Thursday, 1 May 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence. Yesterday during Question Time I invited the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to table a document. He undertook to do so. The Prime Minister is not currently in the House, but I ask that the document, which was the Police Commissioner's report from which he read, be tabled as he said he would do. I raise it now- Mr Young —He did table it. Mr SINCLAIR —He did not table the Police Commissioner's report. He tabled a different document; he did not table the Police Commissioner's report. If the Special Minister of State looks at the `greens', he will see that he undertook to do so but did not do so. Madam SPEAKER —The matter has been noted. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to raise with you the interpretation of Standing Order 303. I seek your assurance that its application in the House will continue to be as outlined in the House of Representatives Practice. Last evening, as you will be aware, when the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) was speaking he used words which the Deputy Speaker at that time required him to withdraw. There was confusion in the House as to precisely what words the Deputy Speaker took objection to. I think the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who was at the table, took exception to the words `unique moral stance'. The honourable member for the Northern Territory used words, in referring to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding), saying that the honourable member had again sought to win his case by misrepresentation. It seems to me, if the Deputy Speaker is in the game of interpreting what is offensive, that the House needs some indication of what occupants of the chair will find offensive. Madam Speaker, I refer you to page 459 of the House of Representatives Practice, which states: However, because of conflicting rulings which required that remarks regarded by any Member as offensive to be withdrawn, the Standing Orders Committee recommended that it be the Speaker who determines whether words are offensive or disorderly when his attention is drawn to them. In this instance the Deputy Speaker intervened, did not indicate the words that were offensive and left the House in confusion. I have to point out to you, Madam Speaker, that words have been used by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) which in my view far exceed any expressions used by the honourable member for the Northern Territory and neither the Speaker nor the Deputy Speaker has intervened at those times. If we are to have an interpretation from the Chair we have to be absolutely clear what those interpretations will be and whether they follow the guidelines laid out in the House of Representatives Practice. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a brief statement on the same subject. Sometimes honourable members on both sides put too much responsibility on the Chair. When members of the Parliament find objectionable something that another member has said, it is a matter for decision or judgment not by the Chair but by the members themselves. Mr Cadman —This was a judgment by the Chair. Mr YOUNG —It was also a request by the member. Mr Cadman —No, it was not. The Chair made the judgment first. Mr YOUNG —The member also asked that the matter be withdrawn. Mr Cadman —Only after the Chair raised it. Mr Sinclair —That was a different matter. Mr YOUNG —I know, but that is something that a member can do at any time. It is no good throwing it back on the Chair and the Chair saying: `I will not judge whether you find it objectionable or not; I do not agree with you', because the practice of the Parliament has been that if any individual member finds objectionable anything another member says, the Chair will require it to be withdrawn. That cuts across all sorts of standards of parliamentary language and, of course, it is nothing over which the Chair has any power. I find it a little unfortunate in the circumstances-I have expressed this to the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham)-that the honourable member was caught in such a crossfire. If one checked the records one would probably find that I have said things a little worse than what he said last night, but this would happen very rarely. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) certainly has done so. I do not think it is any good throwing the ball back into the court of the Speaker. Honourable members have to try to show some common sense in what they say and perhaps on occasions they should not be so easily upset. I know that my mate here will not be upset. Mr REITH(Flinders) —I wish to add a few words on this matter in contradiction of what the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) said, which was that the description of words should not be a matter for the Speaker. Madam Speaker, I refer you to page 459 of the House of Representatives Practice, which states: However, because of conflicting rulings which required that remarks regarded by any Member as offensive to be withdrawn, the Standing Orders Committee recommended that it be the Speaker who determines whether words are offensive or disorderly when his attention is drawn to them. The recommendation was adopted by the House. I think it is fairly conclusive that that is what the practice of this House is and, furthermore, should be. I refer to the events of last evening. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) said that he found a remark offensive and asked for it to be withdrawn. It is within the Standing Orders that it be withdrawn. The ball was then in the court of the then Presiding Officer to make a decision, but instead of making a decision as to whether the words were orderly, disorderly or offensive, the Deputy Speaker simply relied upon the allegation that those words were offensive or disorderly to the honourable member concerned. That is the nub of what the Opposition is saying, and that is that it is a view supported by the authorities that the decision ought to be made by the Presiding Officer. I simply refer to some prior remarks. The Special Minister of State mentioned some other remarks that have been made in this House. In principle this matter is of considerable significance to members as private members because the Standing Orders give us protection in this House and are important to our privileges as members and are thus important to our constituents. I also refer to Standing Order 78, which I think is also conclusive. It states: When the attention of the Speaker is drawn to words used, he shall determine whether or not they are offensive or disorderly. There is no doubt that some interesting expressions have been spoken in this House. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) probably holds the record for having made some of the more distasteful. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will stick to the point. Mr REITH —I think the point is quite conclusive, Madam Speaker. It is terribly important that we have a ruling on this matter and no longer have some element of confusion relating to it. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —I rise to set the record straight on this matter. The objection that was originally taken was not taken by me when I was sitting at the table; it was taken by the Deputy Speaker. I have been around parliament long enough to dish it out and cop it. I have used more offensive terms and have had more offensive terms directed at me than were used last night. The Deputy Speaker found the words used last night to be offensive and asked that they be withdrawn. The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) refused to withdraw them. Subsequently I intervened in order to try to clarify the matter. I said that I objected in order to create a situation which I had hoped would be helpful to the honourable member for the Northern Territory, who continued to persist with his refusal to withdraw. At that stage he was given a number of opportunities by the occupant of the chair, who pointed out that the concern of the Chair at that stage was a concern directed at the continual refusal of the honourable member for the Northern Territory to withdraw in accordance with the request of the Chair. I believe that what occurred was that the honourable member for the Northern Territory probably saw some political advantage to himself in the course that he took. He is entitled to do that; it would not be the first time that someone has chosen to get himself thrown out of the Parliament in order to make a point. But, basically, the reality is that the Chair itself, in ruling in the first instance, determined that the words used were offensive. I think that that is what the parliamentary record will show. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, I also seek your indulgence in the same matter. Obviously several issues of fairly considerable significance for this Parliament arise out of this matter. The first is that obviously the authority which you or your deputy or others acting in your stead exercise on behalf of the Parliament must be respected by members and the Standing Orders should be complied with. Against that, there is the individual right of members of this place to express their points of view on issues before the Parliament and to do so in such a way which ensures that they are honestly speaking as they believe the legislation or other matters before the Parliament require. I am concerned in this instance because the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham)-to whom I have not spoken since his expulsion-is in this position: First, he is denied the opportunity of representing his electorate in this House for such a period of suspension as he is subject to according to the resolution of the House, which denies him access to the House; secondly, there is the consequence under the Standing Orders that having been expelled on one occasion, on the second occasion he is automatically out for seven days. While I cannot foresee, any more than any other member, that those circumstances will arise, there is a consequential penalty for what seems to me on reviewing the issue to have been an unjustly harsh penalty. In all the circumstances, it might be appropriate were you, and if need be the Leader of the House (Mr Young), to look at the Hansard transcript of this matter. Those of us who were not here-I confess to not having been in the chamber at the time-were not privy to the events exactly as they transpired but I am concerned that an injustice seems to me to have been done to the honourable member for the Northern Territory, having been shown the Hansard transcript and having seen in the Hansard report the nature of both the intervention by your deputy and by the Minister at the table, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, (Mr Holding). It would seem that in fact the Minister at the table was objecting to words that were not exactly said in the terms in which the Minister framed his objection. I know that mistakes occur but I think it was unduly harsh for the honourable member for the Northern Territory to be expelled from the Parliament on what seems to have been a wrong issue. That is really what we are talking about. The honourable member-who is not here, who cannot defend himself because he has been expelled from the House-suffers both now and potentially as a consequence of a decision which, if you read the Hansard transcript, seems to me in all the circumstances to have been unjustified. I believe that the only way we can resolve the matter, Madam Speaker, is for you, instead of giving your ruling now, to be so kind as to look at the Hansard, perhaps listen to the tapes and then come into the House and give your ruling. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Briefly, Madam Speaker, the point raised is very significant. As the Hansard report will clearly demonstrate, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) in the course of his speech made remarks to which the Deputy Speaker drew attention. It is important to note that at that point of time the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), as he has just said, had not made any comment at all. The Deputy Speaker then asked the honourable member for the Northern Territory to withdraw his remarks. I draw attention to the Hansard greens, which show that on two occasions the honourable member for the Northern Territory asked the Deputy Speaker to indicate what remarks should be withdrawn. The Deputy Speaker then indicated to the honourable member for the Northern Territory that the Chair would be placed in a most difficult position if he did not withdraw. Subsequently-I took it to be at the request of the Deputy Speaker-the Minister himself then indicated that he would like a withdrawal. In other words, had the Minister not himself asked for a withdrawal the situation would have been that the Deputy Speaker asked the honourable member for the Northern Territory to withdraw remarks, the honourable member for the Northern Territory asked what remarks and there was no response by the Deputy Speaker to that query. My respectful submission is that, in the absence of a complaint by an honourable member or by a Minister, the Speaker's only power to deal with the honourable member is if his remarks are, as the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) has pointed out, either offensive or disorderly. If the person who is the object of those remarks does not claim them to be offensive or disorderly, I respectfully submit that the Chair has no power to suspend. In other words, the points I make are, first, that the honourable member for the Northern Territory was quite within his rights to ask what remarks he was to withdraw and, secondly, in the absence of those remarks being outlined to him or in the absence of a spontaneous complaint from the Minister, the honourable member for the Northern Territory was quite entitled to decline to withdraw. It is on that basis that I submit respectfully to you, Madam Speaker, that the honourable member for the Northern Territory was wrongfully suspended from the House last evening. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —Madam Speaker, I would like to make a couple of brief points on the issue before the House. A number of the previous speakers have politely forgotten that three standing orders are involved, that is 76, 77 and 78. Standing order 76 provides: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. The remark that the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) made was an imputation against the Minister. Standing order 77 provides: When any offensive or disorderly words are used, whether by a Member who is addressing the Chair or by a Member who is present, the Speaker shall intervene. That means that there is an obligation not only on the person who considers that they may have been improperly used but also upon the person in the chair to maintain decorum in the House. That is what standing order 77 is about. A number of members have mentioned standing order 78, which provides: When the attention of the Speaker is drawn to words used, he shall determine whether or not they are offensive or disorderly. There are two mechanisms by which the person in the chair can rule on matters such as this: When the person in the chair hears these things himself, or when they are brought to the attention of the person in the chair. A number of people this morning have based their argument on the fact that it should only be when it is brought to the Chair's attention. That is not what Standing Orders provide. I think another issue arose last night as well, that is, that the Chair frequently endeavours to give members as much chance as possible to get over what are often little kerfuffles. Normally it is the practice of everyone, when his attention is drawn to something, to withdraw. I do not recall, in the time that I have been in the House, anyone being as keen as I was to have the honourable member for the Northern Territory withdraw last night. I asked him on four or five occasions, to my recollection-even in the middle of the division to eject him-whether he wished to have the chance to withdraw. The honourable member for the Northern Territory had a number of people on both his side and the Government side to put to him that that might be a good idea as we could then get on with the business of the House. However, he chose, for reasons that suited him, not to withdraw. As the Minister said, that is his right and it is the right of any of us. However, two matters are involved, first, that the Chair has an obligation to intervene to protect the decorum of the House and, secondly, that when a person defies the Chair to the extent that the Chair was defied last night, another issue itself was involved, namely, whether the authority of the Chair will be upheld. Both those things should be taken into account. Mr Cadman —Rubbish, absolute rubbish. The honourable member for the Northern Territory asked civil questions. Mr LEO McLEAY —I think that both those things should be taken into account. I know that the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) gets very keen on matters of import when they suit him. Those honourable members who are quoting from Hansard might find that if someone said that they had misrepresented themselves to an inquiry, they might find that that was offensive. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar) —Madam Speaker, I would like to say a word on the ruling. Following the remarks of the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) I would point out to those listening that the words used were `a unique moral stance'. The same thing could have been said of St Thomas More or St Thomas Aquinas. How the words could possibly have been taken as being offensive or disorderly I cannot imagine. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —I was one of the few members who were in the chamber last night when this incident happened. The member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) deliberately defied the Chair on six or seven occasions. I thought the Deputy Speaker was very tolerant; he gave every opportunity to the member for the Northern Territory to withdraw, but he refused to do so. The Minister at the table, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), objected to what was said. We have Standing Orders and they are either carried out or they are ignored. Madam SPEAKER —It is not my practice and will not be my practice, and was not the practice of preceding Speakers, to make any comment on how the Chair was conducted in my absence. I think most members of the House would believe such a practice would be quite improper. I was not present in the House and, for once, I was not listening, so I would not be able to comment on the happenings in any case. I would draw the attention of the House to the Standing Orders. At present the Procedure Committee is going through the Standing Orders trying to get rid of those that are ambiguous or conflict with others. On reading the Standing Orders, I find that they have to be read one in conjunction with another. Standing Order 77 is very clear: When any offensive or disorderly words are used, whether by a Member who is addressing the Chair or by a Member who is present, the Speaker shall intervene. Honourable members will all understand that there have been times when I have intervened at Question Time when an offensive remark has been made from one side or the other and asked for a withdrawal immediately. I do not wait for a member to draw my attention to it. That is one circumstance. The honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) was quite right to draw attention to House of Representatives Practice. Because so many members found so many things offensive, the authority of determination was given to the Chair. So we have two distinct circumstances, they are both relevant and they both still apply, but I would ask the Procedure Committee to examine a few of the other Standing Orders because, if one reads them in conjunction, we are quite often in conflict. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —May I crave your indulgence, Madam Speaker, on an absolutely different subject. Madam SPEAKER —Indulgence is running today. Mr PEACOCK —Yes, indeed. I will be brief. It is on an extraordinarily important matter. I wished to put a request to the Leader of the House (Mr Young) but, as he is not present, perhaps in his stead I can ask the Minister at the table, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), to convey to him my wish for there to be a ministerial statement regarding the disastrous nuclear accident at Chernobyl. I ask the Government to give some time to that matter. Mr Holding —I give the honourable gentleman an undertaking that I will raise the matter immediately with the Leader of the House. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Holding: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(10.24) —Last night when the debate was adjourned the House was dealing with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill. I pointed out the fact that this legislation permanently establishes a procedure whereby areas important to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait people will be preserved and protected in the future. Many States have similar legislation to cover important historic sites, Aboriginal middens and Aboriginal sites, but the Government feels that this legislation will act in the nature of a court of appeal. In the 1981 census of the Australian population approximately 144,000 people listed themselves as Aboriginals and another 15,000 called themselves Torres Strait islanders. The legislation before the House has proved to be mainly a standby, fall-back measure because in the two years that the legislation has been in operation only one order has been issued by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), and that related to Aboriginal artefacts and historic objects which were coming up for sale at an auction in Sydney. All Australians are sympathetic to the problems that Aboriginals face. The Aboriginal life expectancy is 20 years less than that for other Australians. Thirty-two per cent of Aboriginal children under nine years have contracted some form of trachoma, whereas only 1.6 per cent of non-Aboriginal children in Australia contract this disease. That is an appalling situation in such a rich country. The rate of unemployment amongst Aborigines is four times that of other Australians. In relation to prison statistics, an Aboriginal's chances of going to gaol are 15 times higher than that for the rest of the Australian population. The Government has done an enormous amount to help the Aboriginal people. Expenditure on the Aboriginal affairs budget has reached half a billion dollars: It is $502m as distinct from $298m in the 1982-83 Budget. So the Government has done an enormous amount to help Aborigines to try to improve their housing, education, health facilities, community management, legal aid and all the other areas, including training and academic achievement. I commend the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who has responsibility for this very difficult and very trying portfolio. Last night the Opposition said in the debate that in its opinion the preservation of historic sites, sites important to the Aboriginal people, should be left to the States. In 1967 the Australian people said otherwise: They voted in an overwhelming fashion-an entire consensus of the Australian people. I note that in my own seat of Lowe 93 per cent of formal votes were for `yes' in the referendum to transfer all constitutional authority and all responsibility for Aborigines from the States to the Federal Government. It was an extraordinary vote. At the same time, there was a poll taken on breaking the nexus between the Senate and the House of Representatives, and that barely got through in New South Wales and was defeated because there was not a majority for it in other States. However, the issue of transferring responsibility for helping Aborigines was totally successful. That was the feeling at the time. I worked on that referendum for the Labor Party. In the old seat of Evans, we canvassed door to door for the referendum. We achieved a very good result in Evans. I notice that in Lowe-because Evans does not exist any more-93 per cent, some 34,000 people as distinct from 2,000 against, voted to transfer all State powers and jurisdiction in respect of Aboriginals to the Commonwealth Government. The people at that time in 1967-and, I am sure, the Aboriginal people-expected a new deal, some decent housing, adequate health funding and some decent educational facilities. They have been a long time coming, but I give great credit to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, because there is now substantial expenditure on Aboriginal matters. Here today in the House we are just ensuring that Aboriginal heritage and Aboriginal sites will be protected. A number of worries have been brought to the Minister's attention: A number of complaints were lodged under the interim legislation which has applied for the past two years. In only one instance, as I have said, has the Minister been required to actually intervene personally to stop a possible sale of Aboriginal items. My first real contact with the Aboriginal community came in 1980 when Jack Renshaw retired from the Parliament of New South Wales. I went out to Bourke during the by-election and I was appalled to see Aborigines living in humpies out of town, away from the main centre of Bourke and in the flood plain. I could not believe that in a rich and wealthy nation such as this-a country building a new Parliament House for which no expense is spared, a country which has opera houses and all the facilities of a very developed nation for Australians-the original Australians should have to live in humpies in a flood plain area and should have to cook their meals on a camp fire. I was appalled. Since entering this House in 1982 I have travelled in Western Australia, in the Kimberleys. At Noonkanbah I saw what happened when the Western Australian Government forced on the community the drilling for minerals and oil in that area. Drilling was carried out in the middle of a sacred site. I know that this legislation has nothing to do with sacred sites. But the local Aboriginal community had taken over that mission area and was developing and running it. There were appalling insensitivities and there was appalling desecration of Aboriginal areas. In the Kimberleys, for the first time in my life I saw Australians suffering from leprosy. That was a terribly rude awakening for me. I think our nation must hang its head when it sees the conditions under which Aborigines live in many of these areas. Aborigines aspire to have decent housing, which other Australians have, decent health facilities and reasonable education facilities. This Minister is dedicated. I give credit to some other past Ministers who have also tried to help. But there has been an enormous increase in funding by this Labor Government and an enormous amount of effort is being put into this portfolio by the Minister. Today this House is finalising a debate on a Bill which will make heritage facilities available to Aboriginal people so that their sites, their historic objects, can be preserved and protected for all time. I have great pleasure in winding up my speech by asking the House to support this important piece of legislation. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.32) —I have pleasure in speaking to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill 1986, although the Opposition opposes it. We feel that the legislation is not necessary because the States throughout Australia have their own legislation which protects the sites and culture of the Aboriginal people. This Bill was initially introduced as an interim measure for two years. For some strange reason we have now seen its extension in our statute book. It is amazing that, although it has been sitting on the table for two years, it has only been used once. I believe that the South Australian legislation could have been used in regard to the collection of artefacts from the mission in central Australia that supposedly were to have been auctioned. I believe the South Australian legislation could have protected those artefacts that had been collected. But that is the only time that the legislation has been used. We on this side of the Parliament do not see any reason why there must be a continuing centralisation of powers in Canberra. The fact is that this legislation overrides the existing State legislation that has been in operation for a number of years. In most places throughout Australia Aboriginal sites have been well and truly protected. I know that in my electorate of Maranoa, in the Carnarvon Gorge, there are many Aboriginal sites and rock paintings. I believe that that part of Queensland is as good as Kakadu. There are very spectacular sandstone escarpments. In years gone by many Aborigines lived in that area. Those artefacts have been protected by the Queensland national parks people. I have been a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs since I have been in this Parliament. I was brought up in the bush and have worked with these people over many years. Obviously, there are things that needed to be done and are being done. But I am afraid that they are not always done well. I see that the Minister for the Environment and all things good is in the House. While I am talking about Kakadu, I wish to congratulate the producers of Crocodile Dundee. Those of us who took the time last night not to attend the industrial relations meeting were fortunate enough to be able to go to the movies. I want to thank the producers for the free screening. It was a wonderful up-play down-play on the Aboriginal problems and some of the bush problems in Australia. The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) is not here, but some of the initial filming was done at McKinley, which is a little outpost in central western Queensland. Mr Cohen —I thought you were Crocodile Dundee. Mr IAN CAMERON —Well, that is a possibility. Anyone who has seen the film would have seen the buffalo go down; he was tranquillised. I used to tranquillise buffaloes when I was a kid. About 25 or 30 years ago I worked in a buffalo camp on the South Alligator River. So perhaps I could be termed as one of those sorts of characters. I could never have put a buffalo down with two fingers though. I would like to congratulate the producers. Seeing that we are on air, I recommend to every Australian who might be listening to take the time to go and see the film. Madam SPEAKER —I recommend to the honourable gentleman that he now return to the Bill. Mr IAN CAMERON —Well, Kakadu is now a national park in the Northern Territory controlled by the Aboriginal people. I guess it is one of the main parts of their heritage that has been set aside for them. Madam Speaker, I suggest that you go along and see the film because you will find it very interesting and entertaining. It has had tremendous success. I would like to congratulate Paul Hogan for the fact that this will draw many more American tourists to see some of the interesting things that we have in outback Queensland and outback Northern Territory. Crocodile Dundee is a great film. Everyone should go and see it. I have mentioned the Carnarvon National Park. Unfortunately, this legislation is being used by the Aboriginal people to make claim to some weird and wonderful things. In Perth at present the Aborigines are claiming the old Swan Brewery site, a piece of prime real estate in the centre of Perth, as a site of significance. Apparently, the rainbow snake is meant to have lived there at some time or other. Unfortunately these are some of the things that put the Aboriginal cause offside with people in the same way as some of our causes put people offside. But the Aborigines are pretty good at doing it too. One wonders why they do some of these stupid things. But they have a few ratbags upfront running some of the radical groups. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) looks a bit doubtful. Unfortunately, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) is no longer with us. He was expelled from the House last night when talking to this Bill- Mr Spender —Not for good, I hope. Suspended? Mr IAN CAMERON —He was suspended, I should say. I thought it was done in a fairly disgraceful manner, but anyway he has gone for the day. He has passed on to me a few things that are happening in the Northern Territory. In Alice Springs various planning and development works in and around the city have been frustrated by sacred site claims. In the Abattoir Valley machinery was moved in for development work before there was any objection from Aboriginal groups. Other sacred site claims seem to appear at mining sites. I believe this is one of the things that the Minister has been pushing. At this stage, I must congratulate the Minister for totally withdrawing from the land rights legislation. That is one of the best things this Government has done since it was elected to office-to withdraw totally from the national land rights legislation. It still seems to be going down the track of wanting to give the Aborigines power to veto mining at sites throughout Australia. I just want to say that most Aborigines do not want to do that. They are no different from you and I; if they can see a dollar in the ground, they will chase it as hard as you and I will. There is nothing queer about them in that regard. They are just as keen about earning a dollar as we are. The do-gooders in the Aboriginal affairs departments, the urgers, the solicitors and the people who live and work with the Aborigines seem to think that they have to justify their existence by putting in claims and things for these sites. Mr Slipper —Only left wing solicitors. Mr IAN CAMERON —They are all left wingers who work for the Aboriginal cause, unfortunately, and all that they are doing for the Aborigines is a great deal of harm. Anyway, in the McArthur River we have silver, lead and zinc deposits. There are land claims at the port site, the bridge site and other vital infrastructure sites. Of course, there is no need for me to run through the major mining projects that are being held up in the Northern Territory. This is the sort of thing that would happen throughout Australia if we had uniform land rights legislation. Thank God we have not! I refer to Kakadu National Park, the old Gimbat station and the Coronation Hill project-which is reputed to be Australia's biggest coal deposit-where a claim for 246 square kilometres of sacred sites has stopped all work. These are the sorts of things that white advisers, white solicitors and other people have been advising Aboriginals to do. All that it is doing is bringing the economic development of the Northern Territory and other parts of Australia to a standstill. As the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) has just pointed out, we are now spending half a billion dollars on Aboriginal people. I would like to ask these people who are involved in stopping these major mining projects where they think the money comes from. Are we growing it on trees in Australia? We are desperate for funds. Our exports and our balance of payments are in a shocking state of affairs and we ought to be giving any sort of project that is around every encouragement to get under way. These people who are involved with legal aid and are running these court battles with mining companies etcetera are a disgrace to Australia and ought to be got rid of. Let me mention some of the other problems we have. I welcome the honourable member for Lowe, who spoke before me on this legislation, as a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I am rather sorry that he did not have the time to come with us on our last visit into the South Australian homelands. Any Australian who wishes to go to that place needs a permit. That is the other thing that is wrong about land rights. Once the Aboriginals have freehold one has to have a permit to go onto the land. Every Australian has to get a permit to go into the homelands, which is a disgrace. Mr Slipper —It is apartheid. Mr IAN CAMERON —It is apartheid in reverse. One has to have a permit to go there. The Aboriginal Affairs Committee spent three or four days in the week before last visiting this area. The Chairman of the Committee, the honour- able member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), does an excellent job. The Hansard reporters and the staff members, David Elder and his boys, gave of their time to come along and help us and we had a very interesting trip. Aborigines are in a very sad state of affairs right now. We are pumping millions of dollars into this area. I invite all honourable members to go into this area to have a look. I am rather sorry that I do not have the photographs that I took of the Aboriginal kids sniffing petrol. Here we are spending $502 million on Aboriginals, which is just the Commonwealth's Budget and does not include all the States. We could add another $200m to $300m if we included all the State expenditure. The last census that was taken shows that we are spending $800 million on roughly 70,000 adult Aboriginals in Australia. It would make honourable members' hair stand on end if they went to these places today. Ernabella, which is an old Presbyterian mission, is totally wrecked. These poor Aboriginal kids are going around with jam tins stuffed down their jumpers. They have coke bottles full of petrol which they pour into the jam tins. They put their heads into the jam tins and they wander around the place in a stupefied state. Eventually this affects their brains and kills them. It would not be so bad if only one or two of these kids were doing it because that would be in proportion to the number of drug addicts we have in our society in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and other places. It was interesting to see the contrast in a film I watched last night between the rough and clean-living Australians in the bush and the people in New York who are attacked by others with knives and things. That is the sort of brilliant contrast that the film depicted of our societies. We are spending all this money on Aboriginal people. We think we can save their souls with dollars, but we cannot. I ask the Minister who is at the table to get into an aeroplane and fly from this place direct to Ernabella with a team of drug experts. This Government is spending $100 million on the drug program. I suggest that the Minister charter a plane, go direct to Ernabella and have a look at the petrol sniffing problem there. Thirty to 40 children aged between 10 years and 18 years, who ought to be at school at this very moment, are sitting around in a stupefied state sniffing petrol. We saw 30 to 40 kids in one group of the community but we could add another 30 to 40 kids that we did not see. At the time of our visit the South Australian police who patrol through that area were there. They are not stationed there permanently but they do patrol through that area. They took no notice whatsoever of what was happening. The elders of the community, the white people and the advisers who were with us did nothing about this problem. The kids are staggering around that community and other communities. In every Aboriginal community I have been to in South Australia and the Northern Territory where homelands have been set up and the people have been left to their own devices, the kids are staggering around killing themselves. If the Minister thinks that we are making progress in Australia by spending this sort of money on the Aboriginals, he should think again. The Minister responsible should get out there and have a decent look at this problem. He should get some law and order back into these communities and get these kids off petrol. We may even have to ban petrol and to convert all the vehicles to dieseline. The communities have voted to stop alcohol; most of the communities are dry. The elders are not drinking themselves to death or staggering around drunk, although they continually go to Alice Springs and get drunk. The Australian taxpayer is spending hundreds of millions of dollars, yet these Aboriginals are in a stupefied state. I took some photographs, which I hope I will be able to table in the House to show the Minister. I was amazed and shocked. I have seen petrol sniffing on previous visits, when one or two young kids have been sniffing petrol; but when one sees groups of up to 30 teenage pure blood Aboriginal children staggering around with cans permanently stuffed down their jumpers and bottles of petrol permanently in their hands, not attending school and with no discipline whatsoever, one realises that we are facing a disastrous situation and that it is high time this Parliament did something about it. I am not saying that we can stop the problem overnight. Obviously there are reasons why it is happening, but it is one of the great social problems in our midst today; it is a very serious problem. I expect the Minister, the officials of his Department and the drug enforcers of this great drug program that the Government is running to get into an aircraft-the taxpayers ought to be prepared to pay for the charter of a plane-and go to Ernabella and have a look at the problem, because it will disgust and horrify them. The Minister should take the honourable member for Lowe with him, because he was not able to go last time, and it will certainly horrify him. This Bill refers to the Torres Strait. The Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders want a few facilities. The Queensland Government has been prepared to put in electricity on a dollar for dollar basis. Apparently the Minister has made some promises to help with that project, but is not doing so. On Coconut Island there is a solar electricity project at a cost of $710,000, of which the Commonwealth has promised about $350,000, but as yet it has not been prepared to come forward with the funds for that project. Many of the Torres Strait Islands have no electricity or water, but it is the electricity about which the Minister has apparently made promises which he has not fulfilled. The Minister promised also to bring the wages of the nursing profession and skilled Aboriginal people up to award wage standards by subsidising, I guess, the maximum dole payment which they are being paid at the moment. That has not happened either. The Queensland Government has the Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act, as I said. The honourable member for Lowe said that he goes to Bourke, but Bourke is in New South Wales where there is a Labor Government. For all the knocks that Queensland gets, the assimilation program is working better in that State than in any other State in Australia. The Aborigines are no longer living in humpies and camps on the outskirts of towns but in housing co-ops in places such as Cunnamulla, Charleville and Roma, which have done an excellent job in building houses and assimilating people into the towns. Obviously there is still a need for more houses, but no doubt with the sort of money being spent in this area eventually all Aborigines will have a house of a sort to live in. We must understand that not all Aborigines want to live in a house like we do. We spend money on housing-in the more traditional areas millions of dollars have been spent. The honourable member for Lowe said that the Aborigines should all be in houses. The Standing Committee is looking at the homelands problem. We are continuing to spend money there. We put up nice tin sheds for them but, of course, they never use them. When one walks in them one sees that they have never been inside; they still live in the open and camp around a fire. That is the way they have always lived and it is not a bad way to live. I saw old Hoges last night. He had been in the bush a while and when he went to a five-star hotel in New York he slept on the floor and that is pretty well the way Aboriginals still want to live. However, we seem to think differently. We think that if we build them a decent house they will want to move in and enjoy it. In conclusion, I again say how serious the petrol sniffing problem is in the Aboriginal communities in Australia. I again request the Minister to make every endeavour to look at the situation. The Opposition is not supporting this Bill because we already have similar legislation in every State in Australia. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.51) —in reply-I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate. I must say that the honour- able member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) probably would not have had much to say if he had not seen Crocodile Dundee. I am pleased that he enjoyed it. Mr Tuckey —What about petrol sniffing? Mr HOLDING —I am happy to deal with that. Mr Tuckey —It's pretty serious. Mr HOLDING —It is very serious. One of the problems that I think bedevil the Opposition in its approach to Aboriginal affairs on a piece of legislation such as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill is that, when it comes to actually sitting down and looking at the legislation and what the Government is intending to do, it is too hard to do that. It is much easier to contribute to debates and make speeches which indicate from their very nature that what is motivating honourable members opposite is their broad general attitude to Aboriginal people. I think the honourable member for Maranoa is a perfect example of this. We had a lot of generalised comment based upon his preconceived political or other attitudes but no grasp of what the legislation is purporting to do and no attention to detail. I regret to say that that sort of approach was even evident in the contribution made by the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), who one would expect would have looked at the legislation. Let me deal with some of the points which were made by the shadow Minister and about which he was wrong. His first complaint was that the Bill does not refer to sacred sites. If he looks at the Bill he will see that it refers to areas of particular significance according to Aboriginal tradition. Those words were chosen because they are broader than the simple term `sacred site'. If honourable members opposite were prepared to apply their mind to the situation they would realise that there are many areas of special significance to Aboriginal people which, by their very nature, Aboriginal people have protected by keeping them secret. It is only when there is a threat to them that the provisions of this Bill will be used. If we were to narrow the definition and talk only about sacred sites we would find ourselves arguing about what constitutes a sacred site. The generality of the wording that is now used in the Bill covers the situation and provides the broadest possible base. It is important that that is understood. The shadow Minister said that the Opposition will move amendments in the Senate. All I can say is that if it moves amendments in the Senate, I hope that those amendments are based upon a proper reading of the legislation. The shadow Minister went on to say that in implementing this legislation the Government is acting outside its constitutional responsibility. What utter nonsense! This legislation has been an Act of this Parliament for two years. There has been no attempt by any interest group or any or any State to challenge its constitutional validity because those who understand the powers that the Commonwealth has in this area realise that acting under this Bill is clearly within the Government's power. The shadow Minister said that the Minister, in carrying out the obligations that are vested in him under the principal Act, does not have to take into account any other interests. How can a shadow Minister make that statement? If he had looked at the legislation he would realise that section 10 (4) (e) of the principal Act is quite clear and quite direct. It requires the Minister to take into account other interests. The shadow Minister went on to say that declarations made by the Minister are not reviewable. This piece of legislation has been operating for almost two years. A whole range of declarations have had to be considered. How is it that the shadow Minister or members of the Opposition are not aware that the Minister is required, if he makes a declaration, to take it to Cabinet? Section 15 of the legislation requires any such declaration to be reviewable by the Parliament. With the same kind of glib approach to this matter the shadow Minister said that: No compensation is payable if it is necessary to acquire someone's property in order to make a declaration effective. How is it that the honourable member has not looked at section 28 of the Act? Something like four major propositions have been put to the House by the shadow Minister and he could not possibly have put them if he had looked at the terms of the legislation and the way in which it works. The honourable member for Maranoa made the point-it was also made by the shadow Minister-that because there is legislation in some States that ought to conclude the matter. I point out to the House that there is a difference between the Commonwealth Government and its predecessors in both its philosophy and approach in this matter. I remind the House that during the period of the Fraser Government one of the most divisive events in black-white relations in Australia took place when the Court Government directed a mining company, contrary to the provisions of its own State legislation, to drill for mining on an Aboriginal sacred site as Noonkanbah. There was no question about the site being of great significance to Aboriginal people: Advisers to the Western Australian Government made that perfectly clear. A State government said: `We do not care what the law is. We will interpret the law and we will use our executive actions as a government to override the rights of Aboriginal people given to them under the laws of Western Australia'. That is precisely why we need this legislation. When the original legislation was introduced I said that there will be no more Noonkanbahs. I will look at the history of breaches of State legislation. There are many instances of people breaching sacred sites type legislation or legislation protecting Aboriginal heritage. In some cases breaches are innocent-for example, they are made by someone who is driving a bulldozer-but in many ways there is a deliberate intent by some State governments to attack Aboriginal heritage. It is the existence of this legislation which has produced a totally new relationship between the Commonwealth, the States and Aboriginal people in the whole question of protecting Aboriginal heritage. Mr Ian Cameron —It has never been used. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member is wrong. Let me cite the most recent example that we have in Queensland. Let us look at the way in which the Act works. An Aboriginal group or an Aboriginal person can make an application under the legislation. The first thing that I am required to do-if I am dealing with Queensland-is to contact the Queensland Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Island Affairs and put to him a series of questions to see what action the Queensland Government is taking. Let me say this: In doing that I have never failed to receive a positive response from the Minister in Queensland, Mr Katter. I have never failed to receive positive assurances. On many occasions both the Commonwealth and the State Minister come together with the Aboriginal community and a situation is negotiated which means that the legislation does not have to be applied but its existence has produced that new and positive relationship. I refer the honourable member for Maranoa to an article which appeared in the Courier-Mail only this week and which points out that a new relationship has been established in respect of the protection of Aboriginal sites at Burleigh Heads national park on the Gold Coast. An application was made under this legislation and there was discussion with Queensland Ministers. A working party comprising representatives of the Queensland Government, the local Aboriginal community and the Commonwealth has been created to look at this; and of course in that situation, where we get that kind of positive result on the ground, I do not apply the legislation. That is an important aspect of it and one which seems to have been totally overlooked by the Opposition. The importance of the legislation is that, as I say, since the States-not just Queensland, but all States-have got used to living with it there has been a positive and co-operative attitude which has meant that the States have responded in almost every case to the requests of the Commonwealth in respect of this legislation. So, arrangements have been made on the ground, which means that it is not necessary for me to apply the terms of the legislation and make declarations. That is a much better result. We have seen in this two years a positive development in relationships between the Commonwealth, the States and the Aboriginal people in terms of the protection of heritage. It is absurd to say that the test whether this legislation is successful is the number of prosecutions that take place or the number of declarations that are made. The legislation is working, and it is working well. If we go back to the occasion on which the legislation was first introduced, the position of the Opposition then was to take a worst-case scenario in relation to every provision in the Bill. We were told that developments would cease, that private land would be under threat and that mining and development would virtually stop in its tracks. An opposition is entitled to take worst-case scenarios, but now that the legislation has been in operation for two years what is the attitude of organisations such as the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association? It says that it cannot fault the actual administration of this legislation. Mr Connolly —AMIC does not say that. Mr HOLDING —Of course, the Australian Mining Industry Council believes that every interest in this community has to be subservient to what it perceives as its own vested interest. It is entitled to put that position; but I put it to the honourable member, as the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, that his speeches should not be written for him by AMIC. Mr Connolly —They are not. Mr HOLDING —Certainly, many of the arguments he puts seem to reflect that that is the way in which he sees his role in this House. Although he is called the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the views that he consistently puts and the views that are put by the Opposition have not been developed on the basis of the reality of protecting Aboriginal heritage. The Opposition is more concerned to raise fears and put the emotive arguments that are often put by vested interests who are perfectly happy to say, if it comes to a question of their interests as against the protection of the heritage of Aboriginal people or indeed the protection of the environment, that every other interest should be subservient. They are entitled to put that view, but I say to the shadow Minister that as the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs he has a prime duty at least to reflect within that shadow responsibility the views and the attitudes of Aboriginal people. Let me say this, and let me say it candidly: The criticism that the Aboriginal people have of this legislation is that it does not go far enough. It is the responsibility of the Government to balance all those interests. Mr Connolly —Why didn't you amend it, then? Mr HOLDING —Because we believe that the legislation is working. Despite the fact that the honourable member clearly has not read the legislation, we have a duty as a government to see how this legislation works in protecting the Aboriginal heritage, and to balance that against the range of other community attitudes. Although a group of Aboriginal people might say that they want to do it differently and that their interests are the predominant ones and should override every other interest, that is not a view that this Government has accepted. Mr Connolly —You have not made a single substantive amendment to this legislation. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member has not read the Bill. As I pointed out, the honourable member has made four absolutely fundamental errors that show that he has not read the legislation and has not applied his mind to the detail of it; yet he sits there saying that we have not moved any amendments. Of course we have not moved any amendments. We have not moved any amendments because the legislation has worked. We have not moved any amendments because, if we have a piece of legislation that is producing a new and positive relationship between the Commonwealth, the States and Aboriginal communities in regard to the recognition and protection of Aboriginal heritage, why would we want to change it? I suppose that, if one is a member of the Opposition and has not read the legislation, or a member of the Opposition whose views about the legislation are formed by one's attitude to whether or not Paul Hogan sleeps on a bed in New York in a film, if that is the standard of such a member of the Opposition, those are the arguments he can put. The position of the Government is clear and simple. We say that the Commonwealth has a clear constitutional duty in the area of Aboriginal Affairs to protect the heritage of Aboriginal people. Experience has shown-I think the events at Noonkanbah showed-that State governments cannot always be relied upon to protect Aboriginal heritage or the environment in terms of their own legislative responsibilities. It is the existence of this legislation that has meant that there have been no more Noonkanbahs; there have been no more exercises in confrontation. It is because the legislation is there that the States realise in many cases that if they do not abide by the terms of their own legislation there is virtually a court of appeal to Aboriginal people in terms of this legislation. It has produced a new relationship. It is a positive relationship; it is a relationship which is working on the ground. For those reasons I commend the Bill to the House. Question put. That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (The Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 11 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A. Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Hayden, W. G. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Drummond, P. H. Sinclair, I. McC. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Fife, W. C. Smith, W. Fischer, Tim Spender, J. M. Fisher, Peter Sullivan, K. J. Goodluck, B. J. Tuckey, C. W. Hall, Steele Watson, DavidHalverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Hawker, D. P. M. White, P. N. D. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Wilson, I. B. C. Hurford, C. J. Porter, J. R. Darling, E. E. Jull, D. F. Campbell, G. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cleeland, P. R. Moore, J. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Holding)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(11.16) —In the summing up remarks by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in the second reading debate, certain allegations were made which should be answered. He admitted that the Aboriginal community is not entirely happy with the contents of the legislation as it stands. I responded by saying that various other organisations were also not happy, such as the Australian Mining Industry Council. By some extra- ordinary miracle this piece of legislation stands almost alone; that after two years on the statute books of this nation it has come back into this House and is not subject to any worthwhile amendments whatsoever. All that the Minister has done is say to the Parliament that he wants to lift the sunset clause so that this legislation will therefore remain on the statute books indefinitely. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate, and reiterate, this is nothing more than a shoddy political act to give the Minister at least some semblance of activity so that he can go to the next Federal conference of the Labor Party in July and be able to say that at least one piece of legislation stands under his name. The same Minister, who went through the length and breadth of this land over the last three years of the Hawke Government, promising the Aboriginal communities land rights, land rights, land rights, had to come in here only a few short weeks ago and tell the Parliament that the Labor Party's policy had been effectively dumped. The Government has accepted what, in fact, is our policy, namely, that it is a State responsibility to control land management in Australia and it has been that policy that has been now endorsed by the Labor Party. Despite that, he has been prepared to leave on the statute books of this country a piece of legislation which, in his own words, is not perfect. He had the opportunity to update it and make any other changes that were necessary. He has had the opportunity to consult with the various community organisations, environmental groups, mining organisations, the Aboriginal community and others. There is no evidence from any word he uttered in his speech here today to suggest that he has bothered to consult with anyone on the contents of this legislation. As my colleague the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) stated when this Bill was debated two years ago, it was clear then that there was no satisfactory consultation and it is clear now that the situation has not improved. Mr Hand —You are opposed to it. What are you talking about? Mr CONNOLLY —This Minister needs to face the fact, as do the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and all members of the Government, that serious problems face the Aboriginal people today-problems which are found both in the tribal environment as well as in the fringe communities throughout Australia. These problems include especially of education, health, employment and the general perception of Aboriginals as part of the Australian community. I think it is relevant, in the context of this legislation, to honestly ask the question: What does it contain which in any way has significantly improved the status of the vast majority of the Aboriginal population in Australia? As we were told by one Labor member, according to the last census there were 140,000 Aboriginals. I think possibly the figure is more like 160,000 when one takes into account the Torres Strait Islanders. They represent one per cent of the Australian population, and we know on the basis of statistics available to us that they are still the most socially degraded section of the entire Australian population. No member of this Parliament can view that situation with any satisfaction whatever. How can the Minister, for example, seriously support the suggestion that between 4,000 and 7,000 Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory are not receiving an edu- cation? These are the realities. Their parents have told a committee of this House, as no doubt they have told the Minister, that they regard improvements in education as one of the key means by which they can see their children having an opportunity to take their full place in the Australian community and to have some future as Australians-not just as Aboriginals but as Australians. Most Aboriginals now accept, and rightly so, that the future of their people is closely linked with the destiny of this nation as a whole. In the area of health, the Minister is again well aware that health standards of Australian Aboriginals, even on World Health Organisation world comparisons, are most unsatisfactory in a whole range of areas. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by the fact that the average Aboriginal has a life expectancy some 20 years less than that of his white counterparts elsewhere. In the area of unemployment, in some communities 85 per cent of the Aboriginal people are unemployed. The rural recession, especially in northern New South Wales, is clearly part of the problem. While the Government talks about land rights and introduces legislation such as this dealing with Aboriginal areas and so on, I point out that these people are saying to me, as I have no doubt they say to the Minister, if he bothers to listen to them; `What we want is the opportunity to take our place in the mainstream of the Australian community. We want the opportunity for employment, the chance to give our children a decent education. We have to be able to ensure higher standards of health and nutrition'. The sooner the Government is prepared to face the fact that it cannot solve these problems simply by throwing money, the better it will be for Aboriginal Australia. This Minister is well aware that over 1,000 Aboriginal organisations currently receive funding from the Commonwealth-and God knows how many are getting funding from the States. But if one goes to the communities, they will tell the Minister that there are more divisions within the Aboriginal communities today than ever before. Those divisions are there because for too many years they have been encouraged to fight over control of Federal or State funds. The whole issue in New South Wales today with the so-called land councils and the gross scandals involving misappropriation of funds that we saw released in the Sydney Telegraph last week are precisely the reasons why the Aboriginal communities and the vast majority of the Australian people are seriously concerned about the direction of Aboriginal policy. The result last year of the surveys conducted by ANOP at the request of this Minister demonstrated without any shadow of doubt that this Parliament and every member in it, in terms of our responsibility to help every Australian citizen, and certainly including Aboriginal Australians, have a major problem ahead of us to try to win back the support of the mainstream of the Australian people. Whatever that support was a decade ago-and the surveys are clear that that support was there-it is not there today. Mr Hunt —The backlash is there. Mr CONNOLLY —Yes, the backlash is there. Mr CONNOLLY —It is there because this Government in three years has tried to solve the problem by dividing the Aboriginal community and by throwing over $1 billion at the problems and finding no lasting solution. Mr Gayler —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is quite improper for the honourable member for Bradfield to canvass this legislation on the third reading. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -The Chair's attention has been drawn to the Standing Orders. The Chair has slight difficulties with third reading debates, as they are unusual. The reason for a third reading debate is normally to contest things that may have come out of the Committee stage of a Bill. The honourable member should stay relevant to the matter before the House, which is the third reading of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill. Mr CONNOLLY —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We did not have a Committee stage on this legislation for the simple reason that the Opposition will be moving a series of amendments in the other place-amendments which the Minister, if he had been serious and true to his responsibilities, should have been prepared to introduce into this House. The fact that he failed to do so merely demonstrates-and I say this for the third and final time-that we are debating what is nothing more than a political charade. It is merely a means by which this Minister can big note himself at the Australian Labor Party Conference when there is not the slightest doubt-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield must talk to the Bill as it is printed, not to what anyone's policy or point of view might be. The third reading stage is an unusual time for debate and the rules should be properly observed. Mr CONNOLLY —I respect your judgment, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think that it is not unreasonable in this debate to be able to challenge the reasons why the Minister has introduced the Bill at this time. I have done so. That is a very fundamental question. I merely wish to finalise my observations by making the point that there is not the slightest doubt that at the Labor Party Conference the Minister and his Party will be under very serious attack for breaching their policy commitments to the Aborigines. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bradfield is straying off the matter again. Mr CONNOLLY —This legislation does not solve that problem. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(11.27) —in reply-I respond to one point made by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). It is true that there is developing within sections of the Australian society a level of criticism towards Aboriginal people and their aspirations. As I have pointed out in this House on previous occasions, when the Fraser Government introduced its land rights legislation it had the support of the then Opposition. The criticism by the Australian Labor Party was that the legislation did not go far enough. If there is a change in the attitudes of a dominant white community towards the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal people, one of the things we must ask ourselves is: What did the political leaders who represent conservative political interests in this country do in respect of the problem? The fact is that the base vote of the conservative political parties in Australia is about 30 to 40 per cent, depending on where they are. Mr Staples —A bit lower. Mr HOLDING —I am being generous. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister also should attempt to be relevant. Mr HOLDING —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am just answering one point. On the basis of that hard core support, these people take their attitudes on a whole range of social issues from the leadership of the political party they give their support to. What has happened in terms of that leadership? In State after State Liberal Party and National Party conferences have turned their minds and their hearts against the aspirations of Aboriginal people. That has happened time and again. These are the great States righters. The honourable member for Bradfield comes in here and bleats about education in the Northern Territory. Of course I am critical of it, but whose responsibility is it? It is the responsibility of a conservative coalition in the Northern Territory that is funded by the Commonwealth. The real comment about education in the Northern Territory is that the former Chief Minister, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham), thinks so much of it that he is taking his kids to be educated in Brisbane. Of course, Aboriginal people do not have those sorts of options. But when we say that we will direct funds, Opposition members scream about States rights. The reality is that if one looks at the records of the Liberal Party-and I was taken to task by no less a person than Mr Hassell, who wrote to me to say that of course he was opposed to land rights-one sees that at Liberal Party conferences, when it was last put, the vote was overwhelming: There were less than ten votes in favour of land rights at a conference of 300 or 400 people. Of that handful of votes, two were ex-Ministers. So, honourable members opposite should not come in here with bland hypocrisy and lecture us. The Opposition has led a major section of the Australian community, on the basis of trying to pick up a cheap vote wherever it can, into attitudes which embrace racism and the worst aspects of Australian society. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The Minister will address himself to the Bill. Mr Connolly —I seek your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! When we get to the end of the Bill I will call the honourable member for Bradfield. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is quite unacceptable for the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) to try to attack me or the Liberal Party in the manner in which he has. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes, I certainly claim to have been misrepresented. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs made a statement to the effect that the Liberal Party-and he used a general statement in that regard which includes me as a member and all my other colleagues-is anti-land rights. What we have emphasised in this House and what is the basis of our policy is that land management is a State responsibility, not a Commonwealth responsibility. Our responsibility begins and ends in the Northern Territory. In that territory we were the Party which introduced land rights. At a State level, it is the prime responsibility of the States. We may encourage them to do so, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Parliament and not the responsibility of the Labor Party. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the honourable member has made the point about where he was misrepresented. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.33) —The Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill, as stated by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech, is a Bill which proposes to amend a number of Acts to remove or alter provisions which discriminate on the grounds of sex or marital status to ensure that those Acts will be consistent with the Sex Discrimination Act. The Attorney-General informed the House in his second reading speech: In October 1984 all Commonwealth departments began a review of Commonwealth legislation to identify provisions which would be inconsistent with the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. As a result of that review a number of provisions have been identified by departments as involving discrimination on the ground of . . . marital status. The Government believes that wherever possible discriminatory provisions in legislation should be removed rather than preserved by regulation. As a general proposition one can agree that there should not be discrimination. We would not dissent from that. We do not believe in discrimination between men and women, or any discrimination based on sex. But some of the amendments which are proposed-and I shall address myself only to those amendments that we think should not be made-really are amendments which are directed not so much towards removing discrimination but to what might be called underlying social or benefit policies. Therefore, at this stage let me foreshadow that in the Committee stage we will be seeking to amend the Schedule to the Bill-and it is the Schedule which in fact amends the various Acts referred to in the Bill-so as to leave as they presently stand the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954, the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970 and the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. Let me just address, first of all, the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act, which is an Act to provide for assistance by Australia towards the provision of homes for aged persons or disabled persons, and for other purposes. But in the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill, the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act is to be changed by giving an altered definition to `aged person', that is, it is now to be `a person who has attained the age of 60 years'. That is to apply to both men and women in place of the present definition, as follows: `A man who has attained the age of 65 years or a woman who has attained the age of 60 years'. Similarly, in the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970, there is a proposed amendment by the Government which would have the effect that an `aged person' would be defined as meaning `a person who has attained the age of 60 years'; whereas presently an `aged person' is defined under that Act as `a man who has attained the age of 65 years or a woman who has attained the age of 60 years'. There may be a certain arithmetical attraction to having `aged person' defined on a common basis for both men and women. However, it is a fact of life of course that there are different working practices in the Australian workforce-and we are told nothing about those working practices-and that for many years benefits have been given to men and to women discriminating on the basis of age. Discrimination as such is not necessarily wrong if the discrimination reflects a proper judgment of what is necessary. People sometimes think that the very use of the word `discriminate' implies that one is doing something wrong, whereas in fact when one discriminates between doing different things or between taking different courses one is simply and frequently making a value judgment as to what is right or what is wrong. We are told nothing by the Government about the consequences of the amendments or the consequences that they may have in terms of assistance which would be available under those Acts. We are told nothing about the need for the change, that is, need in the sense that there are men who now seek to have the age level reduced from 65 years to 60 years and who have good reason for calling for that reduction. So far as I know there is no ground swell in this country asking for any change to that effect. I point out to the Attorney-General that these amendments may have, or have the potential to have, significant budgetary implications, and have a precedential value which is likely to flow on through other legislation. I next turn to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. The Government's proposal here is to amend that Act in a way which would vary the definition of `de facto spouse'. That amendment seeks to vary the definition from the existing test, which provides for a three-year de facto relationship, and to state it precisely. As presently framed, the definition of `dependant' in section 5 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act provides that a `dependant' means, among other things: A woman who through the period of three years immediately before the date of death of the employee, although not legally married to him, lives with him as his wife on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis. What is proposed is that that definition be removed so that it would read `A woman who immediately before the date of death'-that is, excluding the three-year qualification period. There is, of course, an element of arbitrariness in any qualification period which is restricted to a finite period. Equally, it does at least give a clear test. By changing the definition in the way proposed by the Government, a much wider group of potential payees is opened up. One could face the prospect of payment of compensation on the basis of a very short de facto relationship. Indeed, the same should be said in regard to the Seamen's Compensation Act. Some amendments will be moved in the Committee stage to deal with those matters. I simply make some general comments. I ask: In a time of tight budgetary policy, are these the results intended by the Government? What are the immediate results? If the financial results or consequences are not immediate, what are the longer term financial consequences and what is the potential for flow on? Are these really the priorities that the Government should be looking at? Are we looking at reducing the age requirement for men and allowing for payment of compensation where there has been a short term de facto relationship, to the detriment of what are unquestionably more needy groups in the community, such as single parents and families living below the poverty line? We all know that that is a major problem in our community. We all know that many people are living in poverty. Is that not the area to which priority should be given? If these amendments are passed, it seems to us that the consequence necessarily will be a reduction of funds available to other needy groups. To put it differently, if there are alterations which have the effect or the potential effect-and I underline the word `potential', even if there is no immediate effect-of increasing the number of persons who are entitled to become recipients of welfare from the Commonwealth, is it not the consequence that to that extent cuts have to be made elsewhere? If that is so, because there is a finite amount of money that can be spent on welfare payments, are not more needy people going to be affected? Therefore, whilst we support the principle that there should be no discrimination on the basis of sex, we do not support the specific amendments to which I have referred and an appropriate amendment will be moved in the Committee stage. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(11.43) —The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in his second reading speech on the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986, pointed out to the House that these amendments and changes to a series of Acts have no financial implications. The Government's summation is that the changes being debated today will have no budgetary impact. The background, as the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) mentioned, is that in August 1984 the Government undertook to review all legislation to remove discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy. It is bringing forward amendments to various Acts of Parliament to stop discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy. When I spoke in the debate on the original legislation, I pointed out that when I was a State member of parliament a constituent, a married woman, complained to me that she had been required when obtaining a building society loan to sign a statement that she would not have children; she would therefore work and help to pay off the loan. I thought that it was appalling to put an impost on any woman to sign such an undertaking in order to obtain a loan. The legislation is being amended today to remove all discrimination on the ground of pregnancy. The Attorney also pointed out that the Social Security Act is being exempted from the legislation by regulation. There is, I believe, a groundswell in Australia amongst men to obtain age pensions at 60. That is a long term policy decision and a matter for the Government. It is a very expensive decision. As the Attorney pointed out, it will mean a considerably greater burden for the taxpayer. The social security and welfare budget in the 1985-86 year makes up 27.6 per cent of total outlays. That means nearly 30 per cent of the Budget outlays go to social security and welfare, some $19 billion. Of that amount, $5.3 billion goes to age pensions and allowances. The family allowance is also a very significant item. An amount of $1.5 billion is paid to Australian families with children for what was formerly known as child endowment. So an enormous amount of taxes paid by Australian people-some 30 per cent-goes back to them by way of social security or welfare. Of the outlays, the age pension makes up one-third. Exactly 33 per cent is taken up by the payment of age pensions. Another 18 per cent goes to the unemployed and those who are unfortunate enough to be the recipients of sickness benefit. So it would be very expensive to remove discrimination against men so that they receive the age pension at 60. But that is not what the Government is about. The tax legislation is also being isolated because of the Government's reform of the taxation system. There is another year's extension before the taxation legislation is subject to review to ensure that there is no discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status or pregnancy. We have before the House a number of pieces of legislation that are being amended. The first is the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act. At present it defines `aged person' as being a person aged 65 or a woman who has attained the age of 60. On the grounds of compassion and ease of administration, the Government is substituting the definition of such a person as being one who has attained the age of 60 years. This will have no impact on the Budget. But it does save problems for aged and disabled persons' homes which are taking applications and admitting people to the homes. It saves them administrative problems and difficulties. A man who is in very bad health, suffering from some incurable condition, can be taken into the home if he is over 60. Other pieces of legislation which are of great significance include the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act. This is the Act under which the Meals on Wheels services operate throughout our nation. We all know of the work done by the men and women, many of them retired, who work for Meals on Wheels. In my area I attend meetings of the Meals on Wheels groups. These people give of their time and petrol and have to walk up and down stairs in blocks of flats. In some areas, even in Concord, the people deliver meals on Christmas Day. The Government gives a small subsidy of 65c a recipient a week. The volunteers are unpaid. The meals are delivered five days a week, but for many of the people who are shut in, who are frail, who are aged, the only contact they have with the outside world is the Meals on Wheels volunteer who brings them a meal at lunchtime. I pay tribute to these Australians who help their fellow citizens, not for private profit or private gain, but out of a spirit of fellowship and concern, a spirit of trying to help someone who is perhaps lonely or who cannot fend for himself or herself. If it were not for the volunteers, of course, there would be no delivered meals system. There would be no Meals on Wheels throughout our nation. This system exists in every municipality and shire. It is one of the great attributes of our nation that Australians are caring people. They are prepared to come forward. In some areas, the councils employ supervisors to organise and to do all the work of getting the meals out. I also pay tribute to the hospitals that help to provide the meals, often at great cost to themselves. The private hospitals and the public hospitals help in this regard. Throughout my area, and I am sure in the areas represented by all members in the House, I have been greatly impressed by the work done by these voluntary helpers. The proposal with regard to Meals on Wheels is that at age 60 every person shall be entitled to come under the scheme. There will no longer be the requirement that a frail or infirm man will have to be 65 to come under the scheme. The Government does not believe that this will greatly increase expenses under the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act. I have heard reports that at present if a person over 60 is frail, very sick, terminally ill or has some debilitating disease or condition, the helpers shut their eyes to the rules and the person receives a meal. It is very difficult for those delivering meals to a nursing home or some such place, where two people are in adjoining beds, to have to say to one person: `You are 63 and you cannot get it' when the person in the next bed who is a male aged 65 can qualify. This legislation is compassionate and very humane. The only piece of legislation referred to by the honourable member for North Sydney was the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act and the definition of a de facto spouse. In a sense, the Government must consider children within a de facto marriage. If a public servant or a person qualifying under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act is killed, leaving a de facto spouse and children, those children should not be denied the benefits that flow under that legislation. Those of us who are solicitors or lawyers know of the problems faced by widows or widowers who may not have been married to but who lived with and had children by someone, in establishing their rights. If there is a sudden death of the de facto husband, who has not left a will, the de facto wife has difficulty in establishing her right to claim from the estate and to claim the benefits of long service leave, et cetera. It is very difficult to establish that a de facto relationship has existed. But we must consider the children. The definition being inserted into the legislation relation to Commonwealth public servants is the definition used in the Sex Discrimination Act. The onus is on the person alleging the relationship. That person has to establish that there has been a long term stable relationship. I feel that the requirement of three years would be harsh and unconscionable if, say, a woman was left with two children or even more. There may not have been a permanent relationship and the person may have children. When I was a solicitor I acted for one lady who had 13 children. About six of them were from a de facto relationship. She was an extremely poor woman. Two or three of the children were retarded. I have great sympathy for people who are trying to regularise and sort out their situation. To deny such people the benefit of a pension, or for their children to miss out, would be a sad situation. The Government sees this as no threat to revenue. It does not entail any additional expenditure. But the Government feels that it may be a more simple administrative procedure. The legislation relates only to public servants who are killed, et cetera. I say that there is no relevance in the argument that persons in short term relationships will benefit. Those seeking to claim under this legislation will have to establish their has been a permanent de facto relationship. That is very hard to do. People in de facto relationships may be renting property. There may be no way that they can establish that they have joint bank accounts, own property, or that it has been a long term, long standing relationship. Many of these items are of great importance. Many of the amendments are significant. They will help in the administration of the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act and will certainly help the volunteers who deliver the meals. They should not have to approach a male patient in the bed who is very sick, who may be suffering from psychiatric conditions or be terminally ill, and ask him whether he is over 65. They should not have to obtain an assurance from the nursing home or from someone in the family that the person is over 65. Difficulties arise particularly when the recipient of the meals cannot speak English. We have a system of family reunion for immigrants. Many people are bringing their parents-old people perhaps from Italy, Greece, Vietnam or Lebanon, who cannot look after themselves-to this country. These people come here and eventually may obtain Meals on Wheels. These people often have trouble establishing how old they are. We all, as members of parliament, know how difficult that is. This is a sympathetic and compassionate piece of legislation and I commend the Bill to the House. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(11.56) —There is a lot of good sense in the things that the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) has said. But the simple fact is that the reason that the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill is in some difficulty on the points that he has covered is that the Government is apparently not yet prepared to address the implications for other Acts of certain exemptions made under the Sex Discrimination Act-exemptions that will continue in force. The honourable member for Lowe spoke essentially about two particular changes that would flow from this amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act, that is, the consequential amendments by way of Schedule to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 and the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970. It is my intention also to pay some attention to these matters. The financial implications of the central issue of eligibility for age pensions are something about which I will speak later in my speech. Perhaps the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be able to give us some guidance as to what, if anything, is in the Government's mind about this implication of the changes being proposed to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act and the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act. I have a lot of sympathy, as I said, for the argument that, in the case of the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act, people should be treated equally according to age. As you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, in my electorate of Moncrieff there is a very large population of retired people. There is also an extraordinarily high number of nursing homes and aged persons hostels. It is not at all unusual in those institutions which care for the aged for there to be married couples, both under care. I have often wondered what happens in the case of a couple who need the care of a hostel or a nursing home but where the husband is not yet 65. It would be very simple to have the situation of a wife aged 60, and who therefore attracts some benefits which make this sort of care affordable, whose husband is not yet 65 but who is also in need of care. For example, quite a significant proportion of our population aged between 60 and 65 are on the invalid pension. The age disqualification means that such a couple faces a very difficult situation. The alternatives are that either they both remain in their home, despite needing specialised care, or that the woman goes into a home and the husband and wife are necessarily separated. At that age that can cause great distress. As people get older, they tend to become very much more emotionally dependent on their spouses in their day to day living. Neither of the alternatives is attractive. I am aware that it is the Government's policy to place more emphasis on taking care of the aged in their own homes. But, as I have said in previous debates on that subject in this place, that policy concerns me a little. I fear that aged people may stay in their homes, when they really need specialised care, because of an attachment to their homes, and thereby really diminish their quality of life and possibly their life span also. However this amendment shows how that is happening already. One wonders what happens as far as the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act is concerned. The honourable member for Lowe indicated that people are somehow or other making sure that both a husband and wife get a meal if they both need it. This is not easy for the people who care for the aged by providing meals on wheels. In fact, it makes them bend or dodge rules. I agree with the honourable member for Lowe that very worthy people undertake this work. Frequently they tend to be elderly people, undertaking this activity in their retirement. Not only do they serve a great social purpose in terms of making sure that older people staying in their own homes are well-nourished, but also they perform a very valuable social service in terms of those people's contact with the outside world. However, that is not quite the point at the moment. The point is that these people who are doing such good work and are being given support by other good people in the community, face this difficulty. If they are responsible to deliver meals to a home where the woman, by virtue of her age and infirmity, qualifies for subsidised meals, it is very difficult indeed to overlook the need of the husband in the same state who may not qualify because of his age. Indeed, the man could even be an invalid pensioner, very infirm and in need of that sort of support. I agree with the honourable member for Lowe that these are logically desirable changes. However, the difficulty arises because the discrimination remains in relation to the age pension. That is the real financial implication of these types of changes. A long time ago it was decided in this country that the age pension should go to women at the age of 60 but not to men until they turn 65. That flowed from what we would now consider to be some fairly old-fashioned attitudes. These days women are contesting their right to stay in employment after the age of 60 where an attempt is made to compulsorily retire them. The contests that these women are undertaking are being pretty successful. We need to face the fact that people want to determine for themselves whether they are going to retire, particularly if they do not want to retire and they feel greatly aggrieved if they have to. It is relevant for the Government to determine whether this discrimination by age should still apply. The Attorney-General made the following statement in his second reading speech: Honourable members will also see that the Government has extended its review into some legislation which is already exempt from the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 for an indefinite period, namely, the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1973. Whilst this Act is exempt from the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, it was considered that this was not a good reason why the Act should not be amended, as far as practicable, to be consistent with the Government's commitment towards eliminating discrimination. Amongst the discriminatory provisions identified by departments in reviewing Commonwealth legislation there are a small number which will be preserved by regulation. Regulations to this effect are expected to be made in the near future. These regulations will preserve the operation of some provisions indefinitely, mainly where the other options open to the Government to remove discrimination would have been either to remove an entitlement to a particular benefit, or to make benefits available to a wider group, thereby imposing a considerably greater burden on the taxpayer. Honourable members will be aware that legislation such as the Social Security Act 1947 is already exempt from the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 for reasons such as I have just mentioned. Mr Deputy Speaker, I remind you of those reasons. If the discriminatory provision were to be removed, somebody would either be adversely affected or else there would be significant implications for the taxpayer. That obviously applies in the case of these discriminatory age levels for the age pension. If the pension entitlement age were to be raised to 65, it would be argued that women between the ages of 60 and 65 would lose a benefit. I interpose, because I will come back to it, that not all women will lose the benefit. In fact, some women lose a benefit now by virtue of the fact that they have to go on to the age pension at the age of 60 and lose another benefit which maybe is available to them. The alternative of reducing the age limit for both so that a man could qualify at the age of 60 obviously has financial implications. I would like to address a question to the Attorney-General and I hope that he can give some sort of response to it in his reply to the second reading debate. What sort of quantification has been done of this by the Government? I think there have been some major social changes in attitudes and expectations towards quality of life in the last decade which would impinge upon that arithmetic. I think there are some other changes which might also affect it. This discriminatory age for the awarding of the age pension has been a matter of contention by both men and women. I mentioned a minute ago that it can actually be a disadvantage for a woman to go onto an age pension at the age of 60. The instance in which it is a disadvantage is if the woman is on a sickness benefit. The sickness benefit payable to a single person with a minimum allowable income of $30 from other sources is $102.10 weekly. When a woman turns 60 she is then required to come off the sickness benefit and go on to the age pension with the result that, if she has other income of $30 a week, her income drops to $97.90. Perhaps the Government has quantified how many people that would apply to. I hope that it has, because a few years ago the National Women's Advisory Council brought out a report on disabled women which raised this very point. It had been shown through submissions to the NWAC inquiry that the discriminatory age could be a disadvantage to certain women. Of course, if people are on other forms of benefits or pensions there is not a difference between those and the age pension. I would be interested to know from the Attorney-General what research the Government has done in connection with this proposal. How many men between the ages of 60 and 65 are already on some other form of benefit? If they are on the unemployment benefit they would be a little better off on an age pension but if they are on an invalid pension-possibly for reasons partly associated with their age-and they are unable to work, there would be no difference in giving them the age pension. Has that quantification been done? Has the Government taken into account the increasing number of people who are opting to retire on superannuation after the age of 60 rather than wait to the age of 65? We, in government, attempted to encourage people into early retirement. Even now in certain areas there is strong pressure for retirement at the age of 55. The honourable member for Lowe said in his speech that he was not aware of any ground swell to get the age pension earlier. I think there is a ground swell of opinion for earlier retirement. There have been complaints from men, including, members of this House during the debate on the Sex Discrimination Act, about the fact that men get the age pension five years later than women. There has also been the complaint from women, that I have referred to, that some of them are worse off. I hope that the Attorney-General has the information that I have referred to. I believe that it would be pretty easily available to the Government. A further aspect is that another major category of beneficiaries can now retire at 60, and they are people getting veterans' benefits. So we again make that discriminatory judgment. I would hate to think what the reaction would be if the suggestion were made that veterans' benefits should attract a higher qualifying age. It is certainly not something that I am suggesting. However, those considerations are important because I believe the trend is now very firmly established towards earlier retirement in our society whether on a benefit or superannuation. There are a number of possible reasons. People now generally earn more during their lifetime, and are more likely to own their own home outright, unmortgaged, at an earlier age and to start looking at an alternative retirement style of living, than was the case 30 to 40 years ago. Thus earlier retirement becomes more attractive, even though it may mean a lower income than a later retirement would attract. I believe that that tendency will steadily increase. I have long felt that there was a down side of superannuation, even though it is something we would be anxious to encourage people to participate in. People get locked into employment by a particular employer because they do not have option of leaving to do something else at a more reasonable age than 65. This is especially resented when they are employed in a situation where superannuation is compulsory. It has been said to me by certain bank officers, for example, that they would like to be able to retire earlier on a lower payout benefit because they feel that in their fifties they still have enough energy and initiative, combined with the great expertise they have built up over a considerable working life, to do something else. They have had enough of being a bank officer and can see other opportunities for ways in which to employ other skills they have, combined with the knowledge and skills they have gained from their previous employment. Most of these people have been locked in to remaining in their original employment until at least the age of 60, and not so long ago they could not retire before the age of 65. Even at the age of 60, versus 65, there could be for many of them a big difference between the decision to go into their own business or to enter another form of employment. So there has long since been considerable pressure for loosening up retirement superannuation. The option of early retirement is now being exercised by many people and there will be a growing pressure to look more realistically at the real retirement age in this community, whether for the reasons I have just mentioned or for the reasons I mentioned earlier, such as the entitlement of certain people to retire and get full benefits at the age of 60. I said earlier, and I reiterate, that I would like to know how many men between the ages of 60 and 65 are receiving benefits equivalent to the age pension, or close to equivalent benefits. It would be also interesting to know how many women who go on to the age pension at the age of 60 are already in receipt of another benefit or pension. I believe that quite a number of women go from the widow's pension, invalid pension or supporting parents' benefit-although not so many in the last category-on to the age pension at age 60. Fewer women would be transferring from the unemployment benefit on to the age pension. Those are all relevant considerations. I seek from the Minister an indication of what attention the Government is giving to the whole question that these amendments raise; that is, discriminatory treatment of men and women as to what constitutes `aged'. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(12.14) —It probably does not need saying that I endorse a lot of what the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) has just said, although not its totality. Many of the sentiments expressed would have strong bipartisan support. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) in his contribution touched on the major social changes that underlie this sort of legislation. Many of us, hopefully, act out those changes in accord with what is a much more sensible and appropriate attitude to discrimination against women these days. By way of example, I witness that some minutes ago-not having been driven out of the chamber by the contribution of the honourable member for North Sydney, but taking time off for a cup of coffee before I came in-I had occasion to visit the office of the Government Deputy Whip, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), and it transpired that he did the dishes, I made the coffee and his secretary continued to work. I hope that that says something about the attitude of both the honourable member for McMillan and me to these issues. Mr McGauran —Patronising. Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member for Gippsland always bites on these things. I know that he has a long way to go, but I hope that he, being a good Traralgon lad, as I once was, will move as far down this philosophical road as I have. I have some doubts about that, but I hope that that will come to pass. These legislative changes cannot be seen in some sort of vacuum. They need to be viewed in the context of what this Government has done across the whole gamut of policy changes in terms of legislation that seeks to diminish or prohibit active discrimination against women in our society. In that sense the genesis of these changes arose from the United Nations Decade for Women in 1985. A delegation was sent by this Government to the Nairobi conference to mark its end. Arising out of that, the Government set in train a whole range of initiatives to ensure the momentum of change that has been brought about. I do not claim that only the Australian Labor Party has been involved in this, because many people in the Opposition, when it was in government, had strong views in this area; and the honourable member for Moncrieff most assuredly would have been amongst them. The Government is not claiming all the credit, although it is fair to say that we should be able to call upon substantial congratulations for what we have done in what is by any definition a relatively short period. The honourable member for Moncrieff and my colleague the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) talked about the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970, one of a number of Acts being changed by this legislation, but nevertheless an important one. I doubt whether anyone in this chamber would quibble with the view that when one determines the eligibility for the meals subsidy to individuals we ought not discriminate between men aged 65 and women aged 60. It really is a function of circumstance, and age has very little to do with appetite. Accordingly, although this amendment is overdue, I am pleased to see it come about in the time frame of this Government. We are talking not only about the specific legislation but also about the Government's response across a whole spectrum of the policies to which I referred earlier. This Government in 1984 passed the Sex Discrimination Act which provided for equal treatment, notwithstanding sex, of men and women. We also set in place the affirmative action program, which has not met with unanimous endorsement from the other side of the House but which the majority of people in the Opposition would concede is a significant change. Certainly, insofar as this level of government's direct responsibilities are concerned, it is a major change and one which ought to be commended. The equal opportunity legislation in the Commonwealth Public Service has already manifested itself in greater opportunities for women in the Public Service. We have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Australia has a representative on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women and through that representation we are at the very forefront of the fight against worldwide discrimination against women. In our short term in government we have put some priority on organising to have Australian women on various boards, instrumentalities, authorities and so on. That has been a relatively slow process, but an important one in giving women a voice in the affairs of this country. There are a whole range of subsidiary areas; for example, child care. In my electorate of Maribyrnong in the western suburbs of Melbourne we have been particularly well served by initiatives in child care. I might add that hitherto that was not the case. The circumstances in the western region of Melbourne when this Party was in opposition were that, hard as one fought for any particular initiative in one's area, by and large the problems were not addressed by the then conservative Government for obvious political reasons. That has changed since our election. A number of initiatives have been taken in my electorate that flow directly from this Government's attitude towards women, and I commend the Government for that. That was not without some degree of exertion and advocacy on my behalf. Mr McGauran —Oh, for heaven's sake! Mr GRIFFITHS —As the honourable member for Gippsland has rightly said on a number of occasions, I am a good member for Maribyrnong and I thank him, on a bipartisan basis, for having put that view. Nurse education is referred to in the legislation before us. Honourable members will recall that some days ago I acknowledged the Government's efforts in establishing a tertiary institute in the western suburbs of Melbourne. One of the major areas of initiative comprised in that concept is that we will increase the number of nurse training places in my region. That is significant not only because it is my region but also because the western region has a population far in excess of that in Tasmania but there are nowhere near the same types of resources and facilities to service that very large number of people and therefore we ought, as a government and as a parliament, to take steps to ensure that that form of discrimination against people who live in those areas is not allowed to continue. That has certainly been the attitude of this Government. When the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made a statement on women to the House last year he summarised the essence of his comments in three points. He said: `We want to give women a choice, we want to give women a say and we want to give women a fair go'. In a synopsis form that is well worth repeating in this debate. We have set up the National Women's Consultative Council, which has already had a major input into government decisions in areas that affect women. As I have indicated previously, we have taken a whole range of initiatives which are consistent with that broad attitude that we have indicated. I have very little time left and I do not want to encroach upon the time of my colleague the honourable member for Gippsland, but let me simply add to what I believe are very important points. The first point and one that manifestly has an impact in my area, being a region of high ethnic population, is the specific initiatives that the Government has taken to assist migrant women. I do not think that any honourable member would quibble with the proposition that, as an added disincentive with language barriers and so on, migrant women demonstrably have not had access to child care to the same extent that the more traditional communities in Australia have had. They have not had access to services for the aged and the aging migrant population or to training and retraining. Given that their industries are perhaps to the forefront of those that are affected by technological and other economic change, that is an area which we need to address in some detail. Safety and work condit- ions is another priority area for this Government, as is access to language education. All of these matters manifestly have an impact in the electorate of Maribyrnong. I will conclude on one other very important area which has already been touched on briefly, so I will not go into it in any detail. I refer to the impact on single parent families, who, by definition, are mainly women. The Government has taken steps to reduce poverty traps. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in his outline of tax reform initiatives last year, adequately canvassed that matter. I commend these changes to the House. I do not think it is going too far to congratulate the Government on the significant steps it has taken to date. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(12.24) —The Government has not come into this chamber with clean hands in regard to sex discrimination. The Sex Discrimination Act came into force on 1 August 1984. A major requirement is that all Commonwealth and State legislation be consistent or comply with the Sex Discrimination Act unless an exemption has been granted under section 40. The legislation presently before the House amends the Acts which the Government believes are inconsistent with the Sex Discrimination Act. Some 10 Acts of Parliament will be changed by this legislation. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) promised in his second reading speech that further Bills will follow in the future amending other inconsistent Acts. The Government is in a terrible bind because section 40 of the Sex Discrimination Act proposes to exempt a certain number of Acts of parliament, both State and Federal, but it does not exempt others. In other words, the government is placing itself in the position of a moral adjudicator or arbitrator of standards as to what is right and what is wrong. Certainly a clue to the Government's thinking on when to grant exemption or otherwise was given by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) when he said in his contribution to this debate that he supports this legislation because it will not have a significant effect on revenue. Is that to be the only consideration or the only test to be applied by the government? Of course it is. The exemptions that are in the pipeline under section 40 of the Act further reiterate the contention made by the honourable member for Lowe: When it comes to applying a principle which this Government proclaims it is committed to-that is, the elimination of discrimination on the basis of sex-its actions are hollow. I understand, firstly, that a definite exemption will be given under section 40 to the Defence Service Homes Act; a definite exemption will be given to the conscription Acts. We know that an exemption has already been given in regard to combat duty. We understand that an exemption will probably be given to tax legislation because Treasury has not yet had time to consider which of its provisions are inconsistent with the Sex Discrimination Act. The guiding principle in this area seems to be what will or will not cost the Government money. I agree for the most part that much of this legislation ought not to be changed. I would agree that the exemptions ought to be given but I do not have the same ring of hypocrisy as the Government because the Government seeks to make much mileage out of its commitment to eliminate sex discrimination, yet when it is put to the test-as with so many other moral issues-the Government fails. There are a number of issues under the exemption clause which cause me and a great many others concern. I will take just one, that is, the matter of adoptions. The Commonwealth has jurisdiction over the Australian Capital Territory in this regard and the Australian Capital Territory Adoption Act requires that a couple be married before they can become applicants for adoption. I understand that that is being looked at by the Government. Furthermore, the Commonwealth Government is looking at the adoption laws of State governments. It may well be that a decision will be made by the Commonwealth Government not to change the requirement of the Australian Capital Territory and State adoption laws that the couple must be married. I would certainly like a reassurance from the Attorney that the Government will rule out of hand any change to that requirement for adoption, that is, that the couple be married, and that precludes de facto or homosexual couples adopting children. I understand that the Government is very likely to give an exemption to the Commonwealth Marriage Act which has the minimum marriage age for men at 18 years and for women at 16 years. That will be a definite exemption to the Sex Discrimination Act. I agree with that differentiation in age. An argument can be made that women aged 16 are more mature than men aged 18. Nonetheless, one wonders whether the Government satisfies the feminist constituency to which it directs so much of its social legislation. When the Sex Discrimination Act came before the Parliament in March last year I predicted a problem that has arisen in recent days and I would be pleased to hear the Attorney-General's reply. On 1 March 1984, in a speech to the Parliament, I said: A great many moral questions are involved in this piece of legislation, particularly in regard to marital status. I suggest to members of the Government that many Australians would insist strongly on the right of the provider or seller of accommodation to make moral judgments about those who wish to rent or purchase accommodation from him. I certainly do not wish, nor does any honourable member on this side of the House, to embark on a moral crusade. That is certainly not the role of the Parliament. Nonetheless, I suggest that a person providing accommodation has the inalienable right to provide it on the terms and conditions he chooses. Mr Maher —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This legislation has nothing to do with rental accommodation. The honourable member is quoting from a speech he made in this House two years ago on another Bill. I ask you to draw his attention to that fact and bring him back to the legislation before the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —The honourable member for Lowe has raised a point of order in regard to relevance. The honourable member for Gippsland has referred to an earlier speech he made. I am sure that he regards it as an example that he needs to refer to in relation to the matters he is putting before the House. I am sure that he has no intention of straying from the legislation for any length of time. Mr McGAURAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This legislation does concern exemptions granted under the Sex Discrimination Act. In summary, what I said on 1 March 1984 was that the providers of accommodation are entitled to make moral judgments about those who rent or buy accommodation from them. Over the weekend there have been a number of statements by different churches about a ruling by the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board, which held that a person who deeply believed that he could not let accommodation to a de facto or homosexual couple was in error, and he was fined. There are two things to say about that. The first is that we have always known that that would be the case under this legislation. We predicted it at the time when the legislation was introduced. I believe it is wrong for the Government to intervene in the rights of such a person. However wrong the exercise of that right may be, it should still exist in somebody in those circumstances. The second thing is that it is all very well for the churches to speak up now. I say that with the greatest respect. I see from the newspaper clipping that the Catholic-I am a Catholic-Anglican and Uniting churches all have something to say on how terrible this decision by the Board has been. But where were they three years ago when this draft legislation was circulated? Where were they 2 1/2 years ago when it was debated? I can well remember the efforts of the Opposition at the time to stir some interest in the churches and to obtain some support, none of which was forthcoming. Mr Maher —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am reluctant to interrupt the honourable member again, but we are not dealing with New South Wales legislation; we are not dealing with the renting of private property for private profit and private gain. We are dealing with an amendment which has very limited impact on a number of pieces of legislation. The honourable member has wandered back to a debate that took place years ago. He is now criticising the churches for not having entered the debate at that time. I do ask you to bring the honourable member back to the legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member for Lowe has made his point. Although I have not been in the chair throughout the debate, up to date there has been a fairly wide-ranging debate on this matter and I am sure the honourable member for Gippsland will demonstrate how his remarks relate to the Bill. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, the legislation before the House amends 10 Bills which the Government says do not meet its exemption criteria under section 40 of the Sex Discrimination Act. I have attempted to set out some of the exemptions the Government is considering, that is, I have said that the Government will not change the legislation but will allow it to exist and contravene the purposes and intentions of the Sex Discrimination Act. I have further gone on to say that I do not believe that the Government is sincere and genuine in its application of the Sex Discrimination Act. I am concerned that many of the problems we predicted have now come about. I am disappointed, as a legislator, at the lack of support and the disinterest shown two years ago by the same churches that are now criticising the application of the Sex Discrimination Act. I believe that the Government has shown its true colours-as has the honourable member for Lowe, who is extremely sensitive on these matters. Mr Maher —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find those remarks offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr McGAURAN —No. I am not withdrawing what I said. No. Mr Tim Fischer —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I draw your attention to standing order 78, which says: When the attention of the Speaker is drawn to words used, he shall determine whether or not they are offensive or disorderly. I submit that, in the circumstances, the words used by the honourable member for Gippsland could not in any way be determined as offensive or disorderly. Mr Maher —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Gippsland said that I am showing my true colours, that somehow I do not support Christian principles on marriage. That is what I object to. He is talking about de facto relationships and has said that I have shown my true colours. I find that very offensive, particularly coming from this honourable member who has just proclaimed himself as a Catholic for all the world to hear. It is not a Christian attitude to say that I am showing my true colours. I do find that very offensive and I ask for it to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think that the honourable member for Gippsland has indicated that he had no intention of implying that, and that if that was the case he would withdraw it. Mr McGAURAN —I regret that the honourable member for Lowe has placed that interpretation on my words. I had no intention of ever suggesting that about him or any other member of this Parliament. Of course I withdraw those words if he finds them offensive, but the words I used were, to my exact recollection, that the Government and the honourable member for Lowe have shown their true colours. That followed a whole list of problems concerning the Sex Discrimination Act that I outlined. As to the honourable member for Lowe's sensitivity, I have no control over that. Mr Maher —He has not withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes, he has withdrawn. Mr McGAURAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not withdraw any words; I withdraw the interpretation the honourable member for Lowe has placed upon those words. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —That was what the honourable member sought. Mr Maher —I take a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, you have directed the honourable member to withdraw in accordance with the Standing Orders, at my request. The honourable member has not withdrawn unconditionally; he has put all sorts of equivocations on it. He says all sorts of things now and he has not withdrawn unconditionally. Mr McGauran —On the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: As the honourable member for Farrer has said, my words were that the honourable member for Lowe has shown his true colours. Is it the ruling of the Chair that those words are unparliamentary? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, it is not. I have asked the honourable member for Gippsland-I believe he has done so-to withdraw any inference to which the honourable member for Lowe may have taken offence. I believe that he has given the honourable member that withdrawal and apology. Mr Maher —He did hedge the whole withdrawal and he did make qualifications. He did not have the courtesy to withdraw unconditionally. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! He has withdrawn. Mr McGAURAN —If we can return to the legislation, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will again summarise: The Government will grant exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act in a very selective manner. If it hurts its hip pocket, it will allow discrimination-as it defines it, not as I define it-to continue. However, on a number of very important issues-such as adoption and accommodation-it refuses to grant exemptions, or at least it refuses to tell us whether by 1 August this year it will grant those exemptions. I seek from the Attorney-General a clear and unambiguous statement as to the Government's intention in regard to the granting of exemptions under section 40. The argument that has arisen in New South Wales regarding the refusal by a proprietor of property to let property to somebody who in his opinion contravenes very deeply held religious beliefs I believe is valid. These problems were predicted a long time ago and any honourable member who does not acknowledge the right of somebody to refuse accommodation, on a conscientious basis or as a result of a deeply held religious belief, to somebody who contravenes that belief is not giving credence to the right of the individual. There are many aspects of the Sex Discrimination Act and about the amendments in the legislation now before the House on which I and others could concentrate. However, I simply say that, whilst I support a number of the provisions of the legislation before the House today, I have a number of reservations about the whole conceptual thrust of the Sex Discrimination Act and I wish to condemn the Government for its inconsistency and its outright hypocrisy on a number of issues. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(12.40) —in reply-I realise that the Opposition wishes to go into Committee, but I thought that I should reply quickly to the matters that have been raised. Let me say at the outset, in fairness to what the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) has said, that it is about time we got the issue right here in terms of what this Bill is doing. In accordance with the Sex Discrimination Act, which came into force in 1984, there will be a review of existing legislation. This provision simply gives an analysis of the review that is obligatory within the two-year period. The honourable member for Gippsland raised a number of matters which are, of course, not related to this legislation. Mr Hodges —Very much so. This is perpetuating the problems of the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the honourable member for Petrie will bear with me, they are not even within the ambit of the legislation. The matters to which the honourable member referred are in terms of what is called `sexual preference', when this legislation deals only with matters of sex, marital status and pregnancy. The matters to which he is reverting relate to State law and the case he quotes relates to State provisions. Let us come back to the provisions we have before us where we are talking about no discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status or pregnancy. We have already passed that legislation. It provides for a review of our laws that do not conform. In this process, as I indicated in the second reading speech, we have already identified 10 such pieces of legislation which are in the schedule. That is all that the debate is about: Whether those 10 existing laws need to be looked at from the viewpoint of whether they discriminate on the question of sex, marital status or pregnancy. Other Acts certainly at this stage do not meet the requirement. That is acknowledged and exemptions must be given. Other Acts, of course, will be dealt with in the course of other Ministers dealing with their portfolios. But this is a package of 10 with a time factor in it because, under the 1984 legislation, it expires on 1 August 1986. So, we should bear that in mind and recognise that this is not a wide-ranging debate on the whole issue of what we would like to do in social welfare on which the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) made a very good speech about the problems people feel in the welfare area. But this legislation is not about that matter. It is about amending legislation that requires amendment because of the Sex Discrimination Act passed in 1984. The honourable member for Moncrieff wants to know how much it would cost, for example, if everybody were to be given pensions at the one age. I think that that would be a matter that would certainly be within the knowledge of my ministerial colleague, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). I will undertake to refer all such questions regarding cost and what it might mean to give everybody the same sort of monetary compensation at the same age and to get the best answer that I can. I am aware that when that was a matter of debate, not so much in relation to this Bill but on the question of what it would cost, I think the estimated cost from the viewpoint of extending benefits to men at the same age as now applies to women might have been at least $800m. I would not know, in saying that, whether that satisfies the honourable member for Moncrieff, but it has little to do with the Bill which attempts to bring in alterations to 10 Acts. I am aware that we are going into Committee because the Opposition is opposing the situation in respect of four of the 10 Acts although not opposing the other six. It identifies them as the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act, 1954, the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970, the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, and the Seamen's Compensation Act 1911. I am surprised to think that it is put on the basis that this is some arithmetical attraction. The Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act is not an arithmetical attraction. The unfortunate male who is there, because he is either aged or disabled-even though he may not have reached the age of 65 years-and certainly because of the wear and tear in human terms, is incapable of looking after himself. So it was thought, in terms of ordinary social welfare, to give that male the same advantage because he has the same incapacity and disability rather than put it on an arithmetical calculation or, as the Opposition says: `Well, you can't get that now, we are going to deny you the benefit. We know you are sick, aged and disabled in medical terms, but you have not reached it in terms of your age, so you are not going to get it'. It did seem to be a ridiculous situation. Under the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act, those who receive such benefits on a subsidy certainly deserve it, but again the male could not get it unless aged 65 years. Here they are sick, in need of care, somebody is prepared to go out and give them a meal, but the Opposition says: `No, you are not going to do that'. I cannot, for the life of me, understand the logic of that argument. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m. the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The Minister will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed. That grievances be noted. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(12.46) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the north Queensland office of the Department of Trade was formally opened on 11 November 1983. It was the first regional trade office to be located outside a capital city. The decision to establish this office in Townsville was part of the Hawke Government's drive to improve Australia's performance as a trading nation. The driving force behind the decision was the former Minister for Trade, the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). It was intended that the office would provide a full range of the export and service facilities of the Department of Trade on a direct and ongoing basis to north Queensland exporters, who had been isolated from the previous nearest Trade Office in Brisbane, some 1,500 kilometres south of Townsville. North Queensland lies entirely within the tropics. The region has a population larger than that of Tasmania, spread over an area marginally smaller than New South Wales. Most of the population is concentrated on the east coast between Sarina in the South and Mossman in the north. Townsville was an ideal choice for the location of the first regional office of the Department of Trade. North Queensland has a long history as a major exporter. Over the years it has continued to develop new products and new markets. Whilst its economy has traditionally depended heavily on mining, fishing and agriculture, an expanding manufacturing industry has now developed. In 1983-84 exports from the north Queensland region, excluding bauxite, amounted to more than $2.3 billion-that is, just over 44 per cent of the Queensland total and more than 8 per cent of Australia's total export earnings. It is an outstanding achievement. With improved transport infrastructure and the growth of new industries this figure is expected to increase even further. Rapidly expanding international air links to Japan, the United States, New Zealand, Singapore and Papua New Guinea are opening up new markets for north Queensland manufacturers and primary producers. Air freight charter services may expand these destinations even more in the future. The Townsville Trade office is working to develop regular shipping links between north Queensland and South East Asia. The introduction of these services would herald unlimited opportunities for north Queensland exporters to gain a permanent foothold in the expanding markets of South East Asia. Since its establishment the Townsville Trade office has identified hundreds of north Queensland industrial firms as exporters or potential exporters. These firms include manufacturers of cartons, plastics, boats, building materials, copper products, food supplements, chemicals, fibreglass products, mining equipment and agricultural machinery. In addition, primary producers are growing an ever-increasing variety of tropical produce for overseas consumption. A number of firms have participated in overseas trade shows and displays. With the emphasis upon developing export markets in the Pacific rim countries, the Townsville Trade office, on behalf of north Queensland exporters, has made extensive usage of Trade Commissioner offices located in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Honolulu, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Port Moresby, Suva, Auckland and Wellington and as far away as Houston, Texas. The office is promoting Papua New Guinea as a market for north Queensland-manufactured building materials and machinery, prefabricated housing and related products, agricultural machinery, mining machinery and servicing and pipeline systems. The Townsville Trade office has provided assistance regarding market research in North America and the seafood industry in particular has had considerable success. Boat manufacture is a major growth industry in north Queensland and local manufacturers are already seeking assistance in entering the lucrative American market. Whilst the challenges to north Queensland exporters have been immense, their outstanding success owes much to the indefatigable efforts of the Townsville Trade office in its encouragement, facilitation and promotion of the export of north Queensland goods and services. Since its establishment the Townsville Trade office has benefited from the work of its highly motivated and competent staff. There are nearly 40 Australian Trade Commission staff in Queensland but, with the exception of three positions in Townsville, all of the other staff positions are based in Brisbane. Townsville is one of the four sub-offices which exist under the umbrella of the State offices in the capital cities. Other sub-offices are located at Geelong, Wollongong and Newcastle. Recently I have been informed that the continued existence of the Trade sub-offices is under consideration by the Australian Trade Commission. If this information is true, I believe the Government made a grave error in establishing the Australian Trade Commission. To close the Townsville Trade office would be nothing less than an act of recidivism. Townsville was the first such office opened. It is responsible for the largest area of any sub-office. It is the most remote from a capital city of all sub-offices. It is closer to markets in Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya than it is to Brisbane and is best situated to exploit Australia's proximity to markets in South East Asia. The office services a growing population of approximately 500,000 people who are rapidly diversifying their industry and is the only office located in a tropical region with associated tropical agricultural expertise, for example in crops and equipment. This has enormous potential internationally if allowed to continue developing. The narrow economic base of past years has been replaced by an outward-looking business community as the region's manufacturing base expands and primary industry diversifies. The Townsville office is assisting an ever-increasing flow of inquiries for assistance in marketing goods and services overseas. The region's location, at the very edge of South East Asia, compounded by expanding international air and sea links, presents regional industries with excellent opportunities to exploit. The Townsville office has assisted local industry to participate in overseas trade shows. It has provided business contacts overseas and has introduced local firms to visiting foreign buyers. Its ready accessibility has allowed many export industry inquiries to be answered speedily and at minimum cost to local industry. This is a great advantage for new exporters, in particular those who require practical advice on how to export from north Queensland. New exporters seek advice on their shipping requirements, finance and foreign currency transactions, government regulations, overseas business customs and laws, insurance, identification of markets, pricing information, quarantine regulations, to name just a few. The clear advantages of being able to consult a locally based export specialist is essential to simplify the process of exporting. In response to persistent demands, trade seminars aimed at new exports are planned for the region in June of this year. Export successes in 1986 ranging from a $100,000 drilling equipment sale to Zimbabwe to a multi-million dollar cattle breeding and fattening project in China and a $45m building project in Malaysia are evidence of the aggressive marketing of local industry. On 5 December 1985, the Australian Trade Commission Act passed both Houses of this Parliament. The Australian people were assured that the Australian Trade Commission was being given prime responsibility for the development and implementation of programs for the encouragement, facilitation and promotion of the export of Australian goods and services. The task of the Commission was of unparalleled enormity. Never before in its history had Australia's standing as the southern hemisphere's most vibrant, resourceful and richest nation been so imperilled. In introducing the Australian Trade Commission Bill the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), with compelling eloquence, reminded Australians of what had happened to our country under almost 30 years of Liberal-National Party rule. He said: As a world exporter, Australia's ranking has slipped from eighth to twenty-third over the last 30 years. Our share of the world export market has dropped from 2.6 per cent to 1.2 per cent and the international purchasing power of our exports has shown weak growth over the last 30 years by comparison with other major trading nations and actually declined in the decade to 1983. We have also lost ground in most major overseas markets including Japan, the Association of South East Asian Nations and the Western Pacific. The problems facing Australia in its trading situation have been brought into sharp focus this financial year by the general weakening of our current account since the beginning of the 1980s and the related build-up in our international indebtedness. For 1984-85, the current account deficit reached $10.2 billion, almost 40 per cent above its level of $7.4 billion in 1983-84. Overall in the 1980s our current account deficit has averaged around 4.5 per cent of our gross domestic product, well above the long term average of the 1960s and 1970s of 2.5 per cent. This succession of large current account deficits has been due to a number of complex factors and has contributed to the rapid growth in Australia's net external indebtedness which is estimated to have increased from $7.3 billion in June 1980 . . . to $52.0 billion . . . in June 1985. Most of this external debt has been incurred by the private sector. The Treasury estimates that servicing this debt, public and private, absorbed about 34 per cent of the volume of our exports in 1984-85. Australia's export performance will not be improved by a single measure. It will not be improved by closing Townsville's Trade office. It will not be improved by abandoning north Queensland's burgeoning export industry but by the integration of all its trade, industry and economic policies in support of the private and public sectors. We must recover our export markets and recover them now. For our national survival we must find and secure new markets for our manufacturing and services industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, we cannot afford to fail. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order. The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(12.56) —Next month celebrates 10 years of Australian Labor Party government in New South Wales. I would like to make some remarks about the self- congratulations that are being presented to the people of New South Wales by the Government and by the Australian Labor Party. I think that these self-congratulations are probably premature and that there are a number of matters of balance which should be considered by the good residents of that State, my home State. I will quote first of all from the Costigan report, on criminal organisation centred in Sydney, at page 35, edited chapter 10 of volume 2 of the Costigan Interim Report, No. 4. Costigan says: I am satisfied that the criminal organisation which is described in this report is flourishing in Australia. Some of the component parts are constantly at work. It does have the appearance of being an organisation which finds its roots in Sydney and one may easily conclude that geographically it is centred in that city. I refer the House to further remarks by Costigan on page 39 of edited chapter 10, volume 2, Costigan Interim Report No. 4: Even in those law enforcement agencies which have given attention to organised crime, it is apparent they have been unable to achieve any real success. It is only the Victorian police force which has given the matter a significant degree of attention. I draw the House's attention to matters over that 10-year period which I think need to be put, because they do reflect the real concerns of the people of New South Wales. Costigan made some strong comments and those strong comments need to be taken note of. I refer the House to when this matter first came to my attention back in 1976, to some of the pre-selection problems within the Australian Labor Party. In fact, I have before me comments by the Federal President, Mr T. Burns, concerning the Blaxland preselection, in which I was interested to read at the time that due to accusations of branch stacking-there were six candidates for the preselection ballot held on 26 October 1968-on the evening of the count Mr Junor polled 88 votes, Mr Keating polled 81 votes and 63 votes went to other candidates. There are some caustic comments about the way in which that preselection was carried out. Of course, there are other preselections in that State which have also been investigated by various committees of the Australian Labor Party. The facts within New South Wales and the operation of members of the Australian Labor Party are again referred to in an article in the Australian Labor Party magazine Challenge of 26 August 1982: Members of ALP branches in Degen's- that is a former State member- electorate have a different perspective on this `harmless' larrikinism- which has been referred to: particularly those who have been on the receiving end of bashings committed at ALP branch meetings by goons such as Eric Delaney, identified in the Royal Commission Report as a heroin trafficker. I further quote from the Challenge: The Royal Commission on Drugs Report is replete with the names of criminals who were members of Balmain branch-names such as Delaney, Theelander, Olson, Dance and Scifleet. Not to mention luminaries of the illegal gambling world such as Bruce and Harry Hardin. Those matters caused great concern within the Australian Labor Party and no doubt there were proper investigations. However, those investigations were hampered and major doubts were shown in the Woodward report of the Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking as to the way in which those investigations were carried out by the New South Wales Government. The New South Wales Government was the government that repealed the Summary Offences Act, and the streets of Sydney have suffered since. That decision was an action of the Australian Labor Party and the New South Wales Government. It was a piece of legislation that had allowed the police to take action against drugs, drug offenders, sex offenders, drunks and other people on the streets of Sydney. With the repealing of that Act, obscene language and other actions can take place on Sydney's streets without any action by police or courts being taken. Also, repealing of the Evidence Bill in April 1979 was another fascinating little action of the New South Wales Government, and Sir Harry Gibbs had things to say about that which indicated that he considered it was for the courts to decide what would be evidence before them, not for the New South Wales Attorney-General, who was seeking at that time to withdraw some sensitive evidence before a court case. In 1982 the New South Wales administrative committee of the Australian Labor Party investigated matters and, of course, honourable members will be aware of colleagues in this House who have suffered through the processes of the party branch system in that State. I draw the attention of the House also to the appointment of Mr Allan, the former Commissioner for Police in the State of New South Wales, and what occurred subsequent to that appointment. I would like to quote to the House from a Daily Mirror report of Friday 30 April 1982, concerning what former Commissioner Lees had said: He said that he was 'disgusted' when Mr Wran appointed Mr Allen as his deputy and described Mr Allen's conduct in the taped conversation affair as `despicable'. `I was phoned and told Allen was my new deputy while I was in Hobart', Mr Lees said. `I was never consulted'. Of course we know the sad and sorry result of the Allen affair and where that finished, despite disclaimers time and again by the Premier of the State of New South Wales. Lees was not consulted and those problems have continued in the State of New South Wales. I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald of 9 February 1982, which reported the following statement from an administrative committee review of Australian Labor Party internal affairs: The Committee views with grave concern the development of the practice whereby police and courts intrude upon the internal affairs of the Labor Party to the extent that members of the ALP have been arrested and charged with offences relating to internal party matters. What has happened since? We have had a few events. It has taken the Premier 10 years to get an effective inquiry into the death of Don Mackay. Just this week, through the action of concerned citizens of the Griffith area, some action is actually taking place. It has been duck-shoved and postponed and no action has been taken in this area by the Government of New South Wales, much to the concern of the residents of all of that State. We have had the Jackson affair. We have had the Farquhar inquiry. All of these show that the record of the Government is not of the type that it wants to depict. We saw in the Sydney Morning Herald of 1 March 1984 the headline, `Guilt by association . . . Wran's attack on press . . .' If the Premier gets into a problem anywhere he attacks the Press. The article quotes Mr Wran: `I'm heartily sick of being put in a position by the media, especially sections of the media such as the Herald, The National Times and The Age, whereby you've got to prove some innocence when anyone cares to come along with an allegation. I would suggest to the House that Mr Wran's own actions have proved his own concern about these matters because in each instance he has been forced to conduct inquiries or open Royal Commissions. Finally, I want to quote to the House from a report in the Melbourne Age of 14 April 1986 by the former Mr Justice Athol Moffitt wherein Mr Moffitt says: When the facts are examined it is difficult to rebut what Costigan and Woodward said: on these matters, although of national concern, NSW appears, to go it alone too often. Australians should applaud the cooperative national attempt to deal with drug abuse and to help victims and potential victims of this dreadful menace. What Mr Hawke has said is a national admission that drug-organised crime is out of control. It should be a stir to greater national action. That really runs counter to today's advertisement in the Daily Telegraph saying that there are better trains, new hospitals and new strength in the control of crime in New South Wales. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(1.06) —My cause for grievance today is that there has been yet another accident at a nuclear reactor, and this one is of major proportions. This one has the dimensions of the disaster forecast for the last 20 years. How many members over the years have spoken in a grievance debate on these potential dangers. As a matter of fact, an accident of this proportion has probably always been recognised by both opponents and proponents of nuclear power as inevitable, but when such a disaster occurs how do both sides react? Opponents cannot just say: `I told you so'. We have to work, as always, in a positive way to prevent further disasters and to continue to warn of the dangers. Proponents, on the other hand, as always, will try to hide, to minimise and to rationalise, and they are doing that now. What the Soviet Union and the Soviet people need now is our sympathy and practical aid to assist them to meet this tragedy. The United States has already offered aid. Unfortunately the Soviet Union, which has such a major commitment to nuclear power, is still trying to minimise the extent of the accident. It is still insisting that the accident has been brought under control with minimal deaths and injuries. Although the details are still sketchy, it appears certain now that there was a core meltdown-some of today's reports even claim that there may have been two-that there was a possible explosion and that there was a fire that is apparently still burning out of control. What we do know is that a radioactive cloud has spread across northern Europe and there appear to be very heavy levels of radiation. Thousands of people have been evacuated. Sweden is monitoring its domestic situation closely and could issue a warning against drinking rainwater in areas showing concentrated radioactive contamination. Contamination has already been detected in milk from cows on the eastern coast of Sweden. Whatever details we have now, no matter how sketchy, what is certain is that the scope and consequences of this accident will become clearer only as weeks, months and years go by. It is worth remembering America's worst nuclear power accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. First, it was worse than originally admitted; secondly, it was worse than they even believed-there was a near meltdown; and thirdly, the consequences, both those that are known, like the cost of decommissioning, and unknown, like illnesses that may have been caused, will take years to determine. It was certainly worse than originally admitted. In April 1985 the project manager for Three Mile Island announced that as much as 20 per cent of the core had melted in the 1979 accident. That was admitted in April 1985. This is much worse than we were led to believe back in 1979 when the accident occurred. Nine years later the clean-up of Three Mile Island is still at a relatively early stage. More than $US400m of an estimated $US1,000m total cost has already been spent. Not only does the core and cooling system need to be cleared of fuel, debris, support structures et cetera, but the entire containment building will eventually have to be decontaminated. The record of the nuclear industry is frightful. On the one hand, the record of nuclear power for electricity, that is, for peaceful purposes, is one of a long list of accidents, increased costs and wrong predictions. As for the other, inextricably linked, non-peaceful purposes of nuclear power-the manufacture of the most horrendous weapons ever imagined-I think there is no need to discuss here the problem that that side of the nuclear industry has posed for the world. But proponents of the peaceful use of nuclear power are running out of arguments. The record is against them. The industry predictions are being shown to be inaccurate on safety, on economics and on efficiency. The Chernobyl plant accident is the latest in a series of mishaps since the advent of nuclear power about 30 years ago. Let me list some of them: In 1957 the worst accident in the West's nuclear industry afflicted Britain's Windscale nuclear complex, now known as Sellafield-it was thought that by changing the name people might forget what had happened at the same place under a different name. Fire destroyed the core of one of two plutonium-producing reactors, sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official British report many years later said that leaking radiation could have cause dozens of cancer deaths. In 1975 there was a fire in the Brown's Ferry nuclear power plant near Athens in Alabama. In 1979, as I have already reminded the House, the United States' worst nuclear accident occurred at the Three Mile Island plant. In 1983, Britain's Sellafield plant, the scene of the 1957 fire, accidentally discharged radioactive waste into the Irish Sea. After the Three Mile Island accident, the already receding tide of nuclear power expansion came to a virtual halt in the United States. Throughout the United States of America orders for nuclear power plants were deferred and cancelled. In West Germany, Sweden and Austria there has been a de facto moratorium on new reactors, while Japan, Canada and Britain have significantly scaled down their expansion plans. The only countries to go full steam ahead have been France and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Orders for new reactors have dropped world-wide, even in Europe where building is still proceeding. The projections for the year 2000 are now only one-tenth of what was previously expected. So much for the predictions of the industry. This industry, remember, is being kept afloat by Government subsidy. It is uneconomic, particularly because of the safety features that now have to be built in as a result of increased public awareness and demands. Political point-scoring by East and West on better management is unhelpful. Safety measures in the Soviet Union are less than those in the United States-the reactors, for instance, do not have containment areas-but the Russians claim that the different design of their reactors is a safer one. The history of nuclear safety in the USSR is not well documented but, according to western experts, a serious Soviet accident occurred in 1958 in the Urals. It was estimated that hundreds died from radiation sickness. The cause of the reported disaster is unknown, but one theory is that it was an explosion of buried nuclear waste. If only we had the facts on all these accidents! It is unhelpful to claim that the accident in the USSR was `just their fault' as Kemeny, the great proponent of nuclear power has said publicly already, and that it could not happen anywhere else. The Three Mile Island accident, we now know, came very close to exactly the same result through different factors. But we cannot avoid asking: `What if such a disaster occurred in Europe', which is so heavily populated. The effects of radiation drift from Chernobyl have been felt as far away as Scandinavia, and radiation is now drifting back to Poland and the USSR. Imagine such an accident in the heart of Europe! The fact is that as the future of nuclear power becomes more threatened by economic factors, such as delays in reactor construction, increases in interest charges and a slow-down in electricity demand, a primary concern of reactor operators is to cut costs to keep their industry alive. Many of the safety issues of nuclear power plants relate directly to economic issues. This most recent disaster is a cause for the world to take stock of the industry as a whole and we in Australia are involved. We supply uranium to the nuclear power industry, which claims to be economic, clean, efficient, necessary and safe. It is none of those things. It is not perfectly safe anywhere and it is not economic. The tough, hard-headed assessors of economic well-being on the New York stock exchange are reacting. The Dow Jones index dropped immediately because of uncertainties throughout the whole market. It is said to be a psychological reaction to the disaster. What about the psychological reaction of citizens of countries with a nuclear power industry? What about the effect on their physical health and on their environment? Everyone in the nuclear power industry, and that includes us, must question that involvement. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(1.15) —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Hawke Labor Government has been characterised by a series of carefully staged, loudly proclaimed and even dramatic events. There has been the accord and of course the National Economic Summit, the tax summit, the drug summit, the Priority One: Young Australia campaign and now the drugs campaign. But I pose the question to the Government: What is there to show for all of these Hollywood-type productions? They are slick, but amount only to froth and bubble. There has been little follow-up on some of these highly staged, highly artifical schemes. Promises have been made, and expectations have been raised. Yet, apart from a welter of glossy publications, nothing of substance is ever produced. I wish to concentrate on just one of these carefully staged, cynical campaigns-Priority One. The problem of youth unemployment can hardly be overstated or exaggerated. It is of the utmost concern to not only legislators but also most people in the community. Priority One represents the Government's so-called co-ordinated, unified attempt to deal with the problem of youth unemployment. The Government has placed all of its eggs in this area in the one basket. So if Priority One fails the Government, quite frankly, has no policy in regard to youth unemployment. The figures for youth unemployment are not getting any better. Indeed on the latest figures, they are worsening. In March 1986 a staggering 21.8 per cent, almost 22 per cent, of youths aged between 15 and 19 were unemployed. Over one in five of our young people between 15 and 19 are unable to obtain employment. That compares with an unemployment figure of 6.4 per cent for those over the age of 20, ranging right through to retirement age. That gives us a total unemployment figure for this country of 7.9 per cent. The problem is stark. It is crying out for at least an honest genuine attempt to deal with it. Sadly, I do not believe that this Government is genuine in its attempts to deal with youth unemployment. Instead, it has cynically betrayed the hopes and expectations that were raised during the Priority One campaign. After all, some 10,000 traineeships were promised by 30 June. It is now admitted by the Government that nowhere near that figure will be achieved. I would not mind if even half or two-thirds of that figure were to be achieved. That is not to be the case. It is often said by the Government, when this failure is put to it, that Priority One is not just about traineeships; that it has other aspects, other arms, with which to help young unemployed people. Again, I would like to know what are these arms; what have been the achievements. I have studied Priority One at great depth and have found, quite frankly, that traineeships are not just the central plank of that program but almost the whole of it. It is nonsense for the Government to say defensively that it has achieved reforms in other areas of youth unemployment by way of Priority One. I am very concerned that whilst I believe, and I would expect most legislators would also share my belief, that the great majority of young, unemployed people genuinely seek employment, community attitudes are hardening. Let us not run away from that, because we are receiving evidence of it every day. The community at large is becoming increasingly distrustful of young people who are unable to obtain employment. That is of great concern to me and saddens me. I first became aware of this hardening of attitudes when I undertook a survey of unemployed youth in Australian rural areas last September in which I asked 100 postmasters-it is interesting that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is in the House at present; he is well aware of this matter-and postmistresses to give some impressions of youth unemployment in all of their areas throughout every State in Australia, both semi-isolated and truly isolated. I found that central to many of the comments in their replies to that survey was the attitude that the dole was being relied on by a lot of young people to escape their proper responsibilities to obtain work. I realise, of course-one would be delving in the realms of the ridiculous to believe otherwise-that there will be those who will deliberately not seek work. But, for the most part, it is our responsibility to ensure that those who do will be able either to obtain it or receive the training, skills and confidence necessary to obtain work as soon as possible. I believe that the Government has only itself to blame for this increasing hardening of community attitudes towards young unemployed people, because the issue of young people receiving unemployment benefits is merging with the continuing and growing community debate in regard to the supporting parent's pension and expenditure on health. The Government has allowed the problem of youth unemployment to become associated with the obvious waste in regard to health and other areas of social security, specifically the supporting parent's pension. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would know, there are three arms of government economic policy. First, there is monetary policy which concerns, of course, the activities of Treasury and the Reserve Bank, in controlling the flow of money and interest rates. Secondly, there is wages policy, which this Government is totally reliant upon-the prices and incomes accord, together with a rigid and inflexible labour market which shuts out unemployed and young unemployed people. Thirdly, there is the fiscal policy, which concerns the budgetary aims of the Government, that is, government spending. I could speak at great length, obviously, on monetary and wages policy and how that affects the chances of young, unemployed people obtaining work, but I wish to concentrate on the fiscal aspect because until the Government makes hard decisions on spending it is not going to reverse the increasing cycle of prejudice towards young, unemployed people, nor is it going to set properly the economic climate in which jobs will become more available. Let us just look at health, for instance. We know that Medicare is costing somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion a year. So long as there is no obvious cost to the consumer under any health scheme costs, as every overseas experience teaches us, will balloon. We need bulk billing and proper services for pensioners, the underprivileged and those who cannot afford private insurance, but bulk billing across the board to all people regardless of their contribution above the one per cent is, I believe, economic lunacy and certain to lead to increased costing and inefficiencies in the health system. In regard to supporting parent's benefits, there will no doubt be Government supporters who will want to jump up and say that I and anyone else who questions such benefits is prejudiced and discriminatory. We have to face a number of these issues and the Government must make the hard decision, notwithstanding the probably inevitable resulting avalanche of criticism. Of the $1.2 billion that is paid out for the supporting parent's pension one-third, or over $400m, goes to single parents. That is simply unacceptable to the community. I know that members of the Government will argue against that but I find everywhere that the community is no longer prepared to carry the heavy impost of taxation involved when it is so obviously abused by too many people. The problem in discussing issues like this in such a short time is that everybody is tarred with the same brush. There are obviously genuine cases who are deserving of the supporting parent's benefits but the Government needs to tighten up the criteria upon which it will pay out such benefits. To date Priority One is a failure. Heaven knows, we wish it was a success. None of us takes pleasure in the failure of the Government and the inevitable embarrassment which results because the Government fails to live up to its promises. However the Government could, by taking hard decisions, by looking at its fiscal policy, not to mention monetary and wages policy, create the proper environment whereby the interests of the young unemployed in this country would be furthered. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(1.25) —Like our population, Australian universities cluster along the seaboard. All but two of the 19 universities are located in coastal cities, the exceptions being the University of New England, which is in the provincial city of Armidale, and the Australian National University in Canberra. Colleges of advanced education are a little more dispersed but, even so, fewer than a dozen of the 70 or so such institutions are situated inland. This littoral preference poses difficulties of access for would-be students who live in the country, especially since the Australian tradition has been for students to remain living in the parental home while pursuing higher studies. Even within the large cities access is difficult for some because the location of universities and CAEs may be many miles from home or public transport. Geographic location also affects access because districts vary with respect to their cultural enrichment and the quality of their schools. Young people from culturally and educationally impoverished areas, whether in the city or the country, are less likely to attain university entry standard than are aspirants from more privileged areas. The circumstances which lead to the particular location of a university or CAE inevitably involve compromise and the resolution of conflicting interests. Two characteristics of Australian society have contributed to the location of universities in large cities. First, Australia is probably the most urbanised country in the world and, obviously, decentralisation is not in the vocabulary of our bureaucrats and decision makers in regard to population and town planning. With this attitude, naturally institutions are located in the cities. Also, there has never been in Australia the tradition of a residential or student community which has led, as in North America and Europe, to the formation of university towns. It is not an Australian custom for young people to leave home for the purpose of receiving higher education. Until recently, three-quarters of all full-time undergraduates lived with their parental family, and a majority still do. Therefore, when the planners of post-war higher education came to decide on sites for new universities and CAEs, one assumption made was that they should be as near as possible to where students live. Another social differential became embodied in location decisions when the planners took into account the retention rates of schools in different suburban areas, and regional variation in aspirations for higher education. As with most of the other variables affecting participation in higher education, there has been no thorough nationwide study of the effect which geographic location has on the likelihood of students completing secondary school and entering a higher institution. The one aspect which has received considerable attention is that of rural-urban location and the evidence is abundantly clear that students living in country areas are three times less likely than their metropolitan counterparts to continue to the final years of secondary school and enter a higher institution. Unfortunately, in my electorate of Grey, which is larger than the State of New South Wales, unemployment is much higher than the national average. The problems and ramifications which go with unemployment are compounded by the vast distances to universities and higher education located in Adelaide. I am personally inundated daily with parents who are prepared to make great sacrifices to enable their children to attend facilities in Adelaide to meet the necessity of higher education, only to be disqualified by the means testing under the tertiary education assistance scheme. The iniquities and problems arising from the application of the present means test lead many counsellors and student welfare officers to express the view that the most fundamentally disadvantaged students are those receiving only a partial allowance, or just missing out; and TEAS fails miserably to help those students whose parents are in the middle income bracket. The stress placed on some middle income or lower income families, if they are to support a tertiary student fully, leaves many non-TEAS recipients without the help from parents which the scheme assumes to be available. There is no doubt that even if the student is receiving the full TEAS allowance of $73.28 a week, he or she is not living a life of luxury when such necessities as housing, food, clothing et cetera, are deducted. However, when a country student is attending higher education in the metropolitan area, and receiving little or no TEAS-relying on his or her parents for support-the problem is dramatically compounded. Acute frustration has resulted from some of these bureaucratic decisions to deny TEAS to students and it is completely outrageous, when parents are prepared to make extreme sacrifices to assist their children, for them to be denied government assistance which is vital. Let me illustrate my point with an example of a police officer in my electorate of Grey. This man is a sincere and dedicated parent who wants to provide his children with the best possible education available. His eldest son is not in receipt of TEAS, and due to the withdrawal of family allowance for the 18 to 24 years of age bracket this family has been faced with making a decision as to whether the lad can continue his studies in Adelaide. The lad has to move 240 kilometres from the family home. Therefore the parents have virtually been forced to run a second home. On an income of $29,000 per annum, less $8,600 tax, this family of five-parents and three dependent children-has $20,400 to budget with. This is a little over $4,000 per person per annum. Using figures on average family expenditure released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics around July of last year, simple arithmetic tells us that the family operates in the red. The figures per person per annum are as follows: For food, $1,355.64; for clothing and footwear, $1,557.40; and for transport, $1,947.66-total $4,860.70. Multiply that by five to find this family's negative starting balance and you have the answer. This is not even taking into account incidental school expenses, including camps, and fuel and rental of the family home-let alone the outlay of running a second home. Families in similar situations often have to take out loans, or cash in an insurance policy, to make ends meet. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hold very firm views that having a longer span of education directly reduces unemployment. For this reason, the real costs of providing a higher education place may not be very different from the cost of maintaining a person on unemployment benefits. By a tough interpretation of TEAS we are forcing young people to choose unemployment in preference to education. The whole question of TEAS should be based on fairness, equity and incentive and as far as the whole question of education is concerned, regardless of where one lives in Australia, opportunity should be accorded to a person on an equal footing with that of any other Australian. Benefits should be allocated so that young people are given maximum incentive to go into further education, rather than the dole. Student allowances, overall, need to be raised and more tertiary places financed. I advocate some form of tax concession for expenses above an average level, subject to a reasonable ceiling, to help restore the balance. As an example, in my State of South Australia, I would see this concession as being payable to those students whose natural habitat, before commencing their studies, was outside a 100-kilometre radius from Adelaide. Young people are this Government's priority-Priority One-and such a measure would be positive proof that the Government has the whole population of young people in mind, not just those in the coastal belt. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to assure the House that I will continue my struggle to see that the aims and aspirations of all young Australians living outside the metropolitan area are met. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(1.34) —In August 1984 the Director of the specialist body that Parliament established to research and advise on the family in Australia, known as the Institute of Family Studies, wrote in the Institute's newsletter: I am increasingly dismayed at the blind eye politicians of every ilk turn to family policy issues. On the one hand is the rhetoric of each party about the centrality of the family unit, the good deeds they will do for families, their concern for motherhood, the welfare of the nation's children, the viability of the family home. On the other, sits an ignorance of what is happening to Australian families, of their real needs and problems and (worst of all) of the way every policy seems to impact on family life. As Bronfenbrenner and Weiss put it- He quotes these authors: Social scientists are subject to an ethical code that prohibits them from exposing children to situations that are injurious to their welfare. Unfortunately, there is no such restriction on the nation as a whole or on its duly empowered leaders and policy makers. His own statement continues: The fact that they are referring to the situation in the United States is no consolation for Australia's leaders. The situations are closely parallel. As far as I know we all, as members of parliament, receive that newsletter. Not all of us agree with many of the assumptions or conclusions of the research done by the Institute. Nevertheless, the words of the director, just quoted, should have cut us to the bone. The director is not alone in his concern at our collective negligence concerning the family. Most of us with any idea as to what constitutes a sound basis for the future well-being of our individual citizens and our nation are dismayed by what we see as apathy, cowardice based on short-term political considerations, ideological confusion or hostility concerning the family, and the formulation of appropriate policies for the family. Let us be honest on our past records on this issue. We know of the social, economic and political pressures facing the family. We know it is clear that these pressures, and the subsequent collapse of families, can be identified as the major factor in the increase of poverty, welfare dependency, domestic violence, drug abuse, mental illness, and educational, social and employment disadvantage. We have all heard the litany of suffering we are forcing on our children. We know that hundreds of thousands of children are living in poverty because of family breakdown. We know that there are tens of thousands of children suffering an identity crisis, not knowing who they are or where they belong because of their parents' second and other marriages. We are all aware of the link between economic pressure on families, especially through unemployment, and domestic violence, yet we have done nothing. We hide behind shallow, post-hoc, philosophical rationalisation about freedom of choice, government interference, the vanity of legislating morality. And we turn to myths about the capacity of children to cope with divorce and separation, about the benefits for women of divorce, about popular disavowal of traditional morality and family structures. Let us be honest and acknowledge that freedom of choice is a euphemism for self-indulgence and irresponsibility at the expense of children. The fastest growing alternative to the traditional family structure in Australia is the female-headed, single-parent family. We know what that means in terms of poverty, welfare dependence and so on, yet we fail to comment or advise the community as to the consequences of the actions of many of its members in exercising freedom of choice. Let us be honest about what divorce means to its innocent victims, the children. Consider the report in the National Times in October last year, which found: Perhaps because of guilt, separated parents tend to play down the negative effect of divorce on their children. The latest research suggests they are wrong. That report then quoted the Institute of Family Studies director as confessing: The trendy view of the effect of divorce on kids has increasingly been that it's not as drastic as you'd think it was. But my opinion has swung around in the last couple of years. Recent studies show that kids of divorce lose trust in the individual, they fear for their own marital relationships, and they do have a higher rate of delinquency, drug addition and difficulty finding jobs. The report talked of 50,000 kids each year suffering parental separation and their fantasies of parental reunion, their repression of resentment, their embarrassment, anger and sadness, their sense of personal guilt, their confusion as to their own sexual identity, their distrust of personal commitment. What we are doing to our children is not just tragic; it is criminal. What we are doing for our future as a nation is not just negligent; I believe it is subversive. The average Australian, notwithstanding the pressures facing the family unit, still affirms what some seek to denigrate as an outdated family structure-the situation of a man and a woman who have accepted a legal commitment to each other and the children, natural or adopted, of that union, with the unit in the care of a broader kinship support network. The average Australian knows that there are alternative structures, but knows that they are second-best and detrimental to his or her own individual well-being and opportunities and those of one's children. They look to us to affirm what is optimal when developing policy and nurturing civic and social values. Mr Deputy Speaker, the challenge for us today is as follows: Will we acknowledge that there is an optimal family structure which should be promoted by tackling the social, economic and political pressures which currently subvert it? Do we have the intellectual and moral capacity to discern appropriate policy mixes which will create an acceptable balance between individual aspirations and marital and family need and obligation? For example, will we continue to ignore the fact that there is a socially preferable mix of home and parental duties, occasional child care and casual employment for a woman in the first years of her responsibility as a mother, and are we incapable of reviewing policies and employment practices to support such a mix? Do we have the courage to speak to an increasingly hedonistic, nihilistic community about self-sacrifice and the forgoing of personal options, especially in the interests of children? Are we willing to speak the truth about individuals who shirk parental obligation, tear up marital commitments, abuse their spouses? Or will we shirk our responsibility for fear that our own lives betray the values we need to promote, and hide beside some vacuous principle of neutrality? Are we to become mere problem solvers, technocrats who believe in nothing and affirm everything so as not to offend anyone. Mr Deputy Speaker, that is the challenge on both sides of this House. It is the challenge to the people of Australia, to the heads of families, to the mothers and fathers, to the single parents, to the churches-to come to grips with this very, very dangerous trend that we are seeing and have seen for so long in our society. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(1.43) —I rise this afternoon to welcome the agreement, reached last Wednesday week in State Parliament, Macquarie Street, Sydney between the Federal Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), the Premier, Mr Wran and the State Minister for Education, Mr Rodney Cavalier. I would have liked to incorporate the text of the agreement reached that evening, when I was privileged to attend, but I understand our rules prevent that. I just want to say that essentially the agreement establishes an advisory committee, which will be enacted this week in State legislation, in relation to the proposed Western Suburbs of Sydney University. It will establish both the model and form that that university will take and an agreed timetable. I am pleased to say that also part of the agreement is that there will be a further meeting before 31 August. Mr Deputy Speaker, we certainly have come a long way since 2 July 1985 and I particularly want to acknowledge some major contributions that I believe have resulted in the success achieved to date. Undoubtedly one of the key decisions taken was to establish a western suburbs members group and we are privileged to have in that group the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) as our chairman. Also we have had a very strong and powerful contribution from my friend and predecessor, the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Gorman), and a particularly fiery contribution, if I may say so, from the honourable member for Fowler (Mr Grace) as well as the support of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), three Ministers and, of course, the New South Wales senators. Mr Duffy —And not forgetting your good self. Mr PRICE —And I have had some small part to play. But unquestionably, without the commitment of those members, without the agreement to work together, we would not have progressed so far in so short a time. Indeed, the local government councils and the Western Region Organisation of Councils, as well as the Press, the schools and community groups, have all given valuable support which has added momentum to this very just cause. But I want to warn honourable members and the community at large that we still have one hurdle to overcome. I believe that will be the question of Federal finance. I should say at this stage that we do have two firm proposals that the advisory committee will have to consider. One, of course, is embodied in the recommendations of the Parry report, an exclusively State committee report without the benefit, I regret to say, of Federal involvement. The second is the one that Senator Ryan has placed squarely before the Federal table. That is the establishment of a university college. I am not predicting that either one of these will necessarily be the model adopted. Indeed, the committee has a variety of choices. But I do want to place on record the speed at which we can proceed if we have the will, the desire and the financial backing. It is my understanding that should the advisory committee be agreeable we could in fact establish a resource centre, to cater for the 1987 academic year, which would offer up to 10 courses for 500 students. I think we can assure the people of the western suburbs that, rather than looking at a long, drawn-out campaign, we really do face the prospect of success. I want also to place on the public record essentially what this campaign is all about. The provision of a university has been the leading wedge for we in the west who are passionately committed to the concept of equality of opportunity, to the belief that our people ought to benefit from the education system equally with anyone from anywhere else in Australia. So it is a campaign essentially about education and equality of opportunity. One of the most regrettable things that came out of the Wednesday night meeting was the reluctance of the State Minister to accept the concept of a senior high school. I seek leave to incorporate a table of retention rates to year 12, 1984. Earlier I sought and received the agreement of the Opposition to the tabling. Leave granted. The table read as follows- RETENTION RATES TO YEAR 12 1984 NSW... 41.4 (a)Vic... 43.3 Qld... 53.1 WA... 45.5 SA... 50.1 Tas... 27.6 NT... 24.4 ACT... 79.8 Aust... 45.0 Mr PRICE —I thank the House. Our participation rates in New South Wales are well down but they are even worse in the western suburbs of Sydney. I do not think it is helpful to argue whether they are 15 per cent, 24 per cent or 30 per cent. The essential thing is that they ought to be significantly higher. In fact, why cannot all States aim for the 79 per cent that is achieved in the Australian Capital Territory? I believe that if we are serious about improving education we have to be constructive concerning it. We have to be critical and make quality improvements. If we want to change participation rates dramatically in the western suburbs I believe that the way to go is to establish a senior high school. Indeed, as I said before, it is my belief that the Federal Minister for Education, who is very much concerned about all educational issues in the western suburbs of Sydney, would be quite prepared to set up a Commonwealth and State committee to examine regional education needs. I regret that this approach has not been taken. But if the State is not going to take advantage of the Commonwealth interest, or indeed any extra or additional Commonwealth financial assistance that may be provided, the very least it can do is make a commitment to establish a senior high school, one that merely aggregates initially those pupils from the feeder high schools, but in its second year of operation undertakes all the curriculum innovation and additional subjects that are available. I want to conclude on this point: I think it is absolutely outrageous that a student in year 12 in one of my high schools has to undertake geography as an external student because there are insufficient numbers or teachers to cater for that subject. Secondly, that in one of the other high schools there is a student in year 12 who is doing ancient history and being taught by one teacher. This is a situation that we cannot allow to continue and I predict that the campaign initiated by my State colleague, the State member for Riverstone, in so courageously reopening this question, will ultimately lead to success. The question is: Is the State Minister going to do a 180-degree turnabout? Will he be dragged willingly or unwillingly on board? I hope it will be willingly. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(1.55) —I am about to touch on a subject which is most unusual in the Federal Parliament insomuch as it relates to a land subdivision in the Brisbane suburbs of Holland Park and Mount Gravatt. It is land which adjoins the Brisbane Crematorium at Mount Thompson. In the mid-1970s, Brisbane Crematorium Ltd developed a part of the land that had been purchased back in the 1930s for crematorium purposes, by making a land subdivision out of it. That land was sold with multi-coloured brochures advertising and promoting it, speaking of this `rare prestige estate, elevated sites with fine views'. The brochure also went on to say-it was known as Kaih Park-`Kaih Park cannot be extended'. This development was done by a company, wholly owned by Brisbane Crematorium Ltd, called Kentia Ltd. The people who bought that land did so believing in good faith that there would be no further development on that area. Further, their motive for buying the land was based perhaps on their love of the bush outlook which was available so close by and various other reasons. They are now being treated as gullible fools because Kentia Ltd is now proposing to flog off, in a further housing subdivision, more of the land which is zoned by the Brisbane City Council as land for special purposes-crematorium uses. I stand here today speaking on their behalf and ask whether or not these people are to be dismissed as gullible fools. The same company that is trying to develop this land today is the one that promoted it in the 1970s as a one and only development-that would not happen again-even in its brochure and print. Other issues have come out of this and we should perhaps all be grateful to Brisbane Crematorium Ltd for lacking integrity and being prepared to go back on its word! It has brought to light what the company intends to do with those who have been placed side by side at Mount Thompson in Brisbane. I have absolute respect for anybody's view on body disposal. If people wish to be buried, that is their choice. If people wish to be cremated, that is their choice. If people wish to be placed in a niche after cremation, that is their choice. They may wish their ashes to be scattered. People have their own views and their own rights and I make no argument. However, what I do argue about is the rights of the Brisbane Crematorium, which has more lately stated that in the year 2007 all of those who have been placed there before the year 1957 are to be on the way out. It is starting to introduce a recycling approach to the use of crematoriums nitches. I do not expect everybody to share my views on whether or not, once you are gone and have been reduced to ashes, it is important that those ashes be retained, but what I do believe is that if somebody has chosen a crematorium as a final resting place, or the dear and near and loved ones of a person have chosen that for the departed, within our society there should be some form of guarantee that that person is going to stay there for a long, long time to come. Mr Fife —And be treated with respect. Mr DONALD CAMERON —And the remains be treated with respect, as the honourable member interjects. I rang the company and was told by one of them-I will not embarrass the accountant by naming him-that overseas they have reached a stage in some places where they are recycling every 25 years; that our attitude would change and that we would catch up. I tell you, Madam Speaker, I was absolutely revolted by that particular comment but contained my feelings as I absorbed the approach that this company had taken. On checking it all I established that in the year 1957 Brisbane Crematorium Ltd put in fine print on the back of an application form that it was to be a 50-year tenure. Nobody really believed that the day would ever arrive when Brisbane Crematorium Ltd would become so callous that it would take advantage of that clause. Nobody believed that the previously respected Brisbane Crematorium would ever be so callous and so money hungry as to start ditching ashes of people unless another payment was made in the year prior to the 50-year tenure being up. But, then, few people are aware of a take-over of that company in 1984-85 that brought a new board of directors. I name them: Sir Edward Williams, a Michael Geoffrey Evans, a Henry Hector Dusting, a Richard Harcourt Howard, a Peter Lawrence Quinn and a Peter Charles Joseph. The last man is by occupation a merchant banker. Indeed they are a bunch of businessmen and professionals. The attitudes in this country are certainly changing. We know that there has always been money in death but it is becoming really updated to capitalise on every opportunity. The directors of Kentia, the company owning the land that the attempt is being made to subdivide, are those very same men. I mention that Kentia, which is wholly-owned by Brisbane Crematorium Ltd, had unappropriated profits as at 30 June 1985 of $421,000. It holds shares in related companies valued at almost $4.5m, yet that very company, when it applied to subdivide this land, did so saying that it could not afford the rates on the land that was originally purchased for the future needs of the people of Brisbane in terms of that crematorium. They have more than $5m, that I know of, tucked away in either assets or capital, yet here they are telling the Brisbane City Council that they cannot afford to pay the rates on the land. The type of attitude which exists in the minds of the new board is exemplified in the 1984-85 report, from which I will read extracts. It refers to: Another successful trading year, cremations are up to 5,594. Further on it says: The profits of the company should continue to improve. And this is the thinking, the mentality, of those who are dealing with people in the most vulnerable, sensitive time in their lives, when a near one or loved one has passed away. I might also mention that the operating profit of Brisbane Crematorium Ltd was three-quarters of a million dollars in the year just referred to. Some people might rightly say: `How does this issue become a Federal one?'. Very simply, since the end of the Second World War the Federal Government has paid for the burial, the cremation, of 127,000 former servicemen and servicewomen. The Australian Government has contracted that those people's remains will be there forever. What I am warning the Australian people about is not only what these people are going to do in regard to the crematorium but that, because of the policies of money-hungry directors, the people of Australia will forever be paying additional fees as these directors alter the particular tenures. Madam SPEAKER —It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106 as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question: That grievances be noted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Madam Speaker, I seek your dispensation to clear up a matter that was raised earlier this morning by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair). It related to the tabling of documents at the end of Question Time yesterday. At the conclusion of Question Time yesterday the Leader of the National Party of Australia, as is now clear from the transcript, said: Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask the Prime Minister to table the document from which he quoted, a statement from the Commissioner of Police. I have just indicated to the right honourable gentleman that I did not hear the bit at the end about a statement from the Commissioner of Police. I heard the bit about quoting from the document, and I table the document, which was one from the person in the office of the Attorney-General. I want to make it clear that the report that I had received from Commissioner Grey to which I referred in yesterday's answer was an oral report in my office. Mr Cadman —Ah! Mr HAWKE —Don't say `Ah'. Members of the Opposition are hopeless; they will never learn. The words with which I described that report in this House yesterday were words approved by the Commissioner, and I table them for the information of the House. Mr PEACOCK —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power complex in the Soviet Union. Will he advise the House of all the Government knows, including the safety of civilians, particularly any Australians in the region? Will he advise what action the Government proposes taking bilaterally and through the International Atomic Energy Agency, and will he establish a task force from the Atomic Energy Commission and Australian universities to examine the facts as known, draw conclusions and provide recommendations in order that Australia may play a most prominent role in regard to international safeguards for the benefit of the international community? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for Kooyong for his question which I regard as appropriate and thoughtful. It may be of some interest to the honourable member to know that I had intended, by way of an unexpected question from my own side, to go to this issue. Therefore, I hope that those who may have been thinking about asking that question will now realise that it is unnecessary because I will provide the answer to the honourable member. Reports received indicate-and I trust that all members will treat this matter with the seriousness it so obviously deserves-that the accident is a major disaster, with possibly two of the four reactors at Chernobyl involved. I do not set myself up as an authority on the pronunciation-I notice that there are two alternatives around at the moment. The accident is a matter of grave concern not only for the Soviet Union, but also for the neighbouring European countries, such as Poland and the Scandinavian countries, and of course in the end for all of us. I would like to extend the sympathy of the Government, and I believe of all Australians, to all those people who have been affected by this disaster. The accident clearly has major implications for the Soviet nuclear industry, and indeed is a matter of concern for the entire nuclear power industry. Given the international implications, it is regrettable that the Soviet Union has not yet provided detailed information on the disaster. This is not a time to be inward-looking. It is very important that the Soviet Government should take the international community into its confidence and that all available international expertise should be brought to bear to control the present disaster and to take action to prevent any recurrence. May I interpolate in the prepared answer which I have on this question to say that I take note of the suggestions made by the honourable member for Kooyong, will discuss them with the appropriate Ministers and, if there is anything I can then add, in the light of that, I will inform him and the House. As far as any immediate threat to Australia is concerned, I understand there is no evidence to suggest that the plume of radioactivity from the accident has reached the upper atmosphere. I further understand that the spread of radioactivity appears confined to surface wind systems, and that it will be 12 to 18 months before there is any significant movement of contamination from the accident across the equatorial belt. In the meantime, the radioactive contamination will be reduced by natural decay and it is not expected that readily detectable levels will reach Australia. In Australia there has been a radiation monitoring system operating since the mid-1950s. Samples of fallout are collected routinely from sampling stations across Australia and are analysed at the Australian Radiation Laboratory in Melbourne. Periodically milk samples are also analysed. My colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy has on 29 and 30 April in another place discussed the implications of the Chernobyl accident for Australia's uranium policy. My colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs has advised that his Department at present knows of only one Australian citizen in the Kiev region and has established that she is safe and well, but has recommended that she leave that area. The Australian Embassy in Moscow is continuing to make inquiries about any other Australian citizens who may be in the Kiev area. We are also receiving reports on the effects of the accident on populations in nearby countries. In the case of Sweden, for example, the authorities have indicated that levels of radiation in Sweden itself are not a cause of concern. We will continue to monitor the situation closely. We are also closely examining advice to be given to Australians who have been exposed to the fallout-our embassy officials as well as private citizens. Australians who might be considering visiting the Western Ukraine and Byelorussia should do so only if absolutely necessary. A travel advisory notice to this effect has been issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am aware of reports that Australians of Ukrainian origin have been unable to contact their relatives in the affected area. The Government will bring their concerns to the attention of the Soviet Government and seek to have their difficulties addressed. I repeat that I am indebted to the honourable member for his question. I will look at the suggestions he has made and, as I have indicated, I will be in further touch with him or, if necessary, announce to the House anything that may attach to that part of his question. Mr TICKNER —I address my question to the Minister for Defence. It follows on from the question asked by the honourable member for Herbert yesterday on the subject of the conditions of Defence Force personnel. I refer the Minister to his announcement on 30 January this year of the Government's decisions in relation to the improvement of Defence Force housing, including the announcement of $750m to be spent over 10 years and the proposal to establish the defence housing authority. Will the Minister inform the House of the latest development on this matter? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable member for his question. He, like the honourable member who addressed a question to me the other day, is a most assiduous representative of his constituents in this area and constantly nags me on the subject. I must say that, when I sought advice through my Department on our capacity to attract the attention of the relevant sections that prepare our legislation, there seemed to be a difficulty in getting the legislation for the housing authority into position much before the autumn session of 1987. In my view that is too long to wait to start to redress this long-standing area of neglect in Defence Force housing. I have decided in the interim to establish a defence housing agency on an administrative basis early in the new financial year. I have asked my Department to take the necessary steps to accomplish this. The interim body will be constituted in the same form as the final statutory authority. Persons experienced in business and the building industry will be asked to serve on its managing board. The Defence Force and my Department will also be represented on the board. I would expect that, besides taking over ongoing housing programs in the Department, the interim agency will be able to assist with much of the necessary preliminary work towards developing strategies for meeting the Defence Force housing need and setting in place financial arrangements and operating procedures appropriate for the separate statutory authority. I hope that the interim body will smooth the transition from existing housing management arrangements in my Department and other government agencies and enable the statutory authority to take over with much of the detail settled. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Government members-Hooray! Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr Hawke —Don't look hurt. Mr CARLTON —When the Prime Minister stops interjecting, I will ask the question. I refer the Treasurer to his repeated statements that the domestic inflation rate does not affect our international competitiveness. Will he please explain how he can prevent our inflation rate, nearly three times that of our major trading partners, from flowing into wages under the indexation provisions of the prices and incomes accord, and thereby directly affecting our international competitiveness? Mr KEATING —What I have sought to do is correct a fundamental flaw in the analysis by the Opposition of the apparent competitiveness of this economy compared to others, via the consumer price index. The CPI is not in this sense the appropriate area of measurement, because the CPI measures imported prices. Of course, with any depreciation of this order of magnitude, there is obviously a major surge in the cost of imported goods. The honourable member asks: Why will the CPI not be important and why will it not be reflected in the wage system? The answer is: Because the Government negotiated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions an arrangement for a discount in this case. Mr Howard —Ha, ha! Mr KEATING —Do not laugh. It will be on in this case. The Commonwealth will put its submission. I do not think any sensible member of the House will assume that the full flow-on of the quarterly increase will be passed on. The result, therefore, will be that the inflationary surge will be effectively cut out of the CPI by the discounting arrangements and inflation will track down accordingly from whence it came, which was around 5 per cent in the year to March 1985. The fact is that the measure of competitiveness which the Opposition should study is Australia's comparative wage performance. Let me just indicate-- Mr Howard —It is not working. Mr KEATING —What do you mean, it is not working? In the year to December average weekly earnings rose by 6 per cent, which is an outcome equal to that of the most flexible labour markets in the world. Mr Howard —You believe in flexibility now, do you? Mr KEATING —We believe in aggregate flexibility, an expression which I must have used in speaking to the Opposition on at least 200 occasions since I became Treasurer. But the fact is that, with an outcome of a rise of 6 per cent in average weekly earnings to December, this economy, in terms of aggregate wage flexibility, is as flexible as some of the most flexible labour markets in the world. That is why Great Britain, with the kind of policy prescriptions that the Opposition advocates, is looking at a wage outcome of about 8 per cent this year. We are looking at an outcome of 6 per cent. Members of the Opposition may address a remark, if they like, to their confreres in the British Conservative Party. How do they think that they will cut a wage outcome of 8 per cent out of their inflation rate, because they do not have an accord or a centralised wage process? They will not be able to rip wage costs of 8 per cent out of their inflation rate. So if the Opposition thinks that is important, it might ask its gurus in Britain how they will cut an 8 per cent wage increase out of their inflation rate. There is another important element to the question. Of course, if this Government were prepared to make a trade-off on unemployment, as has the British Government, and as have many other governments, by having much lower growth, we could have a speedier decline in the rate of inflation. But we are not prepared to tear apart this society with rampant unemployment. We are not prepared, as the British Government is prepared, to see 14 per cent unemployment. It is prepared to see the country north of London ravaged by 20 per cent plus unemployment. We are not prepared to see that. When we came to office we had a program of dealing with inflation and unemployment simultaneously. We have kept faith with the public regarding that promise. We have kept faith with our own Party and we have kept faith with the trade union movement in providing 10 per cent employment growth in three years, a record which has not been met elsewhere in the Western world. The result is lower unemployment and, with the discount, a very good inflation performance. But the price of a short term rise in the inflation rate is a highly competitive economy via the depreciation. The float has given Australia a much more competitive economy than at any time under the previous Government. The reason it is competitive is the basic 30 per cent depreciation. Of course, we must wear the short term price surge coming from these imported goods, but the discounting arrangements will take care of that and, in the end, Australia, with its inflation rate post-discount, with a competitive economy and with a more fully employed work force, will be better off than it would be under the barren policies that the Opposition advocates. Mr MILTON —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. Has the Minister read an article in the Age of Tuesday, 29 April, headed `Jolly considers options for a bigger share of Bass Strait revenue'? Does the Minister agree that Victoria is facing a loss of $160m in petroleum revenue in 1986-87, as claimed in the article? Is he further prepared to agree that the Federal Government, as a matter of equity, should make good this loss of revenue to Victoria, in view of the fact that the Federal Government has quite openly preserved its own crude oil levy base? Mr BARRY JONES —I have read the article in the Age of 29 April. The Victorian Government estimated that it would receive $228m in petroleum royalty revenue in 1985-86. As prices and production rose in the first half of this year, it gained about $20m. As prices and production have fallen in the second half, it has lost about $50m, giving a net loss of $30m. We are unable to make sensible predictions about 1986-87 royalty collections because such predictions require both oil price and exchange rate assumptions. However, based on crude oil production of 350 kbd, the allocation volume, and the current oil price, Victorian royalty receipts could decline by about $130m compared with the 1985-86 Victorian Budget forecast. The price of Bass Strait oil has declined in line with the general decline in world prices. Consequently, receipts for producers and governments have fallen. It is inevitable, and any attempt to protect Australian institutions from this reality would lead to distortions in the economy and would only defer the inevitable at a cost to the whole nation. Of course, the Victorian Government may seek help from the Commonwealth in other forums, but even then it will have to compete with all the other demands being made. The formula for sharing revenue from off-shore petroleum production between the Commonwealth and the States was negotiated by the Fraser Government as part of the off-shore constitutional settlement package under which title and control of the off-shore area was split between the Commonwealth and the States. The revenue sharing arrangements are already quite generous: The States receive 60 per cent of all basic royalties, levied at 10 per cent of net well-head value, and all additional royalties, depending on the field, up to an additional 2 1/2 per cent of net well-head value. The Government has recently reviewed the off-shore constitutional settlement arrangements and sees no basis for increasing the proportion of the State governments' share of government revenue. Mr REITH —My question is to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I refer the Minister to today's Canberra Times and to the statement by Mr Waterford that `when I first began working on this story, Mr Tony Luchetti, another member of Mr Brown's staff who did some work on the affair, told me that Mr Brown had been aware of the work which he and Mr Groux had done'. Has the Minister asked Mr Luchetti whether in fact he and Mr Groux assisted Mr Justice Murphy in the preparation of his case and, if so, whether any work was done in government time, or whether any travel accommodation was had at government expense? Will the Minister deny that any other members of his staff were involved with this matter? Mr JOHN BROWN —It seems to me that the Opposition is determined to pursue this matter. Mr Tuckey —Just answer the question. Mr JOHN BROWN —Shut your face. It appears to me that the Opposition is determined to push this ridiculous fishing expedition, despite the absolute and clearly demonstrated lack of credibility with the Opposition's witness or source of information. Mr Sinclair —He was your employee. Mr JOHN BROWN —Well, he was my employee. I think I made it quite clear yesterday that when I employed Mr Luchetti he came to me with quite high qualifications and quite high recommendations. Mr Sinclair —Mr Groux. Mr JOHN BROWN —Yes, Mr Groux, I am sorry. I made it quite clear that up until about July last year his performances for me were quite satisfactory. From that time on, I would say that there was a deterioration not only in Mr Groux's performance but also in his personality. Opposition members interjecting- Mr JOHN BROWN —Interjectors have asked me why I gave Mr Groux a reference. I gave him a reference, at the time of his resignation, which spelt out quite clearly that up until that time I was satisfied with his work. What evolved from then on is a totally different story. What I learnt from the Prime Minister was well after that date. Mr Howard —That is why you gave him a reference. Mr JOHN BROWN —If the Leader of the Opposition reads the reference, he will find that it is written very carefully. To get to the substance of the honourable member's question, it surprises me that the Canberra Times is carrying on with this story. Today there are two statements by Mr Waterford, who, I might say, prior to this time has been respected by me as a well-credentialled journalist. One statement relates to an interview with Mr Lee Donnelly, and I guess that is apropos to a statement that I made here yesterday about the suggestion that Mr Donnelly would be appointed to the board of the Australian Institute of Sport. If one reads the Canberra Times tomorrow, one will find a letter from Mr Donnolly, supplied to the editor today, denying Mr Waterford's claim. That letter was not sought by me, by the way, although Mr Donnolly delivered to me a copy of the letter that he delivered to the Canberra Times. There is also a statement by Mr Waterford about some alleged conversation with Mr Luchetti. I have in front of me a statutory declaration supplied to me today by Mr Luchetti, which I will read to the House. I might tell the House that Mr Luchetti is the son of the very highly respected former member for Macquarie, and in his own right is a very highly respected individual in Canberra. I will read the statutory declaration: I, Anthony William Luchetti, Private Secretary, of 22 Bateman Street, Kambah in the Australian Capital Territory, do solemnly and sincerely declare in light of certain statements made in the Canberra Times on 30 April and 1 May 1986 that: 1. About the middle of August in Sydney Mr Groux told me ``we have been directed by Hawke and Brown to help Murphy''. 2. On my return to Canberra I checked with Mr Klein- who was, of course, my Principal Private Secretary and who has also achieved some most unfair notoriety because of the evil attitude of honourable members opposite- to ascertain if it was- Mr Halverson —Did he once sell second-hand cars? Mr JOHN BROWN —He would have trouble selling you to anyone. That would test his skill. The statutory declaration continues: 2. On my return to Canberra I checked with Mr Klein to ascertain if it was in fact O.K. to do so. Mr Klein responded `definitely not'. 3. That was my only connection with Mr Groux in his alleged investigations of the Murphy case. 4. At no time was I asked to or did I follow up on any information with any department. 5. In an article in the Canberra Times dated 1 May 1986 it is alleged that I confirmed that Mr Brown knew of the Murphy investigations carried out on his behalf and on behalf of the Prime Minister by Mr Groux and myself. I categorically and emphatically deny any such conversation. To the best of my recollection the only meeting I had with Mr Waterford and Mr Groux was towards the middle of November at Charlie's Restaurant where a number of matters were discussed. None of these matters to the best of my recollection covered the Murphy inquiry. 6. I would like to take this opportunity also to put in perspective some of the allegations made by the two articles in the Canberra Times and the character of Mr Groux. In my association with him over a period of 8 months I have come to the conclusion that he is either suffering from delusions of grandeur or what he has to say cannot be confirmed by the original source. The flights of fantasy included statements in front of witnesses that: (a) he was the Prime Minister's right hand man (b) he had been a member of the Victorian Parliament (c) he and his secretary were to travel to the U.S., I was to travel to New Zealand, and he would solve the ANZUS problem on behalf of the Government. Indeed he asked his assistant to get her passport. (d) following the meat inquiry, he lived in the U.S. for 2 years (e) he was a millionaire at the age of 25. I make this solemn declaration by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act . . . The statutory declaration is signed A. W. Luchetti and witnessed by Virginia Ginnane, a solicitor of Sydney. I hope that answers the question. I table the statutory declaration. Mr FITZGIBBON —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Government investigated the cost of the Opposition's 14-point plan for rural Australia? Is the plan rational or would it increase the budgetary deficit to the point of economic madness? Mr KERIN —In previous answers I have given details to the House of the various plans and wish-lists abounding, many of which have emanated from the National Party-the so-called specialist rural party, or the Country Party as its members prefer it to be called. If we take the latest 14-point plan, these are the best estimates I can make of it. First of all, to pass on the full reduction of the world oil price would cost at least $2.3 billion. The abolition of fuel excise indexation would cost about $187m. The removal of sales tax on fuel and lubricants used on farms and in fisheries would cost about $3.25m. The restoration of the fuel freight equalisation scheme would cost about $116m. With the changes to the tax package, $5m is the estimate for a change to the capital gains tax, but it is a poor estimate. I will not go on to tax because the Treasurer will introduce legislation on that. The sixth promise, or the sixth part of the wish list, that is, for no 3 per cent productivity superannuation payment, would have zero cost to the Budget. But, potentially, there would be enormous cost to farmers if it resulted in a wage blowout rather than the wage discipline that we have at present. The seventh item was wage flexibility to take account of an industry's capacity to pay. Again, one cannot estimate the cost of that. But, if there were a wage blowout or a $39 a week wage rise such as we saw with the metal workers in 1981-82, one can imagine the effect of that. The next point is a change in economic strategy to ease interest rates. Again, one cannot estimate the cost to the Budget, but potentially there could be enormous cost to farmers if other costs blow out. The same comments apply to point nine for a clean float. The potential cost to farmers could be enormous if there were such a burst of inflation as we would get without the accord in place. We would lose so much international competitiveness that it would not be funny. I cannot really give an estimate on the rural adjustment scheme funding. The honourable member for Gwydir implies that requirements were met in the 15 April statement but then suggests that total RAS and drought funding should be restored to the 1982-83 level of $125m. If that were so, that would involve an additional funding of around $85m. Point 11 is the replacement of tariffs on chemicals and machinery and parts with bounties. This was largely achieved in the 15 April statement, although the National Party of Australia says that we should go further-perhaps to $25m worth. Point 12 is the abolition of export inspection charges which would cost about $52.9m. The next point is tariff cuts. That would depend on the rate of reduction. Total abolition has been estimated to cost $3.209 billion. The next point is the restoration of tax benefits, of the income equalisation deposit scheme, and that would cost about $20m. The total of all that is a minimum of $2.714 billion or a maximum of $6.033 billion. We can add on to that the other promises that the Opposition has been making. Here, I rely on the Minister for Finance. There was a promise about tertiary education which would cost $600m; additional defence expenditure, $234m; additional health expenditure, $167m; repeal of the assets test, $140m; a $240 sugar price which would cost about $75m; disallowance of freedom of information charges, $5m; income splitting-here is a beauty-$1,900m; abolition of the fringe benefits tax, $290m; reinstatement of deductions for entertainment, $310m; child care rebates, $180m; abolition of the lump sum tax on superannuation, $100m; abolition of all sales taxes on oil, $63m; abolition of the wine tax, $60m; and reinstatement of negative gearing, $55m. That was the Liberal Party list. Honest John's little counter-bid to the bid of the right honourable member for New England is about $4,179m. If we add together the National Party's 14-point plan and the Liberal Party's plans it gives us a conservative estimate of $6.9 billion additional to the Budget deficit and possibly up to $10.2 billion. This is from the economic geniuses who got us into the mess that we are in today. All I say to them quite simply is: No wonder they have no credibility. Everyone wants to know: Where will the money come from? Madam SPEAKER —Order! I have to inform the House that we have in the Gallery today the Honourable Sir Reginald Swartz, former member for Darling Downs and former Minister in this House. On behalf of the House, I bid him welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr TUCKEY —I address my question to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. I remind him that, in answering the last question, he failed to advise the House whether any other member of his staff was involved in the matter. Mr Wright —Go back to your sewer. Mr TUCKEY —I will have that remark withdrawn by the little peanut up there. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw. Mr Wright —I withdraw. Mr TUCKEY —In light of the character assassination of Mr Groux by both the Prime Minister and the Minister in the Parliament yesterday and again by the Minister today, I ask: Were the normal procedures of investigation employed prior to Mr Groux's appointment as a ministerial consultant? What were these procedures? When the Prime Minister advised the Minister on or about 26 August 1985 of the information which the Prime Minister tabled in the House yesterday regarding Mr Groux, and in light of the Minister's statement today of his concerns about Mr Groux which went back to July, why did the Minister not at least suspend Mr Groux from all service pending the cancellation of his contract? Further, how can the Minister justify providing to Mr Groux on 26 September, approximately one month later, a reference in the form that the Minister read to the House yesterday? Mr JOHN BROWN —I note with some interest that the honourable member for O'Connor, interviewed on radio in Perth three or four days ago, espoused very clearly his aspirations to leadership of the Liberal Party. He is obviously running the show and destroying Question Time every day with his fruitless chase. I think I spelt out very clearly in this House yesterday the steps that led to Mr Groux's joining my staff. Mr Sinclair —No selection procedure for staff. Mr JOHN BROWN —Madam Speaker, do I have to contend with this babble? Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. I think it was the Leader of the National Party who this morning pointed out that all honourable members must observe the Standing Orders and have regard for the Chair. Mr JOHN BROWN —I spelt out fairly clearly the steps that led me to employ Mr Groux in the first place. But, for the elucidation and enlightenment of the fairly thick-minded people on the other side, I will spell them out again. Mr Groux had been a perpetrator of some misdeeds leading up to the meat scandal. Mr Blunt —What about the ASIO report? Mr JOHN BROWN —I would like to see a report from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation on the honourable member for Richmond; that would be interesting-him and his gum shoes. Mr Groux came very highly recommended by Mr Justice Woodward for his courage in becoming a Crown witness and giving evidence against other people who were perpetrating that sort of perfidy in the meat industry. Apart from that, he came upon recommendation from the then honourable member for Diamond Valley and some other very highly respected people in the community and I was prepared to give Mr Groux a job. I must say that the job that he did for me in the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services was first class. When his contract ran out, I was again approached to give him a job, and I did. Mr Sinclair —No checks? Mr JOHN BROWN —I can assure the Leader of the National Party that, if he wanted a job on my staff, he would have difficulty obtaining the sorts of recommendations that I got about Mr Groux. I must say that the usual checks were made. Mr Sinclair —What are they? Mr JOHN BROWN —Honourable members opposite have been through this procedure. They should tell me how Harry M. Miller became an adviser to the National Party of Australia and how the former Prime Minister had the former chief executive of Gollins working on his staff. I think he knocked off $14m in the long run. Opposition members interjecting- Mr JOHN BROWN —That is the measure of the questions honourable members opposite are asking. I proposed to the merit panel that Mr Rodney Groux should take a job on my staff as a consultant. His salary was in the $30,000 bracket; it certainly was not in the high level of salaries paid to consultants. He certainly was not undertaking security tasks. I do not think that an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation clearance was required. I have in front of me the ministerial consultant proposal concerning Mr Rodney Groux from the Public Service Board. Let me read part of it: Mr Groux is expected to oversight and provide advice on administrative and financial planning and systems . . . You will note that Mr Groux appears well qualified for work of this nature in view of his qualifications (Associate Australian Society of Accountants) and his wide and comprehensive experience in industry and management. On this basis salary equal to Clerical Administrative Class 8 (currently $29,098 . . . ), would seem appropriate. A draft letter to Mr Brown is attached for your consideration. The Board's preliminary advice, in the form of a `draft determination' provides salary and conditions as for Clerical Administrative Class 8, and compensation for early termination in the event that Mr Groux's appointment is for a fixed term. At that stage I do not think anyone had anything-- Mr Sinclair —Will you table that? Mr JOHN BROWN —I cannot see why not. They are the papers from the Public Service Board relating to Mr Groux's application for work. Subsequent to that, of course, various aspects of Mr Groux's past came to light. I might just repeat a few of those now. Mr Sinclair —Was it one month or two months before you read this? Mr JOHN BROWN —Madam Speaker, do I have to contend with this? Madam SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party has been asked by the Chair to cease interjecting. Mr Sinclair —I am trying to help him. Mr JOHN BROWN —He is a lovely fellow but I wish he would shut up. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. If the Minister leaves the conduct of the House to me he can get on with his answer. Mr JOHN BROWN —Thank you, Madam Speaker. Subsequent to Mr Groux's service, in about July I started to get strange reports of his rather bizarre behaviour. I had contact with a very prominent person in Parramatta. I am not about to reveal his name but I am quite happy to give the name confidentially to the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure that he will treat it confidentially. Mr Howard —Do I know him? Mr JOHN BROWN —The Leader of the Opposition might not know him but he might want to check the authenticity of this report. The report I had from this gentleman was that Mr Groux worked for the Prime Minister and was on loan to me but that the Prime Minister did not move without him. In fact, he gives the answers to the Prime Minister at Question Time. This gentleman was anxious to establish a retirement home for people and I asked Mr Groux whether he would assist him in preparing a submission. Mr Groux told him that he had arranged a $3m grant from the Government for the retirement village and he was to arrange another loan of $3m at 5 per cent. He also told him that I was about to retire in Parramatta and that I wanted Mr Groux to be my replacement. The only thing he was concerned about was what ministry he would take. He said that he had been a member of parliament in Victoria but had lost his seat due to a redistribution; that he owned the Jetset travel company, the Townhouse Motel and butcher shops and had other business interests in Canberra; that he had done law with the Prime Minister-and that, of course, is the story the Prime Minister told us yesterday-and that the Prime Minister ran second and Mr Groux ran first. He finally invited this gentleman and his family and his brother-in-law and his family to Canberra for a weekend. He was to supply a bus and he was to pick them up on the Saturday morning. They were coming down for a day's sightseeing and then, on the Sunday, they were having a barbeque at the Lodge with the Prime Minister as host. So the poor man was sitting at home waiting for the bus to arrive. Let me give honourable members another example of his flights of fancy and I might say that these embarrassments came back to me. Mr Tuckey —Why did you keep him on? Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member might be pleased to know that it was at that time that I sought his resignation. When he was in Sydney he used to stay at Olim's Motel in McLeay Street, Kings Cross, a fairly cheap motel at which quite a number of people stayed regularly. There are about 20 people who live there most of the time. Apparently he told these 20 people that, because of his association with the producer of Cats, which had just opened in Sydney, he could get 20 tickets for them to go and see Cats. Of course, they were highly elated. One man even cancelled his holiday so that he could be around to attend Cats on the Wednesday night. On Wednesday afternoon they frantically started ringing my office and asking: `Where are the tickets?' Mr Cadman —Come on. Where is the evidence? Let us have it on the table. Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member is getting it here. What do you think this is? This is evidence. The man is living in a dream world. Mr Sinclair —Two months later you gave him a reference. Mr JOHN BROWN —No. I went through this yesterday. So then I tried to get him to resign because it is very difficult to move a consultant with a three-year contract. Mr Sinclair —Nonsense! Mr JOHN BROWN —I am sorry; I happen to have sought advice as to how he could be removed. It was very difficult to sack the man. The better thing was to get him to resign. By a patient series of negotiations over a month during which- Mr Tuckey —Ha, ha! Mr JOHN BROWN —The honourable member might laugh but he is in league with this poor, pathetic liar. They are a good double. As at 26 August I sought Mr Groux's resignation. For the next month he went to ground and could not be found despite repeated requests from me as to where he was. After an odd telephone call to my office when he said that he would come in and supply his resignation the next day he disappeared for a month and nobody could find him. He eventually supplied me with a resignation on 13 September and I supplied him with a very carefully worded reference. I note that some sections of the media have very selectively quoted from that very carefully worded reference. It is a pity that they did not print it in full-it is in Hansard; I read it out here yesterday-and they might find out just how guarded that reference was. But despite all that I achieved a resignation from Mr Groux which saved the Commonwealth paying out his contract which would have amounted to many tens of thousands of dollars because, by this stage, he had been revealed as a fraud and quite different from the person whom I had employed and who had supplied quite satisfactory service for some time. I might tell the House that this morning the phone in my office has run hot with calls from people all around Australia who are looking for Mr Groux because he owes them all sorts of money for all sorts of reasons and they have not been able to find him. I am getting a great mass of sworn statements which I will be supplying to the Australian Federal Police. We are dealing with a man who is to be more pitied than subjected to calumny. He is a man who has really gone off the planet. He is dealing in myths, lies, exaggerations and those sorts of things that are not rational behaviour. If honourable members opposite want to pursue this matter on the say-so of Mr Groux they should do so. All I can tell them is that they will get nothing. The statements I have made in the House are utterly true. I do not care what evidence honourable members opposite claim they might have. If they have it, why do they not produce it? Why does the Canberra Times not produce it? Because honourable members opposite do not have it. There is nothing to have. One thing about life is that if one tells the truth and one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear. I can assure the Opposition and the House that I have nothing to fear about this total matter. The quicker the Opposition drops off the better. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —I desire to add to an answer that I gave the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) yesterday. The House will recall that yesterday the honourable member for Hotham asked me about the processes involving the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in checking the records of war criminals. I have received an answer in the following terms which I provide for the information of the honourable member and other members of the House: An examination by officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of available records has failed to disclose evidence of involvement of those named in war crimes. However, a search of archival material is continuing. The DIEA has been in contact with other government agencies seeking information which they may hold in their records. These inquiries will necessarily take some time to complete. By way of background, immediately following World War II membership of the nazi party was sufficient ground for rejection of entry into Australia. In 1955 the policy changed and membership of the party was no longer a reason in itself for rejection. Membership of other organisations under the umbrella of the party, such as the SS, the Gestapo and certain concentration camp staff, as well as convictions for war crimes, remain reasons for rejection. In 1955 change was made public. Lists of names of former nazis are not kept but under government policy of past days some former nazis did enter Australia. It would not be prudent to give an unequivocal guarantee that no war criminals came to Australia. Records indicate that former nazis did migrate. The possibility of war criminals acquiring false papers and identities or providing false information to gain entry into Australia cannot be ruled out. Until investigations are concluded it is not appropriate to speculate about particular individuals. Honourable member should note that while allegations abound firm evidence of involvement of individuals in war crimes is, at this stage, lacking. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Central Land Council for 1984-85. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —I present volume one of the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions. I seek leave to move a motion to authorise the publication of the report. Leave granted. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed to: That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorise the publication of the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions, volume one. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —by leave-The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions was furnished last evening to the Governor-General and to the Governors of New South Wales and Victoria. As honourable members would be aware, Mr Justice Stewart conducted his inquiry pursuant to letters patent issued by the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victoria. I have decided that volume one of the report should be presented to the Parliament today. In those circumstances, I regret that only the minimum number of copies of volume one have been made available. I expect that further copies will be made available later this afternoon. The report consists of two volumes. I have decided that volume one should be tabled, but not volume two. Volume two of the report contains considerable detail of possible criminal offences identified by the Royal Commission in the course of its inquiry. Those offences relate to breaches of Federal and State law. I have decided not to table volume two because of the prejudice which may result to future investigations and prosecutions. I can say, however, that volume two has been passed to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for examination and decisions on future action, in so far as possible breaches of Federal law may be involved. I would expect that copies of volume two would be made available by the New South Wales and Victorian governments to their respective law enforcement authorities. Volume one of the report contains a comprehensive examination of the extent of illegal interceptions by Victorian, New South Wales and Federal police. It also contains a comprehensive description of specific police operations in which intercepted material was of benefit. Mr Justice Stewart, at chapter 16 of volume one, makes a number of conclusions and recommendations, in particular, concerning the extent to which telephone intercept powers should be made available to law enforcement agencies of the Commonwealth, the States and Territories. The Government will give urgent consideration to those recommendations. I should say that the Government is in the final stages of a Bill to amend the Telecommunications (Interception) Act following decisions made at the special Premiers meeting on drug strategy in April 1985. I have already forwarded to the States copies of the Bill. Mr Justice Stewart's recommendations will be urgently considered in the context of that proposed legislation. I present a copy of my statement. I move: That the House take note of the papers. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(2.57) —The House will recall that at the outset this Government opposed bitterly and determinedly the establishment of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions. I quote from Hansard of 28 March 1985 when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), spoke on the subject. He stated: The Government made it perfectly plain only three days ago that it would oppose the establishment of a royal commission. Listen to the Attorney-General speaking in this debate on Monday. He said- I quote the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen): I think the Opposition is getting carried away with the suggestion that a royal commission will establish anything different from what Mr Justice Stewart can do. The honourable member for Menzies continued: Who is getting carried away today if the Government is now proposing a new royal commission? It was a death bed conversion and now we see the first of the two reports. The Government has said in a shamefully brief statement on such an important subject that it will give urgent consideration to the recommendations made by Mr Justice Stewart. I wonder whether it is the same kind of urgency that this Government has given to the recommendations made by Mr Costigan in his final report. Most of those recommendations have been buried quietly and, under this Government's terms of urgency, although still buried are under active consideration. The Opposition received this report only a short time before lunch. If one looks at what has taken place as recounted in this report, it is clear that a massive and unprecedented tapping operation was carried out by police forces in this country. I will try to outline some of the contents of the report because the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General has failed to do so. It is impossible to cover the whole report. Nevertheless, some things can clearly be said. First of all, indemnities were given as suggested by the Opposition. It is extremely interesting to see that the commencement of these operations, in the concept of there being interceptions, goes back to 1967 and to Commissioner Allan in New South Wales. Page 81 of the report gives the recollection of a witness's conversation and states: . . . the Commissioner requested him to explore the possibility of utilising both listening devices and devices for the interception of telephone conversations. Allen, according to Williams, envisaged that these devices could be utilised in the investigation of major crimes such as aircraft hijacks. The development was sophisticated and widespread, and specific operations are detailed, as examples of what took place, over pages 139 to 165 of the report. Let me mention a few names, some of which the House will recall: The Mordo murder; the murder of Charles Berry, the Yugoslav bombing inquiry; `Southern Comfort', which was another name for George David Freeman; Sinclair, Fellows and Hayward, two of whom, honourable members may recall, are under sentence of death in Thailand; Morgan John Ryan, who figures very prominently in this published volume; `A Dazzler' Jordan; `Alpha'; `Charlie'; `Bravo'; `Bridegroom'; `Lucerne'; `Stamper'; `Aura, Pickaxe and Snooker'; the `California connection'; the Chinese robberies; `Gorilla'; `Slim' and `Papa Delta'. It is a revelation. We have talked in this House about organised crime and we have heard what the Government has had to say upon it. We have heard the Government speaking on the subject of organised crime for the last three years. If we believed what the Government has been telling us and telling the Australian people, we would think that it actually understood the dimensions of the problem, whereas it is perfectly apparent that it does not understand them or if it does, it does not care. Let me go to `voices on the tapes', which comes up at page 292 of the report. I go to it because it is an example of the Commission's observations, as it said, concerning voices on the tapes. It concerns Mr Morgan John Ryan. The report states, at page 292: On 2 December 1985 Morgan John Ryan appeared before the Commission in answer to a summons and was questioned for approximately two hours about some of the matters revealed in the material said to have come into existence as a result of the interception of conversations passing over the telephone service connected to his home. He was then asked to listen to the tape which recorded a conversation said by police to be between Ryan and a person said to be a solicitor. Ryan said that it was not his voice on the tape. When pressed, he repeated that it was not his voice and that he had no recollection of any such conversation. Ryan was granted the benefit of an adjournment of the hearing to enable him to give the matter further consideration, but upon resumption he reiterated that it was not his voice on the tape and that he had no recollection of the conversation. I might interpolate that the House will recall that Mr Ryan's difficulties in memory have been noted in other places. The report continues: Having heard the tape played and having heard Ryan speaking before and after the playing of the tape, the Commission is satisfied that the voice on the tape was that of Ryan and does not accept his denials. Ryan was also played a tape of a conversation between himself and Inspector D. Thomas of the AFP in the Arirang House Restaurant on 7 February 1980. The conversation was recorded by the AFP using a listening device secretly carried by Thomas. Ryan denied again that it was his voice on the tape. He said that he had `no recollection of that conversation'. Again, the Commission is satisfied that it was Ryan's voice on this tape. Although this tape recording was not produced as a result of a telephone interception, the significance of the Commission's observation in this case is that it further supports the identification of Ryan's voice on the tape recording of the conversation between himself and the solicitor referred to above. In both cases, the Commission is firmly of the view that in denying that it was his voice, Ryan was being deliberately untruthful. The Commission deals with the reasons for the action taken on such a widespread basis by the New South Wales Police Force, by the Victoria Police and by elements of the Australian Federal Police. It says, at page 337: The evidence which the Commission has heard throughout this inquiry largely confirms this assessment of the police officers involved. It also demonstrates that most of those involved experienced a deep sense of frustration- that is what we said quite some time ago- arising out of the inefficacy of conventional methods of investigation unassisted by telephone interceptions. Many officers expressed particular dismay at the state of present legislation which effectively excludes State police from access to lawful telephone interceptions. In the Commission's view, the wholesale breaches of the law and invasions of privacy involved cannot be justified by the frustrations of persons who had sworn to uphold the law. Nor can they be justified by the success of these illegal methods in bringing to account major criminals and gathering a considerable amount of valuable criminal intelligence. But that does illustrate two things, does it not? It illustrates the success of these methods for the purpose of putting criminals in gaol, which is where they should be and where many of them should rot for the rest of their lives, and the use of these methods for the purpose of gathering criminal intelligence. Let me now go to some of the positive results that the Commission noted. I refer to page 339: First, the material obtained by the Commission was of considerable value in identifying possible criminal offences. This is discussed in the confidential Volume Two of this report. Secondly, an appreciable amount of the material has considerable value as criminal intelligence, notwithstanding that some of it is rather old. . . . Thirdly, the material obtained by the Commission has led it to the firm opinion that the present legislation governing the interception of telephone conversations is too narrow. . . . Fourthly, the Commission believes that the present administrative system for lawful telephone interceptions is far too cumbersome. . . . Let me go now to the recommendations, which are to be found at page 354. There are 12 of them, and they appear in summary form as follows: 1. Amendments to legislation to extend the power to conduct telephone interceptions to police forces of the States and Territories and the National Crime Authority, be made as soon as possible. 2. It is recommended strongly that the legislative limitations on the use of telephone interceptions to drug trafficking offences only be removed. For God's sake, is not that well overdue, and is it not sensible? What has this Government been doing? It has been sitting quietly on its hands. I continue: 3. The power to issue warrants should be restricted to Judges of the Federal Court and of Supreme Courts of the States or Territories. 4. The Act be further amended to give a discretion to a Judge to authorise telephone interceptions by warrant after considering: the gravity of the matters being investigated; the extent to which the privacy of any person is likely to be interfered with; and the extent to which the prevention or detection of the crime in question is likely to be assisted. 5. In appropriate cases the Judge issuing a warrant should authorise an interception to be made directly by a mobile unit without recourse to Telecom. This should apply to the AFP as well as State and Territory police forces and the National Crime Authority. I interpolate to say that the use made of Telecom Australia is examined in the report. I go on: 6. A review of the present system of interceptions used by the AFP be undertaken with a view to making it more efficient. What has this Government been doing for the last three years? Here we have Commissioner Stewart saying that it is time to review the procedures to make the system more efficient. We have had a Special Minister of State in charge of the Australian Federal Police for over three years, and Commissioner Stewart is saying: `Have a look at it again, boys, and make it more efficient'. It is too absurd for words for this Government to pose as a government that is concerned and efficient and that understands how to go about stamping out organised crime. The recommendations continue: 7. State Police should be empowered to make interceptions in their State independently of the AFP system. 