and structurally unemployed. Similarly, Kirby aptly described the failure of job creation schemes over the last decade when he wrote: . . . with the sudden and dramatic rise in unemployment in Australia in the mid 1970's, manpower programs were used with an expectation they could fill an apparent void in the development of economic policy. They aimed to improve the adjustment process by substantially reducing unemployment through job creation and training. They were not up to the task. Job creation schemes, such as the community employment program, are not a solution to unemployment, nor should they be seen as such. The overall effect of CEP is to redistribute the burden of unemployment, while having only an indirect effect on the stock of jobs. What is really needed to assist with overcoming the unemployment problem is a greater flexibility in the wage fixing process. Australia has an arbitration system which was introduced in 1907. It imposes a quasi-legal system on the labour market wherein employers and employees must argue their positions in a confrontationist manner rather than seeking positive solutions in a non-confrontationist manner with a view to improving Australia's productivity levels and the standard of living of all Australians. The entrenched legalistic approach has institutionalised wage costs and pays no regard to the capacity of employers to pay wage increases and condition benefits. It has thus reduced our ability to trade profitably on overseas markets and pays no regard to the value of our currency. The consequence of our inflexible wages and industrial relations system is to reduce the job opportunities available both at a full time and part time level, and also those employment opportunities that are adversely affected by our penalty rate system. Australia needs to improve the present industrial relations system, so that there will be less need for make work schemes, such as CEP. Still the largest group in the unemployment pool are young people. It has become obvious that our inflexible wages system has particularly discriminated against young people because of industry's inability to pay them award rates. Further to this problem, the existence of an income maintenance system which provides the unemployment benefit relatively more easily than it does assistance for tertiary students encourages, and in some cases forces, young people to become and remain unemployed. It is a disgrace that young people, and indeed those older people who take the positive self-help step of trying to further their education through trade or university courses, are hampered by this Government's shallow commitment to tertiary students. It may well be that students who have failed to gain technical and further education or university places due to the failure of the Australian Labor Party to match rhetoric with action will, in nine months time, be the long term unemployed involved in potential CEP projects. In endeavouring to ascertain just where these programs are at, I requested information from the State Division of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Over two months have elapsed and, despite a written assurance that my request for information would be fullfilled, I learnt today, after lengthy phone inquiries, that the information is for the most part unobtainable. The information which I sought involved expenditure, participant numbers and the types of and total number of employment and training programs which existed in 1984-85 and which are offered in 1985-86. It seemed to me that unless one could evaluate the activities of such schemes at a national, State and local level it was pointless embarking on new job creation and employment training programs. The inability of the Department to provide information to me indicates a bureaucracy that lacks the effective capacity to administer any sort of employment training program. In fact, one only has to look at the paper work involved in CEP applications to conclude that the whole activity is bogged down in bureaucratic pencilling procedures. When one examines a number of the projects approved under CEP, one cannot help questioning just how `worthwhile' certain projects have been. And since being `worthwhile' and providing `demonstrable community benefit' are priority criteria of the program, individual programs deserve close scrutiny. Other members have referred to just some of the very questionable programs where taxpayers' money has been expended and community benefit, not to mention worthwhile participant experience, are not apparent. For instance, there was a $78,482 allocation to the People for Nuclear Disarmament for a five-person, six-month peace bus project. There has been an allocation of $36,766 to the FILEF, which is the Australian operation of the Italian Communist Party, for the construction of new offices and staffing in its information bureau. The trade union movement, not surprisingly when we realise who really runs this Government, has also done very nicely out of the CEP. The Victorian Trades Hall received $81,640 for four people to catalogue industrial information, while the Printing and Kindred Industries Union received $172,644 to employ nine people to investigate the extent of sub-award employment practices. The Australian Capital Territory Trades and Labour Council received $245,230 for an occupational health and safety program, while $157,839 was spent on a trade union art and working life program. It is ironic that the trade union movement, so exclusive in nature, has benefited from CEP funding, when it is its entrenched attitude that keeps people on the unemployment scrap-heap. In conclusion, I echo the sentiments of my colleague Senator Short who, in cataloguing the Footscray CEP project in the electorate of the Minister responsible for the CEP, said: The Australian public deserves and demands total confidence that the CEP program is being properly and responsibly administered. Clearly, the serious implications of the inability of the CEP adequately to respond to the needs of the disadvantaged and unemployed and the questions that have been raised about the benefit to individuals cause me great concern as this Bill will empower the Government to spend over $1 billion of taxpayers' money in the next three years from June 1986. Debate (on motion by Mr Mildren) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Willis) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.13) —I wish to address a few remarks on the management of the Australian Institute of Sport. The House will recall that in November 1985 allegations were made about the administration of the Institute. These were investigated by the auditors, Price Waterhouse, and the administration of the Institute was found to be slack. In particular there was found to be excessive entertainment, excessive and unjustified travel, unjustified purchase of office equipment, the merit scheme had been abused, family had been employed under odd circumstances and the purchase of rowing boats was very doubtful, to say the least. Concerning the financial management of the Institute of Sport, Price Waterhouse reported that there was a lack of understanding of the budget process, no corporate plan and the staff were highly critical of the financial management of the Institute. On 19 November the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who was the subject of a censure motion in this House, said: As far as I am concerned the administration of the AIS has been of the highest order. That was totally false because the Price Waterhouse report had shown that the financial management of the AIS had been far from satisfactory. Also in November, during the censure debate, the Minister promised that Price Waterhouse would look into other aspects of the financial management of the Australian Institute of Sport and report back to the House. It is now February. We have not seen that report. As far as I know, it has not been completed. It certainly has not been tabled in this House. It was to investigate: The adequacy and efficiency of financial management practices and controls. I would have thought, given the conditions surrounding the investigation of the Institute in November, that the Minister would have been keen to have an institute under his authority and responsibility brought into line with what would be considered satisfactory management practices. It would appear that that is not the case. We are not talking about peanuts but $11m. The Department of Finance has been investigating the Institute and has provided a minute to the Board which states that the objectives and future direction of the Institute should be addressed; that the lack of adequate direction and planning should be addressed; that staff level usage is wrong; that there is overclassification of certain positions; that the management structure needs investigation; and that the athlete recruitment program needs investigation. Those were the conclusions of the Department of Finance investigation in February, after all the nonsense that had gone on in November, into the Australian Institute of Sport which is spending $11m of taxpayers' money. Mr Cadman —What is the Minister doing? Mr WHITE —I want to know what the Minister is doing. The Minister should be in this House because he has been warned that I would speak about this matter. He should reply and say what is happening at the Institute of Sport. It is a great institution in the Australian sporting world but it cannot be allowed to continue in this slipshod fashion. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.18) —I raise a matter that affected some pensioners in my electorate on Christmas Eve. Social welfare recipients, particularly those on sickness and unemployment benefits, who were to be paid on Christmas Eve and who had a Westpac Banking Corporation savings bank account went to the bank on Christmas Eve, found that the money had not been credited to them and were turned away. This was not just a problem for the people in Chifley. It transpired that it was a State-wide problem. I was called fairly early in the morning. We reopened the office and started tracking down the problem. I am pleased to say that the Department of Social Security telexed all its offices and advised any person going to a social security office to go back to the bank. Although we had some difficulty in contacting some of the senior management of Westpac, it was good enough to establish a hotline. It is fair enough to say that towards the afternoon anyone going back to the bank, even if that person's account did not have money in it, was paid on the advice received from the hotline or from the local departmental office. This serious breakdown of procedures is a most important issue. I do not want to attack Westpac as a bank tonight. The Government took a decision towards direct payment for social welfare recipients. If only one person in the electorate of Chifley were affected, I would still be making this speech. But, clearly, many more people were. We need to be satisfied that the horrific experience of people going on Christmas Eve to collect money to which they were entitled and which they expected but which was not available just should not occur. I ask that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) institute the widest possible examination of this problem not only as it affected Westpac. As I have said, it could have been any bank but this time is happened to be Westpac. We need to be assured that it will not be Westpac, the Commonwealth Bank or any other bank on Christmas Eve in 1986. I see this as a most serious issue. I would like to mention another problem in my electorate that is affecting social welfare recipients. Mr Cadman —The airport. Mr PRICE —I am happy to talk about the airport; we will make that the next one. I refer to social welfare recipients who have a keycard. Under the old system it was absolutely impossible to overdraw a savings bank account. But what I am afraid is happening is that, because of an inadequacy in banking procedures and particularly when an automatic telling machine breaks down, it is possible for social welfare recipients to overdraw their accounts. I have had varied responses from the banks concerned. One bank has graciously agreed to allow those people to repay over a period the moneys overdrawn. I regret to say that the other bank has flatly refused. We have the ridiculous situation in which we then have to organise emergency services in the form of food, cash, et cetera, for the families concerned, although in my view clearly there is irresponsibility on the part of the banks. I have to say that I appreciate that regulation at the moment is on a voluntary basis and clearly there are benefits in people having access to keycards. But there are also penalties, and I believe that we ought to protect those people in the community on social welfare who, because of banking procedures, overdraw their accounts. I hope that the committee that has been set up by the Minister for Social Security to look into this problem-I must say that the Minister is equally as concerned as I am about this-will come up with the goods. Social welfare recipients ought to be protected, if necessary by legislation. Perhaps the protection afforded to them may well be by way of legislation and may need to be extended to others. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(10.23) —In 1984 the Hawke Labor Government introduced a number of significant Public Service reforms. It did so espousing the principle that public servants should not be discriminated against on the ground of political affiliation. This was specifically provided for in the application of the merit principle which prohibits patronage. Section 33 of the Public Service Reform Act precludes appointments, transfers and promotions being influenced by discrimination on the grounds of political affiliation, race, colour, ethnic origin, social origin, religion, et cetera. Despite this there is growing concern in the Australian Public Service that promotions, especially in the senior classifications, are subject to political influence and there is growing fear, recently expressed by Sir Geoffrey Yeend, the retiring head of the Depart- ment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, that there is a risk that the non-partisan character of the Public Service will be seriously undermined. The recent rejection of Mr John Louttit, President of the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Liberal Party, as financial adviser to the Department of Territories, to which he had been recommended by the Department of Finance, is a clear example of how a public servant's political affiliation can be used not only to deny access to a specific position but, of even greater importance, publicly to brand that person as being professionally unreliable when a government of a different colour is in power. If this situation is allowed to go unredressed it will undoubtedly mean that public servants who join a political party when in opposition may severely damage their career prospects. The Public Service Reform Act emphasises in section 33 that appointments should be made after assessing the relevant suitability of applicants, having regard to the nature of the duties to be performed and the abilities, qualifications, experience and other attributes which could be relevant to the performance of those duties. There is no doubt that on occasions a Minister or a departmental secretary may believe for good reason that a sensitive position should not be held by an officer known to hold political views which may be in conflict with the duties of the position, in which case departments have a responsibility not to embarrass severely an officer such as Mr Louttit and by doing so place him in a position where his future promotion could be jeopardised because of his party affiliation. The Hawke Labor Government, through the appointment of controversial people such as Mr David Combe, now Trade Commissioner to Vancouver, has demonstrated that `jobs for the boys' and paying off political debts is of far greater importance than the maintenance of an apolitical Public Service. Late last month there was another case concerning an Australian Trade Commissioner, Mr Thomas Walton, who was recalled from Milan for the crime of telling the Minister for Trade, Mr Dawkins, the truth about the limited success achieved in promoting the America's Cup in Italy. Obviously the Minister would have had the man fired had it not been for the fact that he lacked the power to do so under the newly-established Trade Commission. Public servants are not the playthings of an elected government. Career officers are expected to give of their best to the government of the day. The Louttit case suggests that public membership of a political party when not in government carries with it the presumption that a professional officer cannot be trusted to do his duty. For a government which places so much store on the protection of human rights such a situation should be intolerable, yet no action has been taken to protect Mr Louttit's interests. If situations such as this are allowed to occur, public servants will believe that political considerations do influence promotions and appointments. Every public servant, whether he be Liberal, Labor or Democrat, must see this case as a direct threat to his professional career. By allowing such a situation to continue the Government is adding additional credence to fears expressed by Mr Peter Henderson, former Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, who has accused the Public Service Board of appointing known Labor supporters to senior Public Service positions. The Chairman of the Public Service Board, Dr Peter Wilenski, himself a former ALP candidate, has claimed that: The Board and its officers are fully committed to the principle of merit as the basis of selection for promotion in the Australian Public Service . . . which preclude the taking into account of any political considerations in appointments in the Public Service. It is time he used his power to protect the integrity of the Public Service and practise what he preaches. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(10.28) —I must say that this is the first time that I have been able to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, from the floor of the House on your elevation to your very high office. I hope that you enjoy a great deal of consensus in terms of the treatment the House gives to you over the next very lengthy period. Madam SPEAKER —I do, too. Mr MILDREN —You will certainly have my support. In my home city of Ballarat we have a particularly worthy program which is aimed at encouraging children and adults to wear bicycle road safety helmets. This has been a co-ordinated effort on the part of the local shire council, the Lions clubs, the Department of Education, schools and a number of other community groups. They have established an organisation called the Keith Edmonston Regional Traffic Safety School, which over 14,000 children go through each year to learn the arts and the skills of road safety. Curricula are developed which are then used back in the schools to follow up the classes which are taken at the traffic school. The age range is from pre-school, kindergarten children, right through to the higher secondary school children who learn to drive motor vehicles. The small children have tricycles. They all wear helmets and all go through the process of acquiring the necessary skills in a situation which replicates the situation on the road but without, of course, the attendant dangers. We have the highest incidence of helmet wearing in Australia. Apart from the fact that we are very proud of that, we think it is an example of community self help. We believe it is an example that could be used by many other communities in Australia which are prepared to get off their butts and do something to assist themselves. We also have considerable co-operation from local government bodies in taking the bicycles off the roads and putting them on to bicycle paths. The shire of Ballarat, Ballarat city, the borough of Sebastopol, and the Shire of Buninyong have all put in quite a number of kilometres of bicycle paths, which people use. They use them for recreation and for getting to work and school. People come to Ballarat in their thousands to look at our magnificent city, including of course Sovereign Hill, which is certainly the premier tourist facility of its kind in Australia. In fact, it is one of the greatest in the world. Mr McGauran —Ha! Mr MILDREN —The honourable member should get himself out of his parochial little Gippsland and come and have a look at it. Mr McGauran —It is not as good as Coal Creek, Korunburra. Mr MILDREN —Coal Creek is not a bad effort, but of course Coal Creek people understand the success of Sovereign Hill. I ask those who come to Ballarat to have a serious look at the way in which people are being encouraged through total community involvement to ensure that people become aware of road safety. We are educating all people, not just the children. I believe that if people look at this and recognise what can happen when there is a community-wide approach to road safety, they will want to apply this back in their home towns. Road safety raises a serious problem and one which we in Ballarat believe has been tackled by all of these various community groups plus the media itself. Radio station 3BA is a successful radio station which has co-operated very much in bringing road safety issues to the attention of the community. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(10.32) —Before Christmas I visited the town of Wilcannia. While I was there a group of Aboriginal people approached me and asked whether I could do something about their housing situation, and in particular about the situation that had developed with the septic tank systems for those houses. They were overflowing and nothing had been done about it. I asked to whom they paid their rent, and I believe that it was paid to the Aboriginal land council in the area. I suggested that they approach the Aboriginal land council and have something done about it. After Christmas I returned to Wilcannia. Nothing had been done and the group approached me once again. They were concerned not only about housing but also about a number of other issues. They begged me to have a look at the situation. I was appalled at the septic tank overflow I saw, and in a Press release that I put out I referred to it as night-soil, which is a quaint term for something else. This night-soil was all over the ground, under the houses, in the streets and everywhere. Following that I sent a telex to the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and to the State Minister asking that something be done about it. I am pleased to report that although I got a telex back from the Federal Minister saying that it was not the Federal Government's concern and correspondence from the State saying that it was not its concern either-I am a bit confused about whose concern it is-something is being done about the septic tank overflow, which was a great health hazard not only to the Aboriginal people in that area but also to the other people of Wilcannia. While I was there the Aboriginal people said to me that they were concerned not only about their housing but also about the fact that great amounts of land were being bought up. I think the last purchase involved $800,000, yet these people complained that they did not even have decent housing. They pointed to their problems with the health system and a number of other issues. They were concerned about the lack of law and order. In Wilcannia-I am sure it is happening in other areas-youths are breaking the law, either by breaking and entering or committing other criminal acts, and are then going to court, where they are put on bonds. They then break the law again, go back to the court and get put on bonds again. So it is bond after bond after bond. The Aboriginals in Wilcannia said that these younger people seemed to have no respect at all for law and order, and they were worried about where the young people were going. They were not concerned with land rights; they wanted decent housing, education for themselves and their children and decent health services. This leads me to something that is happening in the south of my electorate, in Menindee. The Nyampa Aboriginal Housing Co. is building houses in Menindee and employs five young apprentices and a building supervisor. It appears that the supervisor's funding has been cut out. We are not sure whether the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or the Aboriginal Development Commission is providing that funding but the technical and further education college in Broken Hill, through its good offices, said that it would keep on this supervisor until March-another six weeks-but after that the company would be on its own. The TAFE college is concerned because those young Aboriginals are indentured apprentices and it wants them to be trained. We are trying to find out exactly who is supposed to be funding these employees and why the money is being cut out because, as the Aboriginal people in Wilcannia said, education is most important. These people have to be trained to be self-sufficient and self-supporting than relying on government handouts. We find the same situation in Narrandera. Aboriginal adults can go to the TAFE college and do fourth form or sixth form-what we would call Year 10 or Year 12-but their funding has been cut out also and so we have 20 to 25 applicants wishing to continue their education. Whoever is supplying that funding, whether it is the Department of Aboriginal Affairs or the ADC-I have not been able to find that out-has cut it back. The last two matters I have mentioned have been raised with me in years previous. I have phoned around and made representations, and have finally obtained funding to keep these various projects going. It is important that departments of Aboriginal affairs, whether State or Federal, get their act together because Aboriginal people are mainly concerned with the things about which other Australians are concerned-firstly, with having decent housing; secondly, with having decent education so that they can become self-reliant and independent; and, thirdly, with having their health standards cared for. I just ask the Federal Minister, if he is listening, to do something please particularly about the problem in Narrandera and Menindee, and in the long term about the housing at Wilcannia. The housing there is disgraceful. He has found $800,000 in one hunk to buy a block of land that hardly anyone will benefit from. Only one family can make a living out of it. How it is expected to care for the number of Aboriginal people in Wilcannia I will never know. Perhaps minds greater than mine might know a bit more about it. I ask both State and Federal Ministers to look at these situations. Let us make these Aboriginal people independent and self-sufficient. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.37) —I have received a Press release dated 12 February from the Embassy of the Philippines in Canberra. This Press release is an arrogant document which tries to whitewash the rigged elections just conducted in that country. To illustrate what I mean, I quote the first paragraph: A formidable and relentless avalanche of Press and other reports has all but asphyxiated the Australian media, depicting the recent Philippine Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections in the most unfavourable light by means of distortion, exaggeration, wild speculation, unfounded rumours or the use of biased sources. The report refers to exaggeration. As if one could exaggerate anything about the Philippine election! After so many reports by independent observers from all over the world, testifying to intimidation, terror and cheating by the Marcos regime, the Philippine Embassy has the temerity to lecture us and our Press concerning the Philippine `elections'. Even President Reagan, whose Administration strongly supports the Marcos dictatorship, had to admit that fraud and violence by Marcos supporters had `called into question' the poll count which declared him the victor, even though President Reagan had claimed earlier that `fraud had occurred on both sides'. It is quite obvious to everyone except the Philippine Embassy that Marcos is in power not by popular will, but by his and his supporters' ability to cheat and intimidate and terrorise the population of that unfortunate country. Contrary to the reassuring tone of the last paragraph of this Press release, which states that the Marcos Government does not have to worry about `civil strife or civil war' because the President's `armed forces and national police are fully capable of maintaining public peace and order', I am nonetheless worried. I am aware of the price at which that so-called order will be maintained. I ask how many more Philippine nationals will be killed, tortured and intimidated by the President's armed forces so that the Marcos regime may enforce the results of a rigged poll on the Philippine population. It is the duty of all democratic countries like ours to take all the steps available to us to assist the democratic forces in the Philippines to establish a democratic government in that country and eradicate the injustice and terror which are fostered by the present regime. I therefore call on our Government to suspend immediately all military and other aid to the Marcos regime in the Philippines, until such time as fair elections can establish a Philippines government which will be representative of the people; that is, until democracy is established in the Philippines. In 1984-85 Australia provided, in round figures, approximately $16.5m in bilateral aid, which mainly benefits the ruling classes, and another $1.5m in military aid, which assists the training of Marcos's military forces, who are used by Marcos to kill their own people in order to ensure that the will of the dictator is realised. In most instances I am opposed to those who utilise development aid in order to encourage and ensure particular outcomes. An aid package should encourage and foster development and bring the most benefit to the neediest sections of the community. This, however, is not the outcome of Australia's aid, both bilateral and military, in the Philippines. The developments during the recent presidential elections in that country merely typify and highlight the extent to which the Marcos regime is willing to go in order to secure power. For this reason I join major Australian aid agencies in calling on the Australian Government to suspend forthwith bilateral and military aid to the Marcos regime. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(10.43) —Madam Speaker, I extend my warm congratulations on your recent appointment. The recent appalling revelation that the Victorian Labor Government is about to embark on a taxpayer funded, Socialist Left inspired propaganda campaign in Victorian state schools is a matter of grave concern. It is an immoral, blatant and disgraceful corruption and abuse of political power. Masquerading under the euphemism `peace studies', this insidious scheme has been designed to manipulate the minds of children, even kindergarten age children. Its objective is to convince its innocent, captive audience that the day of reckoning is upon us, and the only way to survival is via the well worn socialist path of anti-American sentiment. This in turn leads to the supposedly desirable destination of unilateral disarmament. Mr Chynoweth —Rubbish! Mr HALVERSON —What is wrong with honourable members opposite? Today they are wringing their hands and tomorrow they will be wringing Hand's neck. Along the way to unilateral disarmament there will be pauses, as this supposed path to peace branches out to explore issues such as inequality, injustice and environmental damage. These sensitive and significant subjects no doubt will also be presented and discussed in accordance with the current policies and philosophies of the Labor Party-as approved by the Victorian Socialist Left faction. These so-called peace studies are no better than a pernicious, ill-disguised attempt to introduce and promote acceptance of the new social order on which the future implementation of socialism depends. Those responsible for this further nail in the coffin of what was once a fine education system should hang their heads in shame. Victorian schools used to be administered and operated without party political fear or favour. They are now to be used as just another cog in the Labor Party political propaganda machine. Peace education will also encompass under its doctrinal and ideological umbrella the means by which discipline within our schools will be destroyed. Children are to be encouraged to question and pursue their so-called rights-obviously with scant regard for the rights of their parents, their teachers, or the rest of the community. Presumably this questioning process will extend to the home as well as the classroom and kindergarten. A sort of `student teach and discipline thyself' philosophy will be introduced based on the premise that no one else is fit, or should dare, to do so. There is no doubt that our young people should be encouraged to become involved in the discipline and decision-making processes at school and at home. They must be able to develop their initiative and independence. But such development must take place within reasonable parameters and with the loving influence and interest provided by a secure home environment. Authority must not be questioned just for the sake of questioning authority. The recognition of the rights which are the privilege of every Australian citizen can be properly developed only within the controls and guidelines which have been the traditional moral basis of a decent society. No one should ask for, or should expect our young people to submit to, unreasonable or unrealistic disciplinary measures, but they must learn that all rights are limited by our responsibilities to others. Under this latest Cain Government proposal, parental and teacher guidance and discipline will be called into question as a matter of course. What an effective way to undermine the stability of our community, and all in the name of peace! As one who believes that peace can, must and will be achieved, I am horrified by this corruption of vulnerable young minds, dreamt up by the State and funded from the public purse. The perpetrators of this disgraceful scheme are intent only on creating an opportunity to brainwash children for political purposes. They are not remotely concerned with peace. They are concerned with disseminating political propaganda and they stand condemned for their actions. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.47) —Madam Speaker, after a speech like that I am sure that the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson) will not be in this House for much longer. I want to address a serious matter that has arisen in relation to last week's story in the Bulletin magazine which, in its scaremongering way, had a front page article headed in part: `Dividing Australia'. When we turn to the `Cover Story' inside we see an article by David Barnett which is nothing more than sophisticated racism. The article is probably one of the most disgraceful pieces of journalism I can recall in the many years I have been reading material in this whole area. In my view, if the Bulletin magazine had any decency at all, it would sack a journalist who writes this sort of rubbish. If we read that article we find in it the most extreme statements which, in themselves, are designed to divide the Australian community. Rather than talking about multiculturalism as an issue which is dividing the Australian community, this article tries to develop a scare campaign which, in effect, will divide the community on the issue of multiculturalism. Nearly every fact to which this so-called journalist refers in this article is false. I challenge this journalist-I am sure that most honourable members on this side of the House would challenge him-the Bulletin, and any other person the Bulletin magazine cares to produce, to a debate or a discussion on any of the so-called facts in this article. We will see whether they stand up to examination. I do not know what has happened to the standards of journalism and decency in this country when this sort of rubbish is printed by a so-called respectable journal. A paragraph on what the journalist considers immigration has done to this country and multiculturalism states: As for the original goals of the populate or perish program, 40 years ago Australia had one of the world's highest living standards. Its army had stopped the Japanese at Milne Bay and the troops carried the Australian made and designed Owen submachine gun. Today the country has slipped 10 places, to about 13th, in comparative living standards. It has an emasculated navy with no fleet air arm, cannot afford to equip the army with armoured personnel carriers, lacks the skill to design and produce a modern rifle and can sustain a manufacturing industry only by hiding behind enormous tariff barriers at the expense of a crippled rural industry. He is saying that this is all caused by immigration and multiculturalism. I would challenge any sensible person to identify multiculturalism or immigration as the cause of these problems. If some of these problems exist, the causes are more deep-rooted and fundamental. To suggest that immigration has been a negative factor in the development of this country is a total and absolute absurdity. To go further into the article, what is it attacking? It is attacking ethnic services for the migrant communities and for those communities that are socially disadvantaged. In other words, it is the usual attack on the most disadvantaged section of the community put before the people in a semi-racist form. That is the worst form of attack on the provision of services one can imagine. I call on the Bulletin magazine to take back this rubbish and to produce an alternative. I hope it will at least give an opportunity to people who have something alternative to say on this matter to have their say, with the same prominence as was given to the rubbish that was published. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.52) —I wish to speak to the House on the Human Rights Commission, which is an insidious body that is trying to undermine our society. In particular I wish to mention the names of the members of that Commission: Dame Roma Mitchell, Peter Bailey, Christopher Gilbert, Eva Geia, Elizabeth Hastings, Manuel Aroney, Peter Boyce and Norma Ford. I am not certain whether all these people are actively involved in the activities of the Human Rights Commission, but if they are they stand condemned. If they had one shred of decency, they would resign forthwith. I believe that the people of Australia will hold them in absolute contempt. I wish to draw attention to a publication that has been produced this month, February 1986-a grubby little booklet-entitled `The Human Rights Commission: A Summary of the Activities and Achievements of the Human Rights Commission'. In particular I draw attention to page 4, paragraph (b), under the heading `School Curriculum-Teaching for Human Rights'. It reads: Believing that, as in all other areas, the most effective long-term community awareness of human rights is attainable through education, the Commission has developed its own course of study . . . This is the course of study which the Human Rights Commission is advertising in newspapers throughout this country. It is trying to bribe our teachers. It is offering them $500 to undermine the principles of infants and children. How low can one get? It is advertising in newspapers that it will pay teachers $500 to undermine the fundamental values that we hold so dear. What does the Commission think of the teaching profession? Does it think that teachers will accept the $500? I hope that they will not do so, and I hope that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has noticed the advertisement. Surely that is attempted bribery of the worst kind. It certainly is further evidence to put a nail in the coffin of this useless body. Let me look at various matters involving the Commission including one document entitled `Teaching for Human Rights' by Ralph Pettman. This is another evil publication and it also seeks to undermine the fundamentals of our society. It has even decided to attack fairy tales and Sleeping Beauty is now apparently considered unsuitable for children. I quote from Pettman: The King in Sleeping Beauty organises the party and the guest list (the Queen is not consulted). Indeed, all decisions are invariably made by males, and in times of crisis, the most typical reaction by female characters is to fall down crying. Heroines are unable to extricate themselves without male assistance, and there are usually racist overtones (white cats vs. black cats) and ageist ones (evil people are often ugly and old). White cats against black cats, Madam Speaker! I can see that you can hardly contain your own laughter. This is pathetic. It is a shocking misuse of the Commonwealth Government's money. The Commission is also trying to undermine the family. I quote further from Pettman: In Australia-a liberal, capitalist, multicultural democracy, with social welfare proclivities, a highly stratified class structure, a value system that is secular, racist, sexist, and materialistic-the family reflects and promotes this fact. We in the National Party make no apology for standing up in this House to support the family unit. We believe that the family unit is the basic unit in our society. I am shocked that the Government has not taken action against this sort of arrant nonsense which is being produced as part of the expenditure of $5.4m for the current year. That is what the Human Rights Commission is spending out of the public purse of the Australian taxpayers. The Commission produces numerous glossy booklets and it is an absolute national disgrace. Australians are a free people and we want to stay free. The Human Rights Commission is an evil body designed to hold captive the hearts and minds of people. It is insidious, subversive and absolutely determined to undermine society. Hitler's propaganda chief, Dr Goebbels, would have been proud of it. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.56) —I join other members in congratulating you, Madam Speaker, on your election to the speakership. I wish to offer my congratulations to you, Madam, having known you for many years. I am concerned at the situation that Queanbeyan manufacturers of outdoor equipment have found themselves in. They are required to pay 40 per cent duty on a fabric which is not made in Australia. The equipment manufacturers are concerned that a manufacturer in Melbourne and Tasmania is unable to supply them with a fabric and yet an import duty of 40 per cent is to be imposed on them should they wish to import the fabric. There has been no guarantee that the fabric manufacturer in Victoria can manufacture a fabric that will guarantee water impermeability. These manufacturers make a wide range of outdoor equipment, including sleeping bags, for which they have achieved not only nation-wide but world-wide recognition. Although the Queanbeyan manufacturers are required to pay duty of 40 per cent, no manufacturer in Australia is able to make even a similar fabric available, nor can a manufacturer substantiate to the satisfaction of the Queanbeyan firm that he is able to supply the fabric, nor can he give any estimate as to when he will be able to supply the fabric. The manufacturers of outdoor equipment have received correspondence from the Australian Customs Service stating that it has been advised by this firm that it is able to make the fabric. I appreciate that regulations that applied under the previous Government as well as applying under the present Government may well be at fault. I am certainly concerned that one newspaper report described the problem as one of red tape-in other words, a bureaucratic problem. I was contacted by this manufacturer only three days ago about this problem. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This man has had his trouble for six months and the member for Eden-Monaro has done nothing about it. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor realises that that is not a point of order. He is blotting his copybook tonight. Mr SNOW —As soon as the manufacturers saw me for the very first time two or three days ago, I took action and have taken the matter to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). I believe that we should look at this anomaly which existed under legislation of the Fraser Government. I shall ask Senator Button to examine that legislation because it is very tough on small business firms. I believe that the Minister will show due consideration. I shall be asking him to comment on the manufacturers concerned and advise whether these people will be able to import without duty if the product is not available in Australia on order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr John Brown —Madam Speaker, I require that the debate be extended. Madam SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(11.00) —Earlier tonight the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) made a speech in the adjournment debate. I must say that he had the courtesy to advise me of this intentions. In the course of that speech he asked a couple of reasonable questions which I am quite happy to answer. In November a number of accusations were made about the management of the Australian Institute of Sport. Price Waterhouse, the internal auditors for the AIS, provided an interim report for the Parliament on the management and financial controls at the AIS. In the course of debate on a censure motion moved against me in the House by the honourable member for McPherson, I said that Price Waterhouse had suggested that it might be producing a further report and that I would deliver it to the House. The honourable member for McPherson quite properly has asked me in the debate tonight what is the status of that report. I am quite happy to answer him in these terms: The honourable member for McPherson knows quite well the status of the AIS Board. The AIS operates as a company. That was the mode of operation that was set up by Bob Ellicott. Under those circumstances the daily management and running of the Institute is under the control of the Board, as quite properly it should be in any company. The Chairman of the Board informs me that Price Waterhouse is continuing its normal internal audit and has informed him that it has no desire and no intention of producing a further report to the Parliament. Mr White —But you promised one would come in. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member should listen to what I said. I promised one, certainly. However, Price Waterhouse has informed the Chairman of the Board that it sees no necessity to issue a further report and that its normal audit report will be provided in due course. Mr Tuckey —You have changed tack. Mr JOHN BROWN —I have not changed tack at all. I might add that the Auditor-General has also stated that he has no intention of undertaking any special investigation of the Institute on top of the report which he has already made. I think that speaks fairly well of the efficiency of the AIS and certainly the efficacy of its management controls. Having disposed of that matter- Mr White —No, you have not disposed of it. You should continue with it because you have not disposed of it. Mr JOHN BROWN —I have disposed of it. If the honourable member is not happy with my answer, that is his problem. If he cannot work out what I have said, that is a measure of his intellectual failing. Later in the honourable member's speech tonight he produced what he said was a Department of Finance minute. It is, in fact, a stolen document, but honourable members opposite are not bad on stolen documents. They produce such documents ad nauseam. Eighteen copies of this document were produced for the Board members for the Institute of Sport meeting tomorrow. The honourable member has one of them, so he has a stolen document. He has no right to have it. He has been issued with a stolen document. No matter what excuse he might put up, he cannot deny it. Mr White —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I seek some guidance. The word the Minister used was `stolen'. Mr JOHN BROWN —That is right. Mr White —I find that offensive. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister did not say that the honourable member had stolen the document. He said that it was a stolen document. Mr White —He implied that I stole it. Madam SPEAKER —He did not imply that you stole it. Mr JOHN BROWN —I repeat: The honourable member for McPherson has produced in the House tonight a stolen document. He has described it as being a minute from the Department of Finance. It is anything but. Mr White —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The implication is that I am a receiver of stolen goods. Mr JOHN BROWN —Absolutely. Madam SPEAKER —The implication the Minister made is that the paper is stolen. Mr White —No, the implication is that I am a receiver of stolen goods. I find that offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr JOHN BROWN —His inference is absolutely correct, Madam Speaker. Mr Tuckey —Withdraw! Mr JOHN BROWN —I will not withdraw. His inference is absolutely correct. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will withdraw. Mr JOHN BROWN —In deference to you, Madam Speaker, I withdraw. This is not a minute from the Finance Department. It is a minute prepared by the staff of the Australian Institute of Sport for the board meeting tomorrow. It says: In discussion to date officers from the Department of Finance have made the following- Opposition members interjecting- Mr JOHN BROWN —Do members opposite want me to answer their dirty, sleazy accusations? Mr White —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The Minister keeps referring to a finance minute. I have never- Madam SPEAKER —Order! This is not a point of order; the honourable member will resume his seat. Mr JOHN BROWN —This document was produced by the staff for the meeting of the board of management of the AIS tomorrow. It says inter alia: In discussion to date officers from the Department of Finance have made the following general points- Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. No other Minister is rising, so the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(11.05) —The minute makes these observations about the heinous accusations that the honourable member for McPherson has sought to bring into this House tonight. It says: The Institute has lacked adequate direction and planning; A number of inefficiencies are apparent, including: staffing and payment arrangements with coaches; AOSL usage; Over classification of certain positions; Management structure. I suggest to the honourable member for McPherson that every department, every statutory authority and every company which is under the control of this Government and this Parliament has this sort of report issued to it almost daily by the Department of Finance. Mr White —What a shocking Government. Mr JOHN BROWN —If you knew anything about the running of government you would know that this is normal practice for the Department of Finance. I give this no more status than that. What the honourable member for McPherson has done is what he has managed to do before. He is not maligning me; I am not in charge of the running of the Australian Institute of Sport. It is run by a company, and the people he is maligning are distinguished Australians who generously give of their time and talent to run something which is of inestimable value to sport in Australia. These people are: Professor Bloomfield from the University of WA; Mr Don Coates, a very prominent New South Wales solicitor and Chairman of the Australian Rowing Council who is now running the Olympic bid in Brisbane; Michael Wenden, multi-gold medal swimmer; Peter Montgomery, former captain of the Australian water polo team with more than 500 appearances for Australia and a winner of the Order of Australia in January; John Landy-need I describe him any further; Joyce Brown, the Chairman of Australian Netball; Lisa Curry, gold medal swimmer; Bruce McDonald, the secretary of my Department; Libbie Darlison, sports sociologist; Geoff Pollard, distinguished Sydney academic and Chairman of the New South Wales Lawn Tennis Association; and Kevan Gosper, recently retired chief executive of Shell and a highly distinguished Australian. These are the people the honourable member for McPherson maligns every time he comes into this House. He is now becoming like the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt)-a graduate of the Greiner school of sleazy accusations. Every time he comes into this House he accuses someone of corruption, dishonesty and malpractice. Mr Blunt —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I find the Minister's remarks offensive and I ask that he withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will withdraw. Mr JOHN BROWN —If the honourable member finds my description offensive, I will withdraw it. The simple facts are as described by a former leader of the Liberal Party: There are millions of votes in sport; and we have the lot of them. The more Opposition members proceed down this path of maligning the Institute and prominent Australians involved in sport, the fewer votes they will get from sport. They have just gone down the track a little further with that silly letter they sent to sporting bodies about the introduction of the Sports Aid Foundation. The reports that I have had back from sporting bodies indicate just how little respect the Opposition is getting. I would have thought better of the honourable member for McPherson; I thought he was a decent individual. I cannot describe his predecessor in anything but bad terms. It seems to me such a pity that sport, which should be an apolitical subject-and as a shadow Minister I carried it as an apolitical subject for three years and had great co-operation with Ministers responsible for sport-should be politicised by the honourable member for McPherson and the honourable member for Richmond who have taken the opposite tack at their own great expense. The honourable member for McPherson is considered a clown by every sporting body and his predecessor has gone and is not lamented. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Hawke to present a Bill for an Act to require certain employers to promote equal opportunity for women in employment, to establish the office of the Director of Affirmative Action, and for related purposes. Mr Young to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, and for related purposes. Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975. Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act to make provision in relation to Australian citizenship. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 18 February 1986: Defence Act-Determination-1986-No. 4-Education Allowance and other allowances. Family Law Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 341, 342. Treaties-Text of- Which have been signed by Australia and which require further treaty action by Australia before the treaty can enter into force for Australia- (1) Final Acts of the First Sessions of the World Administrative Radio Conference of the International Telecommunications Union on the Use of the Geostationary Satellite Orbit signed at Geneva on 13 September 1985, signed for Australia on 13 September 1985. (2) Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984 signed for Australia on 10 December 1985. (3) Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China for the Avoidance of Double Taxation of Income and Revenues Deprived by Air Transport Enterprises from International Air Transport, signed at Beijing on 22 November 1985. (4) Reciprocal Agreement between Australia and Italy in the Matter of Health Assistance, signed at Rome on 9 January 1986. To which Australia has become a party by signature- (5) Exchange of Notes at Canberra on 26 November 1985 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan further extending the Agreement on Co-operation in Research and Development in Science and Technology, done at Canberra on 27 November 1980. The Agreement entered into force on 26 November 1985. (6) Exchange of Notes at Bangkok on 3 September 1982 and 17 May 1984 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand amending the Agreement relating to Air Services, done at Bangkok on 26 February 1960. The Agreement entered into force on 17 May 1984. (7) Subsidiary Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea concerning Squid Jigging by fishing vessels of the Republic of Korea, signed at Canberra on 28 November 1985. The Agreement was deemed to have entered into force on 1 October 1985 pursuant to the provisions of Article X. (8) Exchange of Notes at Singapore on 18 and 24 July 1985 constituting an Agreement between Australia and Singapore to Terminate the Agreement concerning the Provision of Treatment in Singapore Hospitals for Asian Residents of Christmas Island, signed at Singapore on 27 June 1968. The Agreement entered into force pursuant to the provision of the Notes on 16 October 1985. (9) Exchange of Notes at Washington on 15 October 1985 and 10 January 1986 constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America further extending and amending the Agreement relating to Scientific and Technical Co-operation, signed at Canberra on 16 October 1968. The Agreement entered into force pursuant to the provisions of the Notes on 16 October 1985. Which Australia has accepted or to which Australia has acceded- (10) Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations, done at the Hague on 1 June 1970, acceded to by Australia on 24 September 1985. The Convention entered into force for Australia on 23 Australia 1985. (11) Regional Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Diplomas and Degrees in Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific, done at Bangkok on 16 December 1983, accepted by Australia on 23 September 1985. The Convention entered into force on 22 October 1985. To which Australia has become a party by ratification- (12) Convention (No. 142) concerning Vocational Guidance and Vocational Training in the Development of Human Resources, signed at Geneva on 23 June 1975, ratified by Australia on 10 September 1985. The Convention will enter into force for Australia on 9 September 1986. (13) Convention (No. 150) concerning Labour Administration; Role, Functions and Organisation, signed at Geneva on 26 June 1978, ratified by Australia on 10 September 1985. The Convention will enter into force for Australia on 9 September 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Questions Nos. 1930-1957) Mr Ruddock asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) Will he bring up to date the answer to question No. 1121 (Hansard, 2 May 1984, page 1708; 5 June 1984, page 2940) giving details of consultants engaged by him and his Department. (2) Further to the answer to that question were (a) quotations, (b) publicly-invited tenders, (c) a fixed scale or (d) other methods used to establish an appropriate fee. (3) What instalment payee tax deductions have been made in relation to all fees and charges paid. (4) What criteria are used to determine in which cases instalment payee tax deductions will be made. (5) If deductions are not made, what information is given to the Commissioner of Taxation of payments made to consultants. (6) What weight was given to rulings of the Commissioner of Taxation on what constitutes an independent contractor. Mr Ruddock asked similar questions of all other Ministers, upon notice, on the same day. Mr Willis —With the concurrence of all Ministers, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions Nos 1930-1957: (1) Information concerning consultants engaged by each Minister is provided and brought up to date by the Special Minister of State, who reports annually to the Parliament on this subject. The Minister's 1984-85 report was tabled in the Parliament on 28 November 1985. Questions similar to the honourable member's were also asked of all Ministers on 23 May 1985 by the honourable member for Richmond (Nos 1233-1260) and answers are progressively being submitted. (2) Detailed guidelines on the engagement of consultants were issued by the Public Service Board, in consultation with the Department of Finance, in 1978. A copy of these has been provided to the honourable member, together with a copy of another document laying down the general conditions of contracts for consultancy services. Matters covered in both documents are being re-examined but the work is not yet completed. Section 2.1.2 of the guidelines notes that Finance Regulation 52AA (2) exempts the supply of certain services from the requirement to go through the usual public tender/quotation processes. The Appendix to Finance Directions Section 25 (originally Section 31) lists the exempted services, which include management consultancy services and a range of other specialist services. Rates of payment for Ministers' consultants are determined by agreement, with advice from the Public Service Board. Rates of payment for other consultants are generally set by market forces and bases on the time, skill and contribution required. Fee scales for academics engaged as consultants and persons engaged as guest lecturers are set by the Public Service Board. The rates set are maximum rates rather than usual or standard payments. A copy of the fee scales has also been provided to the honourable member. (3) to (6) Information regarding the taxation affairs of individual consultants is confidential and cannot be disclosed by the Commissioner of Taxation. The general principles relating to tax instalment deductions from payments of salary or wages are set out in Taxation Ruling No. IT 2129 (released on 19 March 1985), a copy of which has been provided to the honourable member. Briefly, tax instalments must be deducted from payments to individuals who are employees as ordinarily understood (as set out in paragraphs 25 to 32 of the Ruling). If the payments are not made to an employee as such, then deductions must be made from any payments which are prescribed under the Prescribed Payments System provisions. Where payments are not prescribed payments, tax instalments must be deducted from certain payments made under a contract that is wholly or principally for the labour of the person to whom the payments are made (as discussed in paragraphs 33 to 49 of the Ruling). If none of the above conditions applies and if the payment is not otherwise covered by the definitions of `salary or wages' in sub-section 221A (1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, there is no requirement to deduct tax instalments. Where there is no requirement to deduct tax instalments from payments made to consultants, principals are not, unless requested, under a legal obligation to furnish information to the Commissioner of Taxation. As indicated above, matters relating to consultants, including the conditions of contracts for consultancy services, are currently being re-examined. (Question No. 2117) Mr Staples asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) In what way do conditions and regulations of entry of United States citizens visiting or employed at Australia-United States joint facilities in Australia differ from those applying to Australians on re-entry or to the entry of other nationalities. (2) Under what statutes or policy directives administered by the Minister's Department are these exemptions allowed. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Members of the United States forces or members of the civilian component i.e. civilian employees of the United States Government, and their dependants travelling to or staying in Australia under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the United States and Australia do not require visas for Australia, or entry permits, provided they hold a movement order or certificate of status. However, employees of private American companies working at joint facilities in Australia are required to meet normal requirements for entry to Australia, including being issued with visas and entry permits. In addition, dependants of SOFA personnel admitted under the exemptions set out above are not subject to the restrictions on employment in Australia which are imposed on the dependants of other temporary residents. This concession is granted on a reciprocal basis i.e. dependants of personnel of the Australian Armed Forces in the USA are also permitted to work. People travelling to Australia on Australian or New Zealand passports do not require visas and are not issued with entry permits (except for New Zealanders who would otherwise be prohibited non-citizens under Section 16 of the Migration Act). With a few limited exceptions (e.g. members of the Royal Family, members of the armed forces of Commonwealth countries) nationals of other countries are required to obtain the appropriate visa for travel to Australia and are issued with an entry permit on arrival which would allow either an indefinite stay or a specific limited period of stay appropriate to their purpose of entry. (2) Paragraph 8 (1) (e) of the Migration Act 1958 provides for a person to be exempted, by instrument under the hand of the Minister, from the entry permit requirements of the Act. Paragraph 11c (1) (b) of the Migration Act 1958 makes similar provision in respect of visa requirements. SOFA personnel and their dependants are included in a class of persons so exempted. The absence of employment restrictions on dependants of SOFA personnel accords with the concessions available to dependants of personnel of the Australian Armed Forces in the USA. The guidelines are contained in the Temporary Entry Handbook Part I, section 9.2 and Annex 23. (Question No. 2137) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) Does the Parliament House Construction Authority have the objectives (a) of using Australian designed and manufactured furniture, wherever possible, in fitting out the new Parliament House and (b) of allowing sufficient time to negotiate for manufacture in Australia under licence where there is no suitable design available. (2) What is the estimated date by which the basis for defining appropriate selection/procurement procedures will be completed by the Authority. (3) Will sufficient time be given to permit the greatest possible involvement of the Australian furniture industry in the project. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (2) 28 February 1986. (3) Yes. Detailed discussions have been held with the furniture trade guilds to ensure that the Australian furniture industry's involvement in the project is maximised. (Question No. 2226) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: (1) Did he receive an application from the New South Wales Government on behalf of the Newcastle City Council for a grant of $400,000 to acquire a military museum collection under the Steel Industries Assistance Program (SIAP); if so, what dates appeared on the application from the City of Newcastle and on any supporting documents. (2) Was the application submitted through a Minister of the Crown from New South Wales; if so, who was the Minister and what dates appeared on the correspondence and any supporting documents. (3) When did he receive the application. (4) What inquiries and from whom, including Government-to-Government inquiries, were made of him before the application was received, either orally or in writing, concerning the purchase of a military museum collection. (5) Was any advice given to inquirers, including advice on a Government-to-Government basis, on the likely outcome of any application; if so, who made the inquiries. (6) What was the advice given and when was it given. (7) Was the advice in writing; if so, will he table a copy in the House. (8) Was the advice given in such a form as to suggest Ministerial or Government support for any application for funding to acquire a military museum collection. (9) Had his attention been drawn to the sale, by auction, of the Tuggerah Lakes Military Museum, New South Wales, on 21 November 1984, and that the purchaser, the City of Newcastle, relied upon assurances it believed had been received from him on behalf of the Government before $400,000 was spent acquiring the military museum collection. (10) Did he advise a State Minister in writing, on 11 June 1985, in relation to the same application, that following strong representations from parliamentary representatives in the Hunter region concerning the appropriateness of acquisition of the museum, he no longer considered that the project had the necessary degree of public support and that the purchase of the military collection would not represent an appropriate use of SIAP funds and he had therefore decided not to provide funds for the purchase of the collection under the program; if so, who were the parliamentary representatives in the Hunter region referred to in that advice. (11) Did the representatives make representations orally or in writing. (12) What was the nature of the representations and if they were in writing, will he table a copy of them in the House. (13) Was his attention drawn, following the sale of the collection and his refusal to provide a grant to the Council, to strong support for the purchase of the military collection from the Newcastle Regional Maritime Museum, the Returned Services League, the Hunter Regional Committee of the National Trust, Fort Scratchley Local Committee, Hunter and Lower North Coast Tourist Authority, the Vietnam Legion and the Newcastle Chamber of Commerce and Industry; if so, could such support be considered in deciding if the purchase of the military collection had the necessary degree of support, the criterion given by him as being necessary for approving a grant under SIAP. (14) Will he reconsider approving an SIAP grant for the purchase of the Tuggerah Lakes collection given the widespread public support in the Hunter region from widely representative organisations. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (14) The Steel Regions Assistance Program is certainly providing an important contribution to the diversification of the employment base of the steel regions of New South Wales consequent on the decline in the steel industry in these areas. In particular, the tourism component of the program has been instrumental in developing the tourism potential of the regions and in generating additional regional income and employment opportunities in what can accurately be described as a labour intensive growth industry. One of the proposals to come forward from the New South Wales Government for funding under the Program did involve the provision of $400,000 to the Newcastle City Council to acquire a military museum collection. While I gave my in principle approval to this proposal for funding under the Program on 21 November 1984, I subsequently decided to withdraw my support for the project when considering the formal application. This latter decision was made on the basis of the information contained in the formal application and took into account the views of the parliamentary representatives in the Hunter region and the limited funds available under the Program. In my view other competing expenditure priorities under the Program are more worthly of support. I believe there has not been sufficient evidence of widespread community support for the proposal from widely representative organisations in the Hunter region. If it could be demonstrated however that this did exist I would be prepared to look again at the proposal against the background of other projects being considered. (Question No. 2405) Mr Scott asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 13 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the answer given by the former Minister for Defence to my question No. 1492 (Hansard, 4 September 1984, page 557) stating that Australia's co-operation with the United States on electro-magnetic launcher weapons projects was not related to any possible strategic or space applications. (2) Is it a fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated on 16 November 1984 that Australia would suspend high velocity weapons research with the United States immediately if the research was contributing to the United States Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI). (3) What restrictions are there on access of (a) United States scientists, (b) the United States Defense Department and (c) the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency to Australian Electro-magnetic rail gun research. (4) Has Australia indicated to the United States and the Soviet Union its policy in respect of development of weapons which could breach anti-ballistic missile, chemical, outer space and other weapon limitation treaties: if so, what statements were made to those countries. (5) Have published papers of scientists involved in Australia's rail gun research discussed their work's potential for development as outerspace weaponry. (6) Is the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) the principal United States party to the agreement for transfer of Australian rail gun research findings to the United States. (7) Has DARPA directly funded Australian research. (8) Is the Minister able to say whether (a) DARPA Head, Dr Robert Cooper, told the United States Congress in March 1984 that DARPA (i) is represented on the SDI Executive Committee (ii) gets SDI budget funds for electro-magnetic guns technology and (iii) will cooperate with SDI in all fields and (d) during the same Congress hearings, United States Under-Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Mr Richard De Lauer, indicated five technical areas of SDI including kinetic energy weapons, such as interceptor missiles and hypervelocity guns. (9) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report on rail guns in Aviation Week and Space Technology of July 1984, which indicated that past conventional rail gun concepts were overshadowed by the concept of basing the gun in space to fire 60 shots per second at over a 100 km per second to ranges over 1600 km, with research proceeding, among other fields, on generators and plasma drive systems, and with prospects of SDI applications rather than those of particle beams or high-energy lasers; if so, is Australia proceeding with those two fields of rail gun research. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) In a media conference in Adelaide on 16 November 1984, I pointed out that Australian involvement in research into electro-magnetic rail gun technology was decidedly modest-a total expenditure of a little over $2m since 1979-and restricted to the exploring the potential of this technology for Australian defence requirements (for example, defence against sea-skimming anti-ship missiles). In this context I also said that `if there was any evidence that (this research) was to be applied in the ``Star Wars'' technology development, the Strategic Defense Initiative, as it is properly called, then we would immediately suspend our involvement with the Americans'. (4) The Government believes that it is very important to preserve and protect the integrity of the existing regime of arms control and disarmament agreements. This view has been clearly conveyed to the United States and the Soviet Union both in correspondence from the Prime Minister and me to counterparts in these countries and during the bilateral discussions on disarmament that have been held at the level of senior officials with each of these countries. (3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9) These parts of the question touch on matters which fall within the portfolio of the Minister for Defence. Answers to these parts of the question will be provided in the response by the Minister for Defence to Question on Notice No. 2406. (Question No. 2423) Mr Burr asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 March 1985: (1) Is it a fact that many offices of Government Departments use the Canberra Mail Centre for bulk mail purposes. (2) Does the bulk mailing sometimes include many items that are endorsed as priority paid mail. (3) Does priority paid mail carry an extra charge of 80 cents per item to cover guaranteed delivery in 24 hours. (4) Is it a fact that (a) postal officials advise that the closing time for guaranteed delivery for certain areas is 3 p.m. and (b) most Department bulk mail is posted on or about 5 p.m.; if so, does this represent a waste of consolidated revenue. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from Australia Post, is as follows: (1) Some Government Departments regularly lodge bulk postings at the Canberra Mail Centre. These include: Australian Bureau of Statistics Department of Finance Health Insurance Commission Australian National University Australian National Gallery National Library Department of Resources and Energy-Bureau of Mineral Resources Patents Trademarks and Design Office Australian Government Publishing Service (2) On occasions, Priority Paid articles accompany bulk mail lodgments but these are presented separately. (3) The charge for Priority Paid mail consists of postage plus a Priority Paid fee of 80 cents per item. The service provides money back guarantee for next working day delivery to specified delivery areas. (4) (a) The final posting time of 3 p.m. applies to Priority Paid articles lodged at the Canberra Mail Centre, on Monday to Thursday (6 p.m. on Friday), for guaranteed next working day delivery in the Bathurst, Gosford and Newcastle Mail Centre Regions. Note: The latest lodgment times for next working day delivery in the Sydney metropolitan area and for adjoining Mail Centre Regions are 6 p.m. Monday to Thursday (2 p.m. Saturday) and for interstate capital city metropolitan areas are 4 p.m. Monday to Thursday (2 p.m. Saturday). (b) Most Departmental bulk mail is regularly lodged before the final posting times. (Bulk mail addressed to the Bathurst, Gosford and Newcastle Mail Centre Regions and interstate capital city metropolitan areas, except Darwin, should be posted before 2 p.m. Monday to Thursday and 5 p.m. Friday in order to be delivered on the next working day after posting. Bulk mail addressed to Darwin is delivered the second working day after posting. Bulk mail addressed to the Sydney metropolitan area and the Goulburn Mail Centre region should be delivered on the next working day after posting, if lodged at the Canberra Mail Centre before 5 p.m. Monday-Friday). (Question No. 2562) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: (1) Is it a fact that on Saturday, 17 August 1985 at the Sydney Opera House a member of the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association disconnected the power supply to Australian Broadcasting Corporation television equipment, thereby preventing the simulcast transmission of the Australian Opera's production of A Masked Ball. (2) Are there any sections of the Broadcasting and Television Act relating to hindrance of broadcasts; if so, which sections. (3) If a contravention of the Broadcasting and Television Act has occurred, is the Government considering or has it initiated action against the union or one of its members under the Act; if not, why not. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 17 August 1985 electric power supply was cut off from the ABC's Outside Broadcasting vans at the Sydney Opera House, resulting in the cessation of the simulcast transmission of the opera A Masked Ball. The circumstances of this incident are the subject of investigation by the Australian Federal Police (see (3) below). (2) Section 124A (1) of the Broadcasting Act 1942 provides: `A person shall not knowingly prevent, obstruct or otherwise interfere with the broadcasting or televising of programs from a station by the Corporation or a licensee, or knowingly interfere with, or with the operation of, a station'. (3) The matter has been referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. Further action will be considered in the light of the report of the results of the investigation, when it is received. (Question No. 2623) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: Which questions placed on notice within the last (a) month, (b) 6 weeks, (c) 2 months, (d) 3 months, (e) 4 months and (f) 6 months to 19 November 1985 had not received a final answer at that date. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Questions on Notice for which answers had not been lodged with Hansard by 19 November 1985, were: (a) 2323, 2351, 2369, 2370, 2371, 2523, 2553 (b) 2071, 2099, 2248 (c) 1955 (d) 1416, 1485, 1513, 1593, 1650 (e) nil. (f) nil. (Question No. 2707) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement in the Australian of 30 October 1985 in support of the Builders Labourers Federation, in which it was stated that the advertisement was supported by the (a) Abortion Counselling Service, (b) ACOA Rank and File Committee in Defence of Trade Union Rights, (c) ACT Shelter, (d) ACT Squatters Union, (e) ACT Youth Accommodation Group, (f) ACT Youth Forum, (g) Beryl Women's Refuge, (h) Campaign against Repression in the Pacific Area, (i) Canberra & South East Region Environment Centre, (j) Canberra Youth Refuge, (k) Chile Solidarity Committee, (l) Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Turkey, (m) Committee in Solidarity with Central America, (n) Interchange Community Youth Support Scheme, (o) Jobless Action, (p) Jobline, (q) National Landrights Now Committee, (r) Photo Access, (s) Philippine Action Support Group, (t) Rape Crises Centre, (u) Reachout, (v) Schools Against the Bomb, (w) Southern Africa Support Campaign of Australia, (x) Soweto Mobilisation Committee, (y) Students Against Apartheid, (z) Staff of Public Radio 2XX, (za) Toora-Single Women's Shelter, (zb) Women Against Racism and (zc) Trade Union Rights Committee. (2) Do any of the listed organisations receive financial support or grants from the Minister's Department or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister. (3) If so, has the Minister's Department or statutory authority received or searched the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission register for annual financial accounts and balance sheets of each organisation receiving funds. (4) Is each grant conditional upon (a) the submission of audited annual accounts and balance sheets and (b) a commitment to use the funds for the purpose for which the grant was made. (5) Does each grant permit use of funds contributed for political advertisements; if not, what checks have been made or will be made to ensure that the advertisement was not paid from grant funds. (6) Has each organisation receiving funds evidenced a capacity to raise money either in the past or in the year in question for its own purposes. (7) Have further applications for financial support been received or are likely to be received from each organisation; if so, will a check be made to ensure that the conditions of earlier grants have been honoured. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Community Development Fund (CDF) grants were made in 1985-86 to the following organisations listed in question (1). Abortion Counselling Service ACT Youth Accommodation Group ACT Youth Forum Beryl Women's Refuge Canberra & South East Region Environment Centre Canberra Youth Refuge Jobless Action Jobline Rape Crisis Centre Community Radio 2XX Toora-Single Women's Shelter (3) Under the Community Development Fund Ordinance 1981, sponsored by the then Minister for the Capital Territory the Hon. W. M. Hodgman, M.P., there is no requirement for organisations receiving CDF grants to be incorporated. Therefore, no search is normally conducted by my Department of the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission register. (4) Yes. (5) Each grant permits the use of funds only for those purposes outlined in the application. Organisations to which grants are made are required to provide a written certification and audited financial statements. At the end of the grant period checks are carried out to ensure that all organisations and individuals in receipt of grants have complied with the Conditions of Grant. (6) Yes. (7) Further applications have been received and a check will be made to ensure that the conditions of earlier grants have been honoured. (Question No. 2717) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 26 November 1985: (1) How many children in the electoral division of Lowe are aged (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3 and (d) 4. (2) How many places are there in the electoral division of Lowe for (a) long day care, (b) family day care, (c) occasional care, (d) evening and weekend care and (e) pre-school kindergarten for each age group. (3) For how many children is each child care centre within the electoral division of Lowe licensed to provide. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) Children aged 1 year-1275* (b) Children aged 2 years-1213* (c) Children aged 3 years-1227* (d) Children aged 4 years-1245* * (Source: 1981 Australian Bureau of Statistics Census of Population and Housing. ABS advised that no population projections for 1985 are available for areas other than on a State basis.) (2) The number of places funded by the Commonwealth under the Children's Service Program in the electoral division of Lowe are: (a) long day care centres-260 places; (b) family day care-365 places; (c) occasional care-25 places. This does not include non-Commonwealth funded child care places such as those funded by other bodies or those in the private sector. There is only one mono-functional occasional care service in the electoral division of Lowe funded by the Children's Services Program. However, in New South Wales the majority of occasional care centres are funded by the State Department of Youth and Community Services. (d) There are no specific evening and weekend care services but family day care can be used for these periods. (However, in addition to the above there is a total of 160 places in outside school hours care services in the Lowe electorate.) and (e) Funding for Pre-School Centres ceased on December 31, 1984. Up to that date the Commonwealth provided a block grant and did not keep statistics on pre-school places. (Services funded under the Children's Services Program are not specific to any age group and cater for children from under one year to school age and up to about 12 years in the case of outside school hours care services.) (3) Only child care centres are required to be licensed-285 places are licensed in 6 Commonwealth funded centres. (Question No. 2770) Mr Maher asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 27 November 1985: Is it a fact that (a) 3 stamp vending machines and (b) other postal vending machines located at Westfield, Burwood, New South Wales, have been out of service since March 1985; if so, when will they be recommissioned. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, from information provided by Australia Post, is as follows: (a) and (b) Yes. Because of their inability to cater for the new basic postage rate of 33 cents applying from 4 March 1985, all 2c, 5c and 10c coil stamp selling machines in New South Wales, including the three at Westfield, Burwood, were placed out of service on 1 March 1985 by removal of the stamp coils. Westfield, Burwood was scheduled to be provided with one of the 140 Stamp Folder Vending Machines which Australia Post took delivery of in July 1985. These machines needed to be modified and converted for the use of $1 stamp folders before being put into service. This work was progressively undertaken but proceeded slowly due to problems with the supply of conversion kits. Although it was planned to install one of these machines at Westfield, Burwood, on 8 December 1985, due to an oversight, this was not achieved and the machine was not installed at Westfield, Burwood, until 9 January 1986. (Question No. 2870) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) How many nursing homes are there within the electoral division of Hughes. (2) What level of subsidy did each nursing home receive in 1984-85 and what level of subsidy is each to receive in 1985-86. (3) How is the level of subsidy determined. Mr Howe —The Minister for Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Within the electorate of Hughes there are 5 approved nursing homes currently operating. Of these there are 2 `Participating Private Enterprise' homes and 1 `Participating Religious and Charitable' home approved under the National Health Act, and 2 `Deficit Finance' homes approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act. (2) The levels of Commonwealth funding to these homes under the relevant legislation for 1984/85 and 1985/86 is as follows: NATIONAL HEALTH ACT Participating Private Enterprise (i) Lark Ellen Nursing Home 133 Jannali Avenue Sutherland 2232 40 beds 1984-85 = 436,730 1985-86 = $574,000 (estimate at current approved fee levels) (ii) The Palms Nursing Home 454 President Avenue Kirrawee 2232 34 beds 1984-85 = $345,306 1985-86 = $426,000 (estimate at current approved fee levels) Participating Religious & Charitable (i) The John Paul Nursing Home 1 The Avenue Heathcote 2233 (received approval to operate from 17 October 1985) 47 beds 1985-86 = $424,000 (estimate at current approved fee levels) Nursing Homes Assistance Act (i) Hammondville Nursing Home Judd Avenue Hammondville 2170 150 beds 1984-85 = $2,093,383 1985-86 = $2,001,337 (approved budget) (ii) Chesalon Jannali Nursing Home 15 Lenna Place Jannali 2226 52 beds 1984-85 = $581,835 1985-86 = $608,126 (approved budget) (3) For patients accommodated in nursing homes approved under the National Health Act, the basic daily benefit varies from State to State and is reviewed annually. In reviewing basic benefits each year the general principle adopted by the Commonwealth has been to set benefits at a level in each State which, together with the statutory minimum patient contribution, covers fees charged for 70 per cent of beds in the State in non-Government nursing homes approved under the National Health Act. Benefit levels for non-Government nursing homes in all States, except Victoria and South Australia, were increased with effect from 14 November 1985 in line with this policy. In New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory the basic benefit is currently $36.80 per patient per day and the statutory minimum patient contribution is $14.10 per day. All patients assessed as requiring extensive care attract an extra benefit of $6 per day. For nursing homes approved under the Nursing Homes Assistance Act, the Commonwealth meets their approved operating deficits and the cost of replacing assets. Nil. (Question No. 2986) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Communications the following question, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What was the level of funding for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in each year since 1974-75. (2) What is the estimated increase in funding for the ABC in 1986-86 as compared with: (a) 1981-82; (b) 1982-83; and (c) 1984-85. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) the level of funding provided in Budgets for the ABC for the period 1974-75-1985-86 was: Year Amount $ 1974-75... 122.299m 1975-76... 132.800m 1976-77... 139.046m 1977-78... 140.518m 1978-79... 146.032m 1979-80... 158.500m 1980-81... 184.062m 1981-82... 236.408m 1982-83... 260.786m 1983-84... 292.417m 1984-85... 347.000m 1985-86... 395.000m (2) Based on the above figures, the increase in funding for the ABC in 1985-86 compared to (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 (c) 1984-85 was: (a) $158.592M (67 per cent); (b) $134.214M (52 per cent); (c) $48.000M (14 per cent). In real terms (using the non-farm product indicators) the estimated increase in funding is as follows: (a) 1981-82, 30 per cent; (b) 1982-83, 28 per cent; (c) 1984-85, 5 per cent. (Question No. 2989) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Communications the following question, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What action has he taken to initiate a study into the most appropriate ways of eliminating sexism in the content of the media. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on information provided to me by the broadcasting authorities in my portfolio, is as follows: My responsibilities, as Minister for Communications, extend only to the broadcast media. In this respect, my Department has not carried out any specific investigation into sexism in the content of the broadcast media. Nevertheless, I am advised that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) conducted a National Television Standards Survey in 1979. The document is primarily concerned with offering suggestions for ways in which the media can more realistically present women, their lifestyles, opinions, ideas and aspirations. In 1984, the ABT established a Committee to gauge public concern about sexism and to consider what action should be taken. The move followed the release in 1983 of a Federal Government pamphlet on its suggested guidelines called `Fair Exposure'. In 1985, the Tribunal's Research Branch produced a bibliography on Sex Role Stereotyping and Representation of Women in the Media. The Bibliography includes books, reports and articles from journals and conference papers relevant to the presentation of women in the media. I am advised that since 1980, the ABC has been publicly committed to the principles of Equal Employment Opportunity and combating all forms of discrimination because of irrelevant characteristics such as sex and marital status. Through a comprehensive EEO program, the EO Unit supported by Management, works to combat sexism in the organisation. Some of the measures taken which deal specifically with the issue of sexism in the ABC and its effect on the content of the media include: Preparation and issuing, by the Directors of Radio and TV, of non-sexist language guidelines to all ABC broadcasters. Organising and conducting seminars and workshops to improve the awareness of middle and senior level management to the issue of sexism in the ABC. Conducting Seminars which address the portrayal of the contemporary `Image of Women on TV' for all staff involved in program production. It can be expected that, because the percentage of female news journalists continues to improve, and has increased from 19% in April 1983, to 25% in June 1985, and in the same period, the percentage of female reporters in Public Affairs (Radio and TV) has increased from between 25/26%-29%, a positive impact on the portrayal of women's role will result. With the continuing implementation of a range of EEO measures, there has been a marked improvement in the awareness level of all staff to the issue of sexism, and this has been reflected both in employment practices and in the program output. I am informed also by the SBS that programming oriented towards women and women's issues represents a significant portion of programs within the overall objectives of the organisation. The SBS pursues the policy of using women in high profile positions not only in programs dealing with women's issues as such, but also across the board in general broadcasting functions, including news, current affairs, entertainment and sport. By thus presenting women in a positive role as part of the total broadcasting function, the SBS hopes to achieve a greater awareness of the actual and potential contributions of women in its overall audience. The SBS considers that radio 2EA and 3EA services are particularly sensitive to the needs of women. SBS believes that the cumulative effect of its various radio programs on its audiences will result in their becoming sensitised to the role of women in Australian society in contrast to the role played in their own culture. In purchasing television programs, the SBS has attempted to respect cultural differences in the perception of women. The SBS considers that by virtue of the varied overseas productions SBS purchases, stereotypes of women developed in Australia and America are automatically challenged. As a general comment, SBS TV, while respecting these cultural differences as mentioned above, has also purchased some films which directly challenge our own culture's formerly accepted views of women, and other films by women directors. SBS avoids films where women are portrayed only in a grossly exploitative way. The various program producing companies which have work contracted out to them by the SBS are required to follow SBS guidelines which include ensuring that the portrayal of women and girls should not create or reinforce sexual or racial stereotypes. (Question No. 3036) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Are there any situations where Aboriginal or Islander workers do not receive the standard rate of pay for a job and the same industrial protection as that received by other Australians; if so, what are they. (2) What action has been taken in respect of each situation. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Aboriginal and Islander people have the same rights to award payments and conditions and protection of their rights as all other workers in Australia. Aboriginals and Islanders, however, among other groups, suffer significant workforce disadvantages. They are generally in low skilled or short term jobs or in remote areas where award terms of conditions are less effectively enforced. Salaries paid by the Commonwealth direct to Aboriginals or Islanders conform to the applicable award. Where the Commonwealth funds Aboriginal organisations or State and local government agencies the salary and wage component of the funding is based on award rates or, in award free areas, either on a suitable Commonwealth or State public service classification or the awards for work of a similar nature or requiring similar skills or levels of experience. It is the responsibility of those agencies and organisations, however, to ensure that the correct rates are actually paid. Under the Community Development Employment Program remote Aboriginal communities receive the aggregate value of the Unemployment Benefit entitlement of the community members plus 20% of that amount to carry out employment oriented projects designed to improve the social and cultural life of the community. Usually the participants work part-time for award rates. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is concerned that wages paid by State and local government authorities and within the private sector conform to the appropriate awards and conditions. There are, however, regular complaints of widespread under-award payments by the Queensland Government to its Aboriginal and Islander employees on Queensland reserves. (2) My Department has employed Mr Robert Gleeson on a consultancy basis to investigate the wages and conditions applying to Aboriginal and Islander people on Queensland reserves, to inform Aboriginals and Community Councils about award conditions and to seek the constructive involvement of the appropriate trade unions in the introduction of award conditions on reserves. Largely as a result of Mr Gleeson's consultancy, the Queensland Nurses Union has negotiated award rates for Aboriginal and Islander nursing and auxiliary staff employed by the Queensland Department of Health; the Queensland Department of Education is providing award rates of pay and conditions to Aboriginal and Islander staff; the Australian Workers' Union has successfully negotiated a number of industrial agreements; and the Municipal Officers Association, the Federated Engine drivers and Firemen's Association, the Federal Miscellaneous Workers' Union and the Transport Workers' Union are offering appropriate coverage, assistance and protection to Aboriginal and Islander workers on Queensland reserves. (Question No. 3038) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) Has he commenced negotiations with the States and Territories to have a day observed as National Aboriginal and Islanders Day. (2) What States and Territories have agreed to this proposal. (3) What actions and initiatives has each State and Territory government taken to commemorate National Aboriginal and Islanders Day. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The honourable member will be aware that the Commonwealth Government has supported the activities of the National Aborigines' Day Observance Committee in promoting greater awareness and understanding of Aboriginal issues and Aboriginal culture during National Aborigines' Week, held each year in September. We welcome participation by the States in these activities. The possibility has been raised from time to time that a public holiday be declared for a National Aboriginal and Islanders Day. Such a proposal has not, however, been taken up with the States and Territories. (2) See (1). (3) This is a matter for each State and Territory Government to decide for itself. Some support has been provided by individual governments, whether by way of funds or activities. (Question No. 3044) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What community amenities, services and facilities for office workers are provided in major new Government developments, or development initiated by statutory authorities under the Government's control. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A Code of Practice on `The Provision of Amenities in Commonwealth Government Employment' was promulgated in December 1984 by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. This Code outlines desirable minimum requirements for the provision of amenities for employees of departments and authorities staffed under the Public Service Act, working in Commonwealth-owned or leased premises. The Code provides for services and amenities such as toilet facilities, heating and ventilation, dining and lunch rooms, food services, facilities for the disabled, recreation facilities and car parking. The inclusion in the Code of additional facilities of a broader community nature would require careful consideration by Government bearing in mind current financial constraints. My Department recently issued revised Commonwealth Office Accommodation Guidelines which draw the attention of departments to the above Code of Practice in planning for accommodation. (Question No. 3106) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Will the Government hold discussions with (a) the shire of Flinders, (b) the Victorian Government and (c) any other individuals or organisations prior to any further announcements as to the future usage of the Commonwealth land at Portsea no longer required for defence purposes; if so, (d) when will the discussions be held and (e) with whom. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a), (b) and (c) Yes. (d) and (e) A joint Commonwealth-State Working Party has been convened to determine the details of the land transfer arrangements and to examine the future use and management of the area. The Working Party, which has met twice, includes representatives of the Commonwealth Departments of Local Government and Administrative Services, Defence and Housing and Construction; the Victorian Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, the Ministry for Planning and the Environment; and a representative of the Shire of Flinders. On 18 December 1985, in a joint statement with the Victorian Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, I announced that a planning team will be appointed to prepare a management plan for the area with emphasis being given to public involvement. Interested individuals and organisations will be encouraged to contribute to the planning process. (Question No. 3142) Mr Hodgman asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Does he accept responsibility for the Government's decision to sell the Belconnen Mall, Australian Capital Territory, to the Westfield Property Trust and the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust for $87m. (2) Is he able to say whether the Minister for Territories stated that $87m was the highest bid for the Belconnen Mall; if so, does he support the statement. (3) Is it a fact that tenders were submitted by (a) a Western Australian property trust, Growth Equities Mutual Ltd, for $102m payable by instalments, plus rental and interest and (b) a South Australian bidder for $95m on terms; if so, were both the tenders based on expert valuations which established that the Belconnen Mall was worth more than $87m. (4) Does he accept the high professional expertise and integrity of (a) Colliers International Property Consultants and (b) the Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd. (5) Did he instruct the Minister for Territories to formally direct the Canberra Commercial Development Authority to execute the agreement with the Westfield Property Trust and the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. (6) Has the authority passed a resolution stating that it will not accept any responsibility for the contents of the agreement and for any consequences flowing from it. (7) Is it a fact that less than 24 hours elapsed between the close of tenders and the Government's decision to sell the Belconnen Mall to the Westfield Property Trust and the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. (8) Did any Minister have authority to state in September 1985 that the Westfield Property Trust and the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust would be the successful bidder for the Belconnen Mall. (9) Has his attention been drawn to the sale of an area of land with approval for a 45,000 square metre shopping complex at Tuggeranong, Australian Capital Territory, for $21.1m; if so, on the basis of that sale is it a fact that the Belconnen Mall would be worth $100m. (10) Will he explain what he meant by his public statements about (a) `flogging off' the assets of the people and (b) rich friends in private enterprise. (11) How does he justify that the Belconnen Mall has not been `flogged off' at a low price. (12) Did he discuss with Mr Frank Lowy of Westfield Property Trust the sale of the Belconnen Mall to the Westfield Property Trust (a) before or (b) after the close of tenders; if