8. The Act be further amended to make it an offence to possess, communicate, divulge or record information obtained by unlawfully intercepting a telecommunication. 9. Admissibility of such material should be determined by the Common Law. 10. Legislation should provide that it is not an offence for police or other relevant persons or authorities to possess, use or copy material which is the product of illegal interceptions. The relevant persons and authorities would be those mentioned in section 6P of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and person under their control. 11. All records in possession of the Commission upon its cessation be passed into the custody of the Chairman of the National Crime Authority. An amendment to the National Crime Authority Act may be necessary to effect such a transfer of records although it may be considered that the provisions of section 22 (3) of the Archives Act 1983 could be utilised to vest custody of this material in Mr Justice Stewart as Chairman of the National Crime Authority on and from the date of the conclusion of his Commission. Let me say this immediately: This is urgent. It should be done immediately, and on behalf of the Opposition I can say that we will facilitate the bringing in of legislation in the next 24 hours to do that if it is necessary. Mr Young —It took you five years, and you didn't do it. Mr SPENDER —Come on, clowns! Recommendation 12 states: It should be an offence to sell or advertise for sale electronic devices designed for effecting telephone interceptions. Such devices should be made prohibited imports. Let me go back to that interjection from the Special Minister of State. He said: `It took you five years'. What we are looking at-as the Minister might understand; perhaps he has heard something about what is in this report-is the transfer of records. Remember, the Government had a problem about transferring records from the Costigan Commission to the National Crime Authority. I suppose the Government will bumble along in the same way as it did last time because of the confusion and stupidity which invests those on the other side who are charged with this task. The landscape of organised crime has been mapped out by the series of intercepts and the summaries which Stewart has examined. It is plain that there will be prosecutions emerging from what he has learnt. We hope that those prosecutions will be brought forward with the greatest possible rapidity and those concerned will be prosecuted with the greatest possible rigour. We hope that, if there are any other matters arising out of these reports which the Government believes in the interests of this country should be brought to the attention of the Australian people, that will be done quickly and in an appropriate manner. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(3.12) —The speech by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) was an extremely disappointing one from a member of the legal profession. I have a feeling, in fact, that he took a different line previously. The most important point I make is that this sort of emotional response in favour of giving away civil liberties is the best argument for not introducing this sort of legislation within 24 hours, but for people to sit on it and have a look at the report. We should not give up civil liberties quickly. The honourable member said he received the report just before lunch and within 24 hours we are supposed to pass legislation so that people can tap anybody's telephone. I strongly oppose that sort of thing and I certainly hope that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) will take no notice of the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.13) —I have only two matters that I want to mention. First, I would like to ask the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) whether he would be kind enough to inform the House as to whether his decision not to table volume 2 is a decision based upon a firm recommendation of Royal Commissioner Stewart or a decision based upon his own assessment of the merits of the matter. The only other question I would like to ask is: Where does this report leave those, including the Attorney-General and the New South Wales Premier, who said that these tapes were fakes? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I call the Attorney-General. Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of procedure. I trust that the debate will not now be concluded. If we were able to accept that the Leader of the Opposition spoke with indulgence, we could perhaps give indulgence to the Attorney-General to respond. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition rose to speak in the debate. The honourable member for Prospect spoke in the debate. One does not ask questions in the middle of a debate-one either speaks in a debate or one does not. If there are no further members rising on either side, I will call the Attorney-General, who will close the debate. Mr Sinclair —I suggest that we will be quite happy to give indulgence to the Attorney-General to respond to the questions. It is done quite regularly. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —As the Leader of the National Party knows, he does not give indulgence, the Chair does. Mr Sinclair —I can seek indulgence and the House can give leave, and it is quite common for us to give leave in circumstances where an answer is required to a particular question. There are obviously matters of concern in this report which members of this place have not yet seen. I point out that, in fact, the volumes are not yet available. Only a few copies have been made available to both sides of the House. I submit that the Government would not have any real opposition to the procedure I am suggesting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —As I see the situation, the House is debating the question that the House take note of the paper. As I understand it, the Attorney-General can reply or someone can move that debate on the matter be adjourned and it would go back on the Notice Paper. It is then in the hands of the Government to bring it back on for further debate. If the Attorney wishes to seek leave of the House to answer the questions and thus continue the debate, it is up to him to so. Alternatively, the Attorney can close the debate on this matter and we will then go on to the next item. Mr Young —Mr Deputy Speaker, copies of the report are not readily available. In fact, the Government only received it late last night and the Opposition has been given it this morning. Not all members of the Government and not all members of the Opposition have received it. The Attorney-General made a very short statement in regard to tabling it. We were not aware that the Opposition was going to use the opportunity to speak for a quite lengthy period in response to it, thus opening up the debate. The motion is that we take note of the paper. If we take the adjournment on that, it stays on the Notice Paper. Then the Attorney-General, by leave, can answer some of the questions asked of him. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —I seek leave to answer some of the matters which have been raised without closing the debate. Leave granted. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Briefly, I wish to answer the questions and to make some quick explanations. As honourable members will appreciate, volume 2 is of a nature that will lead to the prosecution of people-it recommends as such-and, accordingly, cannot be published at this stage. In answer to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), it is on that basis that it has not been tabled. It has been referred not only to our own Director of Public Prosecutions but also to other relevant prosecuting authorities or police commissioners in the States involved, namely, New South Wales and Victoria, for their action. It is important that we table the report today because the New South Wales Parliament is also tabling it today. This is the last day of the present session of that Parliament, which will not be reconvening until August or September, and action needs to be taken in the interim on matters referred to in volume 2. I give that assurance to the Leader of the Opposition. That is the point at issue there. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) asked whether the records of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions will be transferred to the National Crime Authority. I can tell him that they already have been pursuant to the provisions of the Archives Act. There has been no question of delay on the part of the Government. It was a little unwise of the honourable member for North Sydney to mention a person who he knows is now awaiting trial in New South Wales. Mr Spender —But you published the volume. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I am talking about the honourable member raising the matter here. I am talking about him being identified in this place. If I were not to publish the volume it would be thought that there was something radically wrong. Mr Howard —Don't you give us a sermon about protection of rights after what you have done to somebody over the last couple of days. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am getting interjections all the time. I want to advert to the fact that the honourable member for North Sydney is a Queen's Counsel and would have known the sensitivity of the matter. That is the point at issue. Mr Spender —You have published it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am referring to the issue being raised here today. Mr Howard —He is referring to what you have published. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, he is referring to other matters. Mr Howard —What other matters? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The suggestion that there was criminal conduct and- Mr Howard —I think you may have the volumes mixed up. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Wait a minute; let me make it very clear. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition wanted the questions answered by the Attorney-General, and he is answering them. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There was a fair bit of rhetoric aside from what was in the report. It referred to what was happening in New South Wales over a long period of time. Mr Howard —That is what it is about. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. The interception commenced, as one will notice, in New South Wales in 1967 when a Liberal government was in power. Mr Howard —And your mate Wran said they were fakes, and so did you. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. Again I make the point- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. He asked the Attorney-General a question. The Attorney-General is answering it by leave of the House and honourable members should listen to the answer. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The subject of the earlier debate was a series of transcripts or some cassettes. Evidence was given at the time that they were not reliable. I invite honourable members to look at this report. They were different tapes about the same matter. The police were indemnified. Honourable members will find that 130 police came forward. Mr Spender —Which we requested you to do and you eventually agreed to do it. Mr Howard —And you initially refused. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Initially, the issue was that we were talking about a transcript, and we were talking about something that was given by Mr Bob Bottom or someone else. They were not the tapes about which we are now talking. Let us make it very clear. There was a report about that matter. It will also be recalled the report said that at the time all those matters were identified as being difficult to prove in evidence. It was only when police agreed to come forward that indemnities could be given. There is a big distinction. Mr Spender —You don't tell them that they are going to get the indemnities before they come forward. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is how it came about. The police agreed to come forward upon indemnities being given. The honourable member will also recall a bit of a disagreement between Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby as to whether indemnities ought to be given. Let us get the matter clear. I make my final point in answer to the honourable member for North Sydney. He will not disagree that almost 99 per cent of the matters referred to happened in the life of the previous Federal Government, and the previous Federal Government must have been aware of the matters, particularly in one case to which he adverted today. Mr Spender —Come on! You weren't aware yourself until- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No-aware of the matters because of matters that happened in 1982. Mr Howard —Don't you talk about know- ledge of matters after what Brown has treated us to over the last couple of days. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member should not raise other issues. The evidence given clearly shows that in the period from about 1978 to 1982, the Australian Federal Police were talking to the New South Wales Police, got all this information, paid money for it, and obviously did very little about it since not one prosecution was lodged. Mr Howard —What about the confidentiality matter? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Leader of the Opposition was out of the House when I opened. Mr Howard —He made a recommendation? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Mr Justice Stewart has advised my Department that way, yes. Mr Howard —Did he make a formal recommendation? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Not a formal recommendation. Mr Howard —He didn't make a formal recommendation about confidentiality? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, he advised my Department because of the situation. Debate (on motion by Mr Maher) adjourned. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The Minister may proceed. Mr UREN —In today's Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian and the Australian Financial Review newspapers, articles concerning Mr Rodney Groux and his work as a ministerial adviser appeared. Mike Steketee says in the Sydney Morning Herald that I was impressed by Groux. Greg Hywood says in the Australian Financial Review that I recommended Mr Groux to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). Alan Fewster says in the Australian that I personally lobbied Mr Brown to employ Mr Groux. All these statements are completely false. When I became Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services in December 1984, Mr Groux was working in the Department as a temporary clerk. Representations were made to me to have his employment in the Department extended. My private secretary interviewed Mr Groux and sought advice from the Department on his position. The advice was that Mr Groux's temporary employment would cease at the end of its six-month term. On information and advice that I received from my private secretary, I refused to make representations to extend his employment in my Department. I had a further representation made to me making me aware of Mr Groux's financial difficulties and suggesting that he was experiencing a continuing disadvantage because of his association with the meat inquiry. Consequently, I wrote to the Attorney-General and asked whether the Government had any obligation to assist Mr Groux further. I did not receive a reply to the letter. I now table the letter and its attachments. That is the extent of my involvement in this matter. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr BRAITHWAITE —On 29 April, in answer to a question without notice about the position of Mr Walton, Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan, Hansard records the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) as saying the following: . . . it is suggested that I tried to interfere with the selection process, and that is what is being suggested here again by the honourable member for Dawson. I did not make such a suggestion, and I take exception to the Minister's comments, which imply that I was casting aspersions on the actual selection process for the position of Senior Trade Commissioner in Milan which was carried out by the Australian Trade Commission. That was not the intended thrust of my question at all. Indeed, what I was suggesting was that there may have been corruption of the pre-selection process by certain actions taken by the Minister when responsibility for initiating the process of finding a successor for Mr Walton was vested in the Minister and the Department of Trade, not the Australian Trade Commission. I would not like officers of the Australian Trade Commission to take offence at the slant put on my question by the Minister for Trade. In answer to my question without notice the Minister for Trade was given the opportunity of tabling certain documents relating to this matter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is straying from stating where he was misrepresented. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I just want to indicate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the tabling of those documents led to that further misrepresentation. I seek the leave of the House to table a similar document, in the form of a letter addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) which, inter alia, deals specifically with the distinction that I am attempting to draw. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Young —We shall look at it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the procedure might be that the honourable member seek leave to table the document at the end of the hearing of the personal explanations. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Dr THEOPHANOUS —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I claim to have been misrepresented and, indeed, defamed by a statement published in this week's Bulletin magazine in an article headed `Socialist left named in health centre scandal'. Opposition members interjecting- Dr THEOPHANOUS —Be quiet. This is a serious matter. The article refers to a number of allegations in relation to the St Albans Community Health and Resources Centre. Although the Centre is in my electorate, I am not a member and have never been a member of the Centre or its Committee of Management. The Bulletin refers to a number of allegations allegedly made by Mr Gary Cameron, the former accountant at the Centre, in a private session to two consultants appointed by the Victorian Minister for Health, Mr David White, to conduct an inquiry into the Centre. The bulk of the allegations were directed against the management of the Centre and against its Chairman, Mr George Seitz, a member of the Victorian Parliament. However, one of the allegations reported by the Bulletin reflects on me. I quote from the article: That in 1984 George Seitz cashed a cheque for $10,000 `and that this money was fraudulently misapplied by Mr Seitz in assisting Mr Andrew Theophanous gain ALP pre-selection for the federal parliamentary seat of Calwell'. The Bulletin, in its reporting of this matter, has failed to report any of the following. First, the allegation was dismissed by the Committee of Inquiry in its report tabled in the Victorian Parliament. I quote directly from that report on this particular allegation: We can find no evidence to support this allegation. The report goes on to present an explanation of the cash transaction as provided by three independent sources, including the auditor; that is: On the Friday afternoon a cash cheque of $10,000 was drawn for deposit on a property which the Centre hoped to purchase. The owner of the property would not sell, so on the following Monday the cash in full was deposited back into the Centre's bank account. Secondly, when the report was tabled in the Victorian Parliament, even the Liberal Opposition spokesman, Mr Birrell, had this to say about that particular allegation: I have described this as a bizarre case, probably unprovable and probably untrue. The report dismisses the allegation. However, there are others that are more plausible. Thirdly, the report makes it clear that Mr Cameron did not make this allegation in any public forum but privately and verbally to the two investigators. Mr Cameron has since refused to repeat the allegation or to sign any statement asserting it. The Bulletin implies that there is something in the allegations when clearly all those who have investigated the matter have dismissed it. Clearly the article in the Bulletin fails in its duty to give a fair and accurate report of this matter. I regret having to take up the time of the House to counter the malicious and defamatory action of the Bulletin and I have instructed my solicitors to take the appropriate action. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SPENDER —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SPENDER —Quite unintentionally I am sure, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), while speaking to the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions, seems to have assumed that I was saying that all recommendations should be immediately implemented. What I was referring to-and I can understand the honourable gentleman's difficulty in following something when he does not have the volume in front of him-specifically was recommendation 11, which reads: All records in possession of the Commission upon its cessation be passed into the custody of the Chairman of the National Crime Authority. An amendment to the National Crime Authority may be necessary to effect such a transfer of records although it may be considered that the provisions of section 22 (3) of the Archives Act 1983 could be utilised to vest custody of this material in Mr Justice Stewart as Chairman of the National Crime Authority on and from the date of the conclusion of his Commission. It was that which I said we would facilitate so that it could be dealt with immediately if need be so that the records could be passed over. The second matter is this: The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) mentioned the fact that I had referred to parts of this volume. He referred to a pending trial. I wish to say nothing more about the pending trial, but this is a public record. If any consequences are visited upon anyone as a consequence of this volume being published-and I do not for a moment say that it should not be; I say that it should be-they flow from the decision which has been taken by the Government. I think the Attorney-General may have misunderstood me or perhaps himself. Mr MAHER(Lowe) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MAHER —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MAHER —In the current issue of the National Times there is a rather spiteful and erroneous item entitled `wasted words'. It quotes proceedings at a meeting of a caucus committee on foreign affairs and defence at which I asked a question. I questioned the Minister for Defence as to why Australia opposes the strategic defence initiative. The article makes the point that apparently not everyone in the room was able to follow the Minister's argument. The reason I asked the question was that I was not present for the entire meeting. I was elected by this House to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs which met at the same time; I arrived at the end of the meeting and that was why I asked the question. The National Times did not bother to ring and check why I asked the question. I would point out that a similar article appeared in the Australian Financial Review but it was not offensive. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HOWARD —In the House yesterday during the debate on the matter of public importance moved by my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) dishonestly asserted-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition cannot claim that a member has dishonestly asserted something. Mr HOWARD —Well it is true, but I withdraw it. The Treasurer claimed quite wrongly that while he was shadow Treasurer he never received any briefings at all from the former Government. As that matter lay within my gift while I was Treasurer, I point out that that claim by the present Treasurer is completely wrong. In fact he became shadow Treasurer, as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) well remembers, early in January 1983. Prior to that time any request made by the now Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations as then Shadow Treasurer for briefings from the Australian Taxation Office or the Treasury was always agreed to by me. The claim by the Treasurer that he was denied briefing is absolute nonsense. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I seek the indulgence of the House to table a photograph to do with the legislation that was dealt with this morning, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Is leave granted? Dr Klugman —How can you table a photograph? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —A photograph is a document and honourable members can table documents. I think that the Special Minister of State has seen the document and he is quite happy with it. Mr IAN CAMERON —He has. In doing so I would like to say- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member has sought leave to table a document, and that is about all the honourable member can do. Mr IAN CAMERON —In doing so I point out that I have nothing against the three or four teenage Aboriginal children included in the photograph; I do so in the hope that this House, including both the Opposition and the Government, will do all in its power to stamp out petrol sniffing in Aboriginal reserves. Mr Hand —I do not see that we need to grant leave to table this. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the honourable member denying leave? Mr Hand —I am denying leave because I do not know what it is. I saw a glimpse of it, and I do not agree with the tabling. Mr IAN CAMERON —I have already sought and obtained leave from the Leader of the House. Mr Hand —I don't care about that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The position is that if any honourable member denies leave, leave is not granted, even though the Leader of the House or the Manager of Opposition Business may have agreed. If the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) is objecting, he may wish to look at the photograph first before he decides whether he wishes to object. Leave granted. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Manager of Opposition Business) —by leave-I spoke to the Leader of the House (Mr Young) earlier and sought leave to table a photostat of a letter from Messrs Kroger and Kroger, solicitors, Melbourne. The other day I raised a matter of parliamentary privilege and as a result the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) tabled a letter from Messrs Dawson Waldron alleging that the additional approach regarding the matters then canvassed was by them. Messrs Kroger and Kroger debate that assertion and this letter pertains to that matter. Mr PORTER(Barker) —by leave-I wish to make a short statement to the House on behalf of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. I am Deputy Chairman of that Committee and I should like to report to this House the contents of a statement that is being made in the Senate by the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Aulich. Senator Aulich is reporting to that House and on behalf of that Committee I report to this House the terms of his statement. He says: I wish to raise a serious matter of concern relating to a report of the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Card. I refer to an article in today's Australian, p. 13., headed `Committee Rejects ID Card as Wasteful Exercise', bylined under the name of Alan Fewster. The article stated that the Australian had received a copy of the Committee's main findings and recommendations which were allegedly finalised yesterday. The article then quoted various sections of the alleged draft report, attacking the concept of an Australia Card as proposed by the Government. As Chairman, I am concerned that the integrity and objectivity of the Committee has been severely damaged by the Australian's article. It is not the first time during the conduct of these hearings that damaging reports have been given to the media. I cite from the Australian Financial Review of 15 April 1986 headed `Committee of MPs rejects plan for national ID card'. There have been others in a similar vein. For those of us on the Committee who attended all or most of the hearings, who have read and sifted through the 200 letters and submissions received by the Committee, who have worked on this report for five months, and who have visited every State, this leak is seen as a serious attack on the credibility of the Committee's findings and work. At all costs we have attempted to work as a bi-partisan team, free of overt political considerations. Our disappointment is therefore obvious. Accordingly, I have set in train the following process: 1. I have personally contacted all secretariat staff and sought assurances from them that they were not responsible for the leak. I received assurances from each that they were not responsible. 2. I called an extraordinary meeting of the Committee at 1.45 p.m. today and asked each Senator and Member present if: (a) they were responsible for the leak; and (b) were they satisfied with security in their offices? 3. I will ask the Chief Security Officer to provide me with appropriate information. 4. I have called another meeting of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card for Tuesday, 6 May to finalise the report and to establish the need to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. At the meeting, members of the Committee will indicate to me any problems they may have had with security. 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. by Mr Baldwin,Mr Beale,Mr Cobb,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Macphee,Mr Reith and Mr Snow. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) the Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr McArthur,Mr Reith,Mr Saunderson and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should: pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Cadman and Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that persistent rumour suggests that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensure no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Review the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. by Mr Beale,Mr Hunt and Mr Reith. The Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned showeth that there is widespread public concern about the provisions of the Bill of Rights, and especially the dangerous powers to be vested in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and the failure to protect vital rights such as the right to own private property. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (i) that the Hawke Labor Government not proceed with the Bills enacting the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and (ii) that we the people be given the opportunity to express our opinion on the Bill of Rights in a referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever Pray. by Mr Donald Cameron and Mr Jull. 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 Milton. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples organisation should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge the provision of: 1. Official recognition of A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia. 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation to promote the anti-Apartheid cause. 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid. 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education departments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton and Mr Scott. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; (2) That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: We are opposed to the imposition of a Capital Gains Tax. Your petitioners humbly pray: that the Honourable House repeal any Act and reject any Bill which imposes this disincentive to economic growth. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Bill of Rights is not supported by the people of Australia, and calls on the Government to: Delay proclamation of the Bill until all matters of contention are settled by national referenda, and that: (1) Matters of States rights, property rights, rights of the newborn, the right not to belong to unions, among other issues, have not been submitted to the people of Australia to decide, and that; (2) No Australian Bill of Rights should depend on any foreign convention for its basis in Australian law. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 5. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. 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 Parkes in New South Wales respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade unions. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefire the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to airship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; 2. To offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programs, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; 3. Abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation of any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 4. As a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hollis. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned believe that the quality of reception of the Brisbane SBS UHF television station is of a very poor quality in many of the Brisbane suburbs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Government to erect a translator capable of providing a service comparable to that of the major cities in Australia. by Mr Humphreys. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that any proposal by the Government to adopt a flat rate family allowance scheme would cause considerable hardship to low income families. Your petitioners therefore humbly request that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to give due consideration to the effects of such a proposal on Australian families. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That many Australians are suffering through continuing increases in monthly housing loan repayments as a result of record interest rates. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government will take immediate action to reduce housing interest rates and ensure that all Australians retain the right to purchase their own home. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Jull. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: Interest rates of Building Societies should not be allowed to rise above the present level of interest as the hardships which would be caused by any such rise would cause many people to lose their homes because of their inability to meet higher interest rates. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Honourable the Leader and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dis- satisfaction with mismanagement of the Otway forests in Victoria, and we pray that: The Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant public expressions of concern, e.g. petitions by some action, e.g. referendums or committees of inquiry. by Mr Mildren. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects, namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programs, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully request: 1. That the government increase the proportion of Australian food aid going to areas outside central government control. The present formula is to give 1 tonne of food to non-government areas for every 3 tonnes to the central government. We request Mr Hayden to reverse this ratio in order to reflect the actual needs. 2. That the government use every means available to pressure the Ethiopian government to allow international aid, freely given, to pass freely to the non-government areas, particularly Tigray and Eritrea. 3. In view of Sudanese support Ethiopian refugees, and the drought in that country, now as severe as that in Ethiopia, we request that Australian aid to the Sudan be substantially increased. 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 Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging regional residents (country and outer metropolitan) with regard to the provision of access to art forms, in particular to tours of professional performing arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organizations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country and outer metropolitan areas. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government, in re-structuring the taxation system, upholds as fundamental the principle of an equitable distribution of wealth among the people of our nation, and 1. That the Government does not levy any form of broadly based indirect or consumption taxation, and 2. That the Government does levy gift and death duties, excluding the family home from the latter, and a substantial tax on realised capital gains and wealth. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your Petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses: any capital gains that might result when owners of small enterprises finally sell these assets are not ``windfall gains'', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets to sustain them in retirement; Your Petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully sheweth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled; And, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilizing nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government-(a) take new initiatives to encourage all member States of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon States-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time, (b) call on all nuclear weapon States to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal Members of Parliament and Senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth. Our alarm with the continued spiralling cost of commodities. Brought about we believe, by the monopolisation of retail outlets by multi and transnational consortiums. We would ask the Government to legislate effective price control and anti monopoly measures to prevent further erosion of the living standards of the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, seek your most urgent action to rectify this deep concern to the community. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. 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 Cowper Electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Page electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. 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 request that: The world's resources be redirected to the relief of human suffering, starvation, poverty and disease. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Stop spending taxpayers money on self-promotion through high cost high profile but superficial policy on nuclear disarmament and make a genuine bi-partisan commitment to positive and practical policies designed to achieve progressive world-wide nuclear disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ban on negative gearing and restrictions on property depreciation will adversely affect thousands of disadvantaged people who rent their homes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: End its ill-considered and discriminatory policy on rented property and allow depreciation on all buildings used to produce rental income. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of Dawson shows that the proposed Bill of Rights overlooks basic rights concerning union membership, education, and private property, is a basis for massive intrusion into State responsibilities, establishes a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission with powers similar to a Court but without accepted legal procedures and protections for the accused, and provides no avenue of appeal against decision of the HR&EOC. The petition further shows that fundamental protection of human rights is already to be found in the Courts, in tolerance, in fair play, belief in democratic institutions, and in support for rule of law. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament will not allow the Australian Bill of Rights Bill to pass into law. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Grace. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Cowper Electorate, respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Sutherland Shire and New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian Atomic Energy Establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received letters from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by Standing order 107, she has selected the matter which, in her opinion, is the most urgent and important, that is, the proposal by the Leader of the Opposition, namely: The need for new economic policy direction, including greater flexibility in Australia's wages and industrial relations system, to overcome the crisis in Australia's international competitiveness and balance of payments. 