so, (i) on what dates, (ii) at what places and (iii) what were the material particulars of the discussions. (13) Has he been on the motor cruiser Ilona in 1985 and 1986 in the course of his official duties; if so (a) on what dates and (b) at what locations. (14) Was he engaged on official duties on 11 and 12 January 1986; if so, (a) where and (b) did the duties involve discussions with Mr Lowy. Mr Hawke —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The decision to accept the tender submitted by the Westfield Property Trust and the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust was made by the Cabinet. (2) The Minister for Territories, in his Press statement of 2 December 1985, made it clear that the successful tender of $87m for the sale of the Belconnen Mall was not the highest cash price offered but that the higher cash price tender did not comply with the tender requirements in some respects and also, because it involved deferred payments, represented no greater financial return to the Commonwealth. (3) I am advised by the Minister for Territories that the answer to both parts of the question is no. (4) Yes. (5) No. (6) I am advised by the Minister for Territories that at its meeting of 17 December 1985 the Canberra Commercial Development Authority resolved `to affix the seal of the Authority to the Agreement for Sale between the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and Westfield Trust Limited at the express direction of the Minister of State for Territories but accepts no responsibility for any of the contents of the Agreement, any omissions, nor for any consequences that may flow from the Agreement and its execution under seal'. (7) No. (8) No. Tenders closed on 28 November 1985 and the successful tenderer was announced by the Minister for Territories on 2 December 1985. (9) I am aware that the site for the retail development in the Tuggeranong Town Centre was sold for $21.1m. Both the sale price of that site and the Belconnen Mall were determined on the open market at the time of the sales. (10) - (11) The tendering process for the sale of the Belconnen Mall was determined by an Inter-departmental Committee established for that purpose, after reference to the general tendering procedures laid down by the Purchasing and Disposal Division of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. These procedures ensured that the sale price was determined by commercial considerations on the open market. (12) - (14) I have never discussed any aspect of the tendering process for the Belconnen Mall with Mr Lowy or any other person from Westfield Property Trust or the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund Investment Trust. Nor did I discuss that process with either the responsible Minister or any officials involved in the Inter-departmental Committee which supervised the tendering process, and recommended on the preferred tenderer to Cabinet. The snide innuendo contained in the other aspects of the member for Denison's question do not merit being dignified with a response, except to say that any person who can read a newspaper knows that I have been on the motor cruiser Ilona in a social capacity, and that Mr Lowy's integrity and my own remain unimpaired as a result of that except in the minds of those such as the member for Denison. (Question No. 2556) Mr Langmore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 November 1985: (1) What quantity of Special Drawing Rights are currently on issue and what proportion is this of global reserves. (2) What proposals have been made recently for a new issue of Special Drawing Rights. (3) What are the arguments for and against such an issue. (4) Which countries have so far indicated support for a new issue of Special Drawing Rights. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A total of 21.4 billion special drawing rights (SDRs) have been allocated since their introduction in 1970 and by the end of August 1985 holdings accounted for about 5.3 per cent of total official holdings of non-gold reserve assets. (2) The question of a further allocation of SDRs was examined at the latest meeting of the Interim Committee of the International Monetary Fund which was held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, on 6 October 1985. The Committee Chairman, Mr H. O. Ruding, Minister of Finance of the Netherlands, reported that there was insufficient support for an allocation at this time. (3) The arguments which have been put recently in favour of a further allocation of SDRs include: growth in world trade could be encouraged; an allocation would lead to a reduction in the ratio of borrowed reserves to total reserves, thereby reducing the reserves system's vulnerability to financial market disturbances; an allocation would aid the adjustment efforts of debtor countries; an allocation would not be inflationary: Inflation has been reduced and future levels of inflation will depend essentially on economic policies pursued rather than an allocation of SDRs; and an allocation would strengthen the SDR as an international reserve asset. Arguments against a further allocation of SDRs include: under the IMF's Articles of Agreement, long-term global need is the sole criterion for an allocation of SDRs. This criterion has not been met. Non-gold reserves have grown very rapidly over the last few years; the ratio of non-gold reserves to imports suggests that recent reserve accumulation has kept pace with the recovery in international trade. The reserves/import ratio for all countries was 21.5 per cent for 1984, its highest level since 1978; for developing countries this ratio had risen to 31.7 per cent in 1984, also the highest level since 1978; in 1984 the ratio of reserves to trade imbalances for the developing countries group was at its highest level since 1972; this recent improvement in reserve growth has been achieved without an SDR allocation; (4) It is not possible to give a comprehensive answer to this question because the individual views of all countries have not been formally canvassed or recorded. The Summary Proceedings of the 1984 Annual meetings indicate that Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, China, Egypt, Fiji, France, India, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, Italy, Republic of Korea, Luxemburg, Malaysia, Malta, Nepal, New Zealand, Spain, Sri Lanka, St Lucia, Tunisia, Western Samoa, Yugoslavia, and Zambia spoke in favour of an allocation. The Summary Proceedings of the 1985 Annual Meetings are not yet available. (Question No. 2709) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 25 November 1985: (1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an advertisement in the Australian of 30 October 1985 in support of the Builders Labourers Federation, in which it was stated that the advertisement was supported by the (a) Abortion Counselling Service, (b) ACOA Rank and File Committee in Defence of Trade Union Rights, (c) ACT Shelter, (d) ACT Squatters Union, (e) ACT Youth Accommodation Group, (f) ACT Youth Forum, (g) Beryl Women's Refuge, (h) Campaign against Repression in the Pacific Area, (i) Canberra & South East Region Environment Centre, (j) Canberra Youth Refuge, (k) Chile Solidarity Committee, (l) Committee for Human Rights and Democracy in Turkey, (m) Committee in Solidarity with Central America, (n) Interchange Community Youth Support Scheme, (o) Jobless Action, (p) Jobline, (q) National Landrights Now Committee, (r) Photo Access, (s) Philippine Action Support Group, (t) Rape Crisis Centre, (u) Reachout, (v) Schools Against the Bomb, (w) Southern Africa Support Campaign of Australia, (x) Soweto Mobilisation Committee, (y) Students Against Apartheid, (z) Staff of Public Radio 2XX, (za) Toora-Single Women's Shelter, (zb) Women Against Racism and (zc) Trade Union Rights Committee. (2) Do any of the listed organisations receive financial support or grants from the Minister's Department or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister. (3) If so, has the Minister's Department or statutory authority received or searched the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission register for annual financial accounts and balance sheets of each organisation receiving funds. (4) is each grant conditional upon (a) the submission of audited annual accounts and balance sheets and (b) a commitment to use the funds for the purpose for which the grant was made. (5) Does each grant permit use of funds contributed for political advertisements; if not, what checks have been made or will be made to ensure that the advertisement was not paid from grant funds. (6) Has each organisation receiving funds evidenced a capacity to raise money either in the past or in the year in question for its own purposes. (7) Have further applications for financial support been received or are likely to be received from each organisation; if so, will a check be made to ensure that the conditions of earlier grants have been honoured. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. The Canberra and South East Region Environment Centre (CASEREC) receives an annual administrative grant from the program of grants to voluntary conservation organisations. (3) Applicants for grants under the program are required to provide my Department with an audited statement of income and expenditure for the previous year. (4) (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (5) Documents submitted by organisations in receipt of grants under the program are checked to ensure that the funds have been used for the purpose provided. (6) Yes. (7) Yes; yes. (Question No. 2842) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What percentage of domestic air travel undertaken by representatives of the Minister's Department is undertaken on (a) TAA and Air Queensland, (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries, (c) East-West Airlines, (d) commuter aircraft and (e) charter aircraft. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) 25.6% (b) 60.7% (c) 0.7% (d) 5.2% (e) 7.9% This information was derived from payments made during the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985 which is considered to be a representative period. (Question No. 3000) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Has his attention been drawn to any restrictive trade practices between film distributors and exhibiters that have operated at any time since March 1983; if so, what action has been taken to prevent or abolish such practices. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: An allegation of discrimination by distributors against independent exhibiters in the supply of and charging for films has been brought to my attention. The allegation was passed on to the Attorney-General who has portfolio responsibility for the Trade Practices Act 1974. This Act provides for extensive rights of action against restrictive trade practices. (Question No. 3001) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Are foreign film distributors required to re-invest locally a portion of their earnings in film production and to distribute a minimum number of Australian films per year; if so, what are the details of any such requirements. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. (Question No. 3002) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What new programs have been established within his portfolio since March 1983 to make the technologies of film and television more available for use through community workshops, video access centres and the encouragement of public television. (2) What was the level of funding to established programs designed to achieve these objectives in 1982-83 and what was the increase in real terms in the funding levels of such programs in 1985-86. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that the Australian Film Commission has continued to support Open Channel (Melbourne), Metro Television (Sydney) and the Film and Television Institute (Perth). Since March 1983 the Commission has also provided support to the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association (Alice Springs), the Ernabella Video Project (South Australia) and the Community Media Association (Adelaide). In providing funds for film and video organisations and production facilities the Commission's prime role is the development of new and independent film makers rather than support for community-oriented access schemes. The primary focus of the Commission is professional and in recognition of this, the Commission has recently established the `No Frills' Fund to encourage young and relatively inexperienced film makers. The Commission also maintains an active policy interest in all current broadcasting issues, including public television. While noting the possible benefits of public television to producers and consumers, the Commission recognises that decisions on implementation are the responsibility of other Government agencies, and also that there are considerable capital costs involved in the establishment of such a system. (2) The funding grants to relevant organisations providing video facilities in the years in question were as follows: Organisation 1982-83 1985-86 $ $ Open Channel (Melbourne)... 155,000 186,000 Metro Television (Sydney)... 132,000 155,000 Film and Television Institute (Perth)... 210,400 218,000 Public Broadcasting Association of Australia T.V. Committee... 7,000 . . Videorep (Sydney)... 35,000 3,835 Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association (Alice Springs)... . . 18,000 Community Media Association (Adelaide)... . . 15,000 Total Funding to Video/TV Organisations... 539,400 595,835 Percentage Increase: 10.5% In addition Ernabella Video Project (South Australia) received a one-off grant of $10,771 in 1983-84 for the purchase of a VHS 2 U-MATIC editing suite. (Question No. 3008) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What international conventions exist relating to the protection of the rights of performers in the production of their work. (2) Has the Government ratified these conventions. (3) What action has been taken to implement the terms of these conventions in domestic law. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation on 26 October 1961 which entered into force on 18 May 1984. (2) No. (3) See answer provided by the Attorney-General to Question No. 1836 part 4 in Hansard of 12 November 1985 page 2604. (Question No. 3022) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Has he the power to invoke the provision of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act for a development proposal deemed to be of national significance; if not, would amendments to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act be required to give him this power. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In my statement on the Government's review of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, tabled in Parliament on 11 October 1984, I indicated that the Act already applied to environmentally significant actions and decisions of the Commonwealth, including those of national significance. Consequently, no amendments to the Act are necessary to enable the Environment Minister to invoke the Act to cover a development proposal deemed to be of national significance.