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)(3.46) —Last Thursday the community was informed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics that our inflation rate had soared to a level of 9.2 per cent on an annual basis. The March quarter consumer price index figure is nothing short of a disaster for the international standing of the Australian economy. It is a shocker result in terms of its effect upon the living standards of the Australian community. It means higher prices must be paid in the supermarket; it means higher interest rates than we might otherwise have; it means a lower standard of living for Australians and their families than we might otherwise have; and it is in direct contradiction of the robust predictions that were made before the figure came out by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and his minions in his office and his Department. That figure demonstrated that the inflation ratio of this country, compared with the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development average, is the worst that it has been for more than 25 years. One must go back to 1961, when momentarily our rate of inflation, then much lower than it is now, was more than two and a half times that of the OECD average, to get a worse comparison. So this Treasurer-this self-appointed world's greatest Treasurer-has now delivered to the Australian public the most disgraceful inflation comparison with the rest of the industrialised world that we have had since 1961. The Australian public ought to understand that this is at a time when our inflation rate is 9.2 per cent, Japan's is 1.8 per cent, West Germany's is 0.7 per cent, the figure for the United States of America is 3.2 per cent, the figure for France is 3.4 per cent, the figure for the United Kingdom-which the Treasurer was so pleased to deride, abuse and bucket at Question Time-is 5.1 per cent, compared with his 9.2 per cent, and the OECD average is 3.8 per cent. So this genius of a Treasurer has given us the highest interest rates for 50 years and the most disastrous balance of payments figures since the beginning of the 1950s. He has reduced living standards and jacked up the mortgage bills of every family in Australia. I met a woman in Townsville last Sunday week. She is the wife of an Army private stationed in Townsville. She came along, with many other people concerned about mortgage interest rates, to a gathering in Townsville. She showed me the latest notice from the Metropolitan Permanent Building Society in Queensland. It showed that she had to pay $699 a month for her housing loan. I said: `How much was it at the beginning of last year'? She said: `$563 a month'. I said: `Who was it who promised you in November 1984 that your interest rates would come down'? It was the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer. She said to me: `I wonder whether Mr Keating will give my building society a subsidy like he gave a subsidy to the banks'. I said that I could not help her in that regard. The fact of the matter is that it is a disgrace that he has to give a subsidy to anyone because, if he were following the right economic policies, he would not have to subsidise any of the lending institutions in Australia, let alone create second class citizens out of those people in the Australian community who are borrowing from building societies. Let us not be diverted from the saga of disaster that this Treasurer has visited upon the Australian community. Not only has he given us the worst inflation comparison since 1961, not only has he given us the worst interest rates since 1928, not only has he given us a terrible balance of payments situation, and not only has he given us an unemployment rate which is higher than it was for all but five of the 86 months that the Fraser Government was in office- Mr Keating —What a furphy. Mr HOWARD —The Treasurer does not like that. The Treasurer would have the Australian public believe that he has solved the problem of unemployment. The reality is that unemployment will be much higher at the end of this year than it is now, because unemployment will go up in this country as growth starts to slide in response to the high interest rate policy that the Treasurer has followed. I noticed that the Treasurer was very silent in Question Time today about the latest Conference Board report that has come out of New York. We all remember how in the past, whenever a Conference Board report has come out of New York which has been fairly favourable to the Government, we have been regaled at Question Time by the Prime Minister or the Treasurer about the contents of it; but there was absolute silence today. Do honourable members know why? It is because we are starting to slide, that is why. The economic indicators are starting to drift away from the Government, and the Government is no longer able to boast that the accord has brought such munificent benefits. The real issue involved in this matter of public importance is an examination of what has gone wrong with the conduct of economic policy by the Government and by the Treasurer. All of us have been treated over the past three years to sermon after sermon from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister about what a wonderful thing the prices and incomes accord is, how the prices and incomes accord has reduced inflation-one could have fooled me as it is 9.2 per cent; and how the prices and incomes accord has moderated interest rates-one could have fooled me as we have the highest interest rates in 50 years. Above everything else, the Treasurer has said again and again, and he said it at Question Time: `Look how the prices and incomes accord has improved Australia's international competitiveness'. That is the most ridiculous, stupid and economically illiterate comment and claim for any Treasurer or member of Parliament to make. The reality is that, to the extent that our competitiveness is better now than it was last year, it is due to only one thing, that is, the 25 to 30 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar. It is not due to anything else. It is certainly not due to our inflation rate, because that has gone up. It is certainly not due to the prices and incomes accord, because that has visited high inflation and high interest rates on us. Our competitiveness is better due to the devaluation of the Australian dollar. What the Treasurer is really saying is that the only way his policies can deliver greater competitiveness of the Australian economy is by reducing living standards. This is the man who for 12 months has said: `Look at what wonders I have brought to the Australian economy by improving our international competitiveness'. When one asks the Treasurer how he has done so, he does not say that he has done it by reducing inflation, he does not say that he has done it by improving productivity, and he does not say that he has done it by improving exports; he says that he has done it by reefing the standard of living away from average Australians and their families. That is because, whenever a currency is devalued, that disturbs and reduces the standard of living of the people whose currency is devalued. That is the reason why we need a new economic strategy and that is the reason why one by one those faithful adherents of the inflexible centralised wage fixation system are now starting to jump on to the bandwagon of a more flexible approach to wages and industrial relations. There is almost a traffic jam developing on the road to Damascus. The Treasurer is appropriately named Paul. All of these people are now running around saying: `What we need is more flexibility'. Where were they 12 months ago when we on this side of the House and many other people were saying that? They were not talking about flexibility then. These people were saying that the prices and incomes accord had delivered economic nirvana for Australia. Now, 12 months later, one does not hear any more about 100,000 new jobs from the dollar dip. Remember the Prime Minister waxing lyrical in Western Australia and the headline `100,000 jobs in dollar dip-Hawke'. One will not hear a word about that now. Not one of those jobs will be delivered. It is another broken promise by the Prime Minister, and the Treasurer can yap and carry on as much as he likes but not one of those new jobs has been delivered. The reality is that all the glowing expectations of the prices and incomes accord now lie in ruins under the increasing weight of an uncompetitive manufacturing industry. Honourable members do not have to believe me on that subject; they need go no further than Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. If ever there was a Johnny-come-lately on the subject of how ridiculous the prices and incomes accord is it is John Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. Without doubt, Senator Button is the most credible and believable Minister in the Government and he has said: `I do not know anything about this J-curve, but I can tell you this: Whoever invented the J-curve does not know anything about the Australian economy and has no understanding of Australian conditions'. That is what the Minister who knows more about manufacturing industry said about the J-curve. What has the Treasurer said about the J-curve? The Treasurer has said month after month: `Hang on fellows, everything is all right. You know how the J-curve works. It gets worse before it gets better'. I can say to the Treasurer that he has got the first part right, but he has a long way to go before he gets the second part right, because it will not get any better. The J-curve is flat on its back; it is a dead letter. Bit by bit and week by week the Government is backing away from its beloved centralised wage fixation system. There is no better authority on this than Charlie Fitzgibbon, who delivered a paper to the Economic Planning Advisory Council. The Prime Minister tried to suppress that paper, but it got out. What Charlie Fitzgibbon had to say in that paper was very revealing. Charlie Fitzgibbon made it very plain that he believed in a more flexible industrial relations environment. He believes that the J-curve is not necessarily producing expansion in Australian industry. Charlie Fitzgibbon advocated enterprise agreements and suggested that those enterprise agreements might need a degree of profit sharing. He maintained that the rigid concept of comparative wage justice can do harm in certain circumstances. Charlie Fitzgibbon advocated overcoming the rigidities of our industrial relations system. In other words, he has undergone a considerable conversion. The Opposition is now saying, as it has said for 12 or 18 months, that the Government cannot go on forever running a floating exchange rate with a highly centralised domestic wage fixation system. If that is done, ultimately, something has to give. What has started to give is not the economic theories of the Treasurer; it is the living standards of the Australian community. That is because for the past 18 months the Government has been running a nonsense of an economic policy and the effect has been to reduce the living standards of the Australian community. That is the reason why all Australians are paying more for their mortgages; that is the reason it is so costly to travel overseas now; that is the reason it is so costly to buy anything from overseas; and that is the reason the United States-the most flexible and market oriented economy in the world-is heading towards not a one per cent inflation rate, but a zero inflation rate. The Americans, the Japanese and the West Germans are heading towards a zero inflation rate. Those countries have annual inflation figures that make our quarterly inflation figures look absolutely disgraceful. At a time when that is happening, this Government and this Treasurer have delivered to the Australian community the worst comparative inflation rate that we have had since 1961. The figure of 9.2 per cent is a living disgrace for this country, an absolute living disgrace. It is a final indictment of the misguided policies of this Treasurer that he should deliver an inflation rate of that order and of that magnitude at a time when so many other countries are doing so much better. So, clearly, we do need a changed industrial relations system. We need one that will increase and not subdue enterprise based productivity. We need one that will provide greater flexibility that will complement, not frustrate, a floating exchange rate. We need an approach to wage fixation that recognises that different industries have different capacities to pay. We need a wage fixation system that recognises that we will not have a long term improvement in the Australian economy until the excessive power of certain militant trade unions is reduced and until all sections of the community are made equal before the law. Do not let anybody imagine that the high watermark of this country's inflation difficulties has been reached. Do not let anybody imagine that 9.2 per cent is necessarily the worst that we will hear. The Reserve Bank of Australia, in its most recent bulletin, stated: . . . with more optimistic forecasts for inflation in major countries overseas, Australia's relative performance on inflation appears likely to worsen- not get better- in the coming year. The Treasurer should get no comfort at all from the fact that it may fall marginally from 9.2 per cent down to 8 per cent. As somebody observed a couple of days ago in a newspaper article, that kind of argument is the equivalent of somebody saying: `Don't worry. I am perfectly okay. The truck that ran over me was 8 tonnes instead of 10 tonnes'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.02) —The honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), this budding prime ministerial aspirant, came to the leadership of the Opposition with much promise-with the promise of an intellectual framework for economic policy and the promise of a thought through position in respect of the fundamentals of the economy and of social policy. But, just months after his election to office, we find that the whole construction, the whole fabrication of his policy approach, the thing which was to have made him different from the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) has fallen to the ground. Now we can look only at what is the shambles of the Opposition's policy on economic issues and look back to the current Leader's former role as Treasurer in the Fraser Government and say: `What did he do when he had the opportunity?' What he did was this: When the rest of the world was labouring under a massive increase in oil prices and being slowed down, this country was given the enormous benefit of a resources boom in coal as an oil price replacement, which should have given Australia a living standard comparable with no other country and a standard of living which should have been the envy of the world. Instead, it was squandered. For the Leader of the Opposition to make the dishonest point that the level of unemployment is now higher than at any time in the previous Government's term bar its last year, while neglecting to say that unemployment doubled in its last year to 10 per cent of the work force, was a very shabby debating point indeed. The Howard legacy was a doubling of unemployment to 10 per cent, 11 per cent inflation, the first negative growth in 30 years, smashed profits, massive industrial disputation and a totally uncompetitive Australian economy by world standards. Yet he has the gall to come into the House today and try to lecture us about the state of policy and where it is going and to make points about flexibility, saying that we are now talking about flexibility. The whole point of the prices and incomes accord and of the National Economic Summit Conference in 1983 was to get flexibility-to get a reduction in the kind of mad wages outcomes that we had in 1981. We achieved this with the no catch-up claims arising from the wage pause period, the no extra claims agreements by the union coming from the Summit, the recent deferment by the Australian Council of Trade Unions of the 4 per cent productivity case and the Medicare adjustment of 1984. All of these things represent the flexibility which the Government sought and has effectively introduced into the economy in wages. The Leader of the Opposition talks about flexibility as though it is an Opposition word. Members of the Opposition talk in some vague way about flexibility and imply that in some way we have now caught up with them. But, in fact, the previous Government presided over a $39 wage increase in 1981, a 14 per cent increase in wages in one year. Do Opposition members think they can talk to us about wage flexibility? They had flexibility all right. It was always going up, going the wrong way, not down. They had flexibility upwards, which is what the economy did not need. They now try to plagiarise something that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, or somebody else said. The fact is that the honourable member for Bennelong has never had an original thought in his life. What his leadership is revealing is the sterility of his views not only about social policy but also about economic policy. We now have the explanation for the languid performance of the economy in the late 1970s. It was because of his incapacity to do anything about wages, inflation or anything else. Fancy the Leader of the Opposition lecturing us about the inflation rate when he presided over inflation rates three times higher than the average for the rest of the world during his period as Treasurer. The fact is that he knows that Australia went through a massive depreciation and there is a one-off price surge from it. That one-off price surge goes into the inflation rate temporarily. He knows that and he knows that when that is washed out of the system with the Government's discounting arrangements with the ACTU, it will go back to 5 per cent or thereabouts which is where it was in March 1985. The Leader of the Opposition lectures us about the United Kingdom Government with its current inflation performance of 5.1 per cent. We had 5.1 per cent in the year to March 1985 before the depreciation. We will go back to those figures. The difference between us and Britain is that we have an unemployment rate of 8 per cent and it has an unemployment rate nearly double that. It has a youth unemployment rate in cities like Liverpool of 90 per cent. Mr Hodges —Talk about Australia. Mr KEATING —I will talk about Australia. For the benefit of those opposite who cannot understand simple ideas, let me say that we have had 10 per cent employment growth in three years-the fastest in the Western world. The previous Government left us with a recorded unemployment rate of 11 per cent and about another 3 or 4 per cent unrecorded unemployment. It left us, effectively, with an unemployment rate of about 15 per cent. All of those women who were previously in the work force were waiting at home, never bothering to register for employment. That is why the participation rates are up now. That is why the recorded unemployment rate is slow in coming down because of higher participation rates-because of all the hidden unemployment the previous Government left through its rotten economic management right through the 1970s. The Opposition should not talk to us about employment. We have had 10 per cent employment growth. We have had more employment growth in our three years than the previous Government had during its seven years. In fact we had more employment growth in two years than in the previous Government's seven years. Opposition members should not talk to us about employment growth. We hear talk of a saga of disaster. Is the highest growth rate in the Western world a disaster? We had an annual rate of growth in the economy in the half-year to Christmas of 10 per cent, running at an annual rate of 10 per cent. Is that a disaster? We had the highest employment growth of countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Is that a disaster? We had the highest profit share since the middle 1960s. Is that a disaster? Of course it is not. The fact is that the previous Government left the Australian economy in ruins. Every interested observer knows that, including the business community. That is why, at the meeting of the Business Council of Australia, the Opposition was shown the door when it trotted out its stupid, foolish platitudes about wages. Do honourable members remember the speech of the Leader of the Opposition at the National Press Club? He said the Opposition would have a radical alternative. He said: `The time has arrived where wages will be the most important economic battle ground that Australia will enter over the next five to 10 years.' What do we find now? He is back to the idea of centralised wages. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) said: `The overwhelming bulk of wage fixing will continue to be done through the Arbitration Commission'. That indicates no revolution, no radical alternative. Then the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), said: `Obviously we will continue with the centralised wage fixing system as far as we can see into the future'. Where is the radical wage alternative? What the Opposition is stuck with is centralised wages but no accord. In other words, it does not have a viable anti-inflation policy. Because it does not have a viable wages policy, and because it does not have a viable anti-inflation policy, it will stay where it is. Opposition members will continue to listen to me make speeches on economic policy for a long time. They will remain in opposition, where they belong. What really made me sick was the Leader of the Opposition talking about living standards. He said: `The Government is reducing living standards'. That came from the man who has opposed every cost of living adjustment to wages in three years. It came from the man who for three years has opposed every increase in the consumer price index being applied to the six-monthly wage cases. This is the person who says that he is worried about- Mr Hodges —We can't afford it. Mr KEATING —The honourable member says that we cannot afford it. His Leader was in this chamber saying that the Government is cutting living standards while he says that they should be slashed by cutting wages and that there should be no tax cuts. Really! Honourable members opposite think that all Australians are fools and that they do not listen to what honourable members opposite have to say. Of course, the other inane remark that the Leader of the Opposition made was that the Government's statement that the economy was competitive was stupid. Australia, on its competitiveness index, is more competitive now than at any time since the middle 1960s. That is a fact because of the depreciation and the superb wage outcomes which the accord has delivered. That is why we are hugely competitive. The leader of a major party has tried to assert that the country is not competitive when he ought to know, from some basic reading of the fundamentals of economic statistics, that we are now more competitive than at any time for decades, that we are shipping material into countries to which we have never sold before and that we are turning in a better import competing performance because we are competitive. The fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition made an entirely dishonest remark about something he should have known about. If he had known about it he is dishonest and if he does not know about it he is incompetent. He does not understand that, with a 30 per cent-plus depreciation and wage outcomes of 5 to 6 per cent, we are hugely competitive. What it all boils down to is that the Opposition, this forlorn group opposite, has no economic policy, no wages policy and no fiscal policy. In Question Time we heard the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is at my side now, catalogue $6 billion of fiscal promises by the Opposition. The honourable member for Bennelong, the Leader of the Opposition, expects people to take him seriously as an economic manager. He has no credibility on fiscal policy and he never did. He has no credibility on wages policy. He has never understood monetary policy-that was just run by the Reserve Bank of Australia; he never understood that. He thinks that, because a few members of the business community have Liberal Party tickets in their pockets, they will say: `Oh! Look, you come back. You run us. You come back as the government. It does not matter that you have run us into the ground, wrecked our profits, smashed us, ruined our share prices, and put us into the first negative growth in 30 years. We will have you back'. They would not have honourable members opposite back in a fit. They will leave them where they are as an historic ruin on the other side of the Parliament, which is what they are, without any views, without any original thoughts, and without any capacity. The best people in conservative-- Mr Hodges —They will dump you. Mr KEATING —They do not need to dump us. We have not relied upon their support as honourable members opposite have. We are here on our own weight and fat, thank you. The fact is that the bright people on the other side-- Mr Downer —The car workers will dump you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) — Order! The honourable member for Petrie and the honourable member for Mayo will cease interjecting. Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, they are more to be pitied than despised. The fact is that the bright people on the conservative side of Australia are in business; they are not in the Liberal Party. They have given up honourable members opposite as irrelevant, and they are right. What do honourable members opposite reckon that John Elliott really thinks of them? He thinks that they are mugs, which is what they are. He is dead right. He has them dead set right. They are mugs and members of the business community will never let them back. If honourable members opposite think that the business establishment of this country will let them back to run the domestic economy of Australia, they are quite wrong. Business profits are up to the highest level in 25 years. Industrial disputation is at the lowest level in 20 years. The economy is more competitive than it has ever been. Members of the business community can see a resurgence of the manufacturing structure coming and a rebalancing of the economy. Yet honourable members opposite think that they will say: `Oh, we will chuck all that up because I know Billy Bloggs MP is a member of the Malvern Branch of the Victorian Liberal Party'. Do honourable members opposite really think that business will have them back? Honourable members opposite are really over there to stay. Honourable members opposite bring in the Leader of the Opposition to give us a lecture about economic policy; when he blew a resources boom which was blessed by this accelerated depreciation in mining. He blew it out the door and gave us the first negative growth in 30 years, double digit inflation, a massive Budget imbalance and a massive current account imbalance. Yet honourable members opposite ask: `Oh God, do you think that our policies are not right? It will really make an impact on us'. The fact of the matter is that honourable members opposite have no fundamental idea about how to run the economy. They have no fundamental original thought processes on economic policy. They have no machinery in the Party to pull an economic policy together and the whole world knows it; most of all the Parliament and the Government, but particularly the business community. We regard the Opposition's motion as just so much garbage, verbiage and nonsense. When we get down to competitiveness and trade honourable members opposite should watch the inflation rate spin down with the discount. They should watch growth continue in Australia. They should wait and see this country outstrip the others. They should watch Australians being put back to work instead of being left on the scrap heap of the labour market. They should watch these trends. They sat their with their vantage point in the 1970s and watched how Malcolm Fraser and John Howard squandered the lot. They watched them throw the lives of young Australians into the dustbins of the labour market and they watched the security of Australia's living standards fall through the floor. All those people from the chambers of commerce and the rest who are cackling on the other side are there to stay for a long time. They should get used to it. Mr COBB(Parkes)(4.17) —Let us get a bit of sense back into this debate. Today, while we are debating this matter, a radioactive cloud is drifting over Europe which comes from an explosion in a nuclear power plant in Russia. It could be said that there is an even more ominous cloud of damage sweeping Australia-a cloud of even more insidious destructiveness that is sucking dry the economic lifeblood of this nation by penalising thrift, hard work and initiative and rewarding idleness and mediocrity. This cloud is coming from the disintegration and meltdown of this Government's rigid, outdated and inflexible wage and economic policies based around the accord. At a time when almost every economic adviser is telling the Government to change, to free up and get away from the centralised wage fixing system, to abolish the Marxist line of comparative wage justice and to remove the archaic restrictions of 17 1/2 per cent loadings, and holidays two and three times the length of other countries and so on, this Government is ignoring this advice. This advice is coming not just from economic advisers but also from business, small businessmen and farmers who have never been worse off than under this Government. It is coming from employees themselves, as we have seen at Mudginberri. It is coming from the ex-vice-president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, in the voice of Charlie Fitzgerald, and it is even coming from the Ministers in this Government. I wish to quote what the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) had to say in the paper this morning. He said that there is now `significant support for greater flexibility in the wages system and a review of the ALP-ACTU prices and incomes accord'. Mr McGauran —Who said that? Mr COBB —Senator Button-Johnny-come-lately. The question is: How much longer can the Government hold the tide of necessary change? How much longer can the Government go before it admits that the coalition is right and that its policies are wrong? The tide has turned in Australia. It has turned away from rigid, centralised wage fixing and an entrenching of excessive trade union power to a desire to have the flexibility to free up our whole industrial relations area and our wage fixing policy that has done so much to cripple this country. Members of the Government get up in this chamber day after day singing the praises of the accord and how it has dampened wages and costs. They may believe that claim but it is inaccurate. Labour costs are set to explode by a minimum of 13 per cent over the next 12 months. We will have a March-April wage case of 2.2 per cent, a productivity rise of 3 per cent, a September-October rise estimated at 4 per cent, a March-April 1987 estimated wage rise of 3 per cent, and on costs will be even higher. When the accord was first introduced it may have had an apparent temporary effect of dampening wages-a claim which I do not accept as it was happening anyway because of other factors. But even if it had that effect it could only have been a short term one and at great cost to the economy because it was attacking the symptons instead of the cause of the problem. It is a bit like cutting off the trunk of an elephant which has a cold. It will stop it from sneezing but in the long term it will die from starvation. The centralised accord which the Government has is likewise amputating the lifeline that feeds businesses in Australia today. Business cannot employ the workers it wants because wages are too rigid, work practices are too inflexible and trade unions have powers above the law that are proving detrimental to us all. If the economy is as rosy as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) claim, I invite them to come to the bush and look at the real Australia. Everywhere I go businesses are being crippled. For the first time successful and hard working businesses are making losses instead of profits. They are begging for a change of direction in government policies. Farmers have been crippled and this Government has offered them nothing worth while. I remind this Government that it is small business that employs most of the people in this country. It is farmers who produce 40 per cent of Australia's badly needed export income and farmers all over my electorate are now not working their farms because the banks have cut off their credit. They have been forced to do so because this Government has put up interest rates from 14 per cent to 22 per cent within a year and it is doing this to prop up the dollar so that the Prime Minister can preserve his precious accord. Where have this Government's much-heralded economic policies got us? Our international competitiveness is shot to pieces. As we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), our inflation rate is 9.2 per cent and rising, 2.4 times the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 3.8 per cent. Mr Hicks —The world's best Treasurer. Mr COBB —That is right. Perhaps his last overseas trip was to give back his medal. The inflation rate in the United States, where wage fixing policy is more flexible, is 3.2 per cent and dropping. Japan's inflation rate is 1.8 per cent; Germany's is 0.7 per cent; France, a socialist country, has an inflation rate of only 3.4 per cent; the United Kingdom, with all its problems, has an inflation rate of 5.1 per cent, which in the last six months was only 1.2 per cent. Italy, with all its chaos, has an inflation rate of only 8.8 per cent; Canada's is 4.1 per cent; and Switzerland's is 1.3 per cent. But Australia's March quarter inflation rate has just been released and is 2.3 per cent for one quarter, for goodness sake! As the Leader of the Opposition said, that is the highest quarterly inflation rate for 25 years. We have seen nothing like it in this country for over a generation. Real interest rates are the highest in this country for over 50 years-two generations. Youth unemployment is running at between 20 and 25 per cent and is destined to stay there because of rigid economic policies. The next coalition government will address that area so that the youth of this country will have the freedom to get a job, something that this Government, by law, is stopping them from doing now. Let us look at the deficits. This Government has brought down three Budgets. We have had the highest deficit in history, the second highest deficit and now the third highest deficit. Even more alarming is the fact that our balance of payments situation is deteriorating at an increasing rate every month. This Government is spending money like it is going out of fashion. Just look at the money it is handing around. Mr Beale —It can afford to with high inflation. Mr COBB —It can, I guess. The other day the Australia Council gave 22 grants to buy the voting patronage of the Nuclear Disarmament Party. Some $22,000 went to pay the salary of an artist in residence to the people for nuclear disarmament. Some $14,000 was given to a movement against uranium mining so that it can commission a peace sculpture. Some of the grants are almost beyond belief. The Trades Hall Council will get $10,200 of taxpayers' money to erect 40 large billboards on major building sites. The United Trades and Labour Council will receive $15,000 for 13 trade union banners on the theme of peace. What are these banners made of-gold? What will that do to lift productivity in this country and get this country back where it should be? Sure, this Government may have given some early stimulation to some sectors of the economy, but one can always live well on borrowed money. If an individual borrows $100,000 he can live like a king while he is spending it but the time comes when he has to pay it back. The time has come in Australia today to pay that money back. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have become the grim reapers of this country, J-curve walking across a graveyard littered with businesses and farmers they have destroyed, because these victims have had to adhere to outmoded inflexible wage and interest rate policies. The Australian Labor Party's accord is based around the socialist philosophy of centralising everything, including power. If an industry cannot afford to pay the across-the-board wage rises that this Government legitimises, that industry is expected to lie down quietly in the accord's graveyard and die without fuss. No flexibility is allowed. Death before a breach of solidarity seems to be etched in stone. The people of Australia are now calling on the Government to unlock the chains of the accord. We are supposed to be a free people in a free country, yet this Government denies us these ideals. The coalition, when it reveals its new industrial relations policy next week, is going to change all that. The power of the trade unions will be curbed, the accord will be abolished and we will free up wage fixing and other conditions of employment in Australia. It is a policy whose time has come; it is a policy that will win us the next election; it is a policy that will have this Government running scared; and it is a policy that will restore prosperity to this country and proudly take us into the twenty-first century. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(4.28) —The haze of unreal dimensions that the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) has just gone through, as though characterising some economic fairy tale before this House rather than what is going on in Australia, is almost a self-induced haze. Whatever he has been consuming, he should stop. He has convinced me of one thing alone: I will never have a glass of 2,4,5-T-it blurs one's vision. Only three statistics are needed to bury the argument of those opposite on this matter of public importance. Today they came into this place to talk about the flexibility of the labour market, the measure of wages policy and the health of the Australian economy. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has already spelt out some areas of flexibility that the accord has provided to this country that otherwise would not have been provided. Let me cite the three measures that best show this nation what the accord and this Government's wages policy have produced. Firstly, for a government that is supposedly a prisoner of the trade union movement in this country, as is so often charged by honourable members opposite, this country now enjoys the lowest rate of industrial disputation in 16 years. Industry catch-ups in the wages area, a commonplace headline under the Opposition's administration, are now a thing of the past. Demarcation disputes are now a top priority of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and it is now rectifying them. The industrial relations landscape has changed dramatically for the better. Secondly, the profits share in national income in this country rose from 13 per cent in 1982-83 to over 15 per cent in the second half of 1985. Profit shares are now at their highest level since the late 1960s. Thirdly, the real unit labour cost per unit of production, that is, wages plus on-costs adjusted for inflation and for the growth of productivity-I suggest that those opposite who do not understand this ask the honourable member for Forde (Dr Watson), who is probably the only Opposition member who understands this, which is why the Opposition probably would not let him be the chairman of its economic committee-has actually shown a fall in the last four financial years under this Government. The Opposition cannot show the same thing. Those three statistics, which best measure the effect of our wages policy on this economy, are all triple A standard. There is no doubt about that. The Opposition cannot argue with that and not one of the Opposition speakers this afternoon has even tried to. I believe that buries the Opposition's arguments. It is interesting to compare our relative trading position with those of our major trading partners in terms of wage costs for the year ended 1985 compared with the period 1981-82. If the Opposition bothers to look at that it will see that there has been something like 33 1/3 per cent improvement in that position. If Opposition members have a good, hard look at the round-up which is available to all honourable members, they will see that that is the case. The fact is that those opposite charged in under the banner of the new Right of the Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), and were going to introduce radical changes to industrial relations in this country. The big bang has been reduced to a whimper. The factionalism of those opposite has seen the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N. A. Brown) overrule his leader, so that the centralised wages policy of the Opposition is but a pale shade of the policy that it was about to release. That new, supposedly flexible wages policy will make small business the battleground of a new industrial relations war in this country. I ask those opposite: Is that the intention? Will an enterprise-based wages policy evolve overnight, as the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe this afternoon? Would an enterprise-based wages policy account for what would be needed to produce the same result that the depreciation of the Australian dollar has produced; that is, a wage cut of 25 per cent? That is what would be needed. The Leader of the Opposition came in here today and questioned the floating of the dollar because of the impact it was supposedly having on Australian living standards. To make this nation more competitive, simply through a wages policy solution, would require the equivalent of a 25 per cent cut in real wages. I ask those opposite to honestly come into this place and say that their wages policy could and would produce that result without an industrial relations war of a magnitude we have never seen before and a consumption depression, because that would be the result. (Quorum formed) It is the essence of democracy, surely, that those opposite have placed this matter of public importance on the Notice Paper and have had their say, then, because they are frightened of the truth, have called a quorum and have run away from the issue before the public can hear the truth. They are a disgrace. In the one remaining minute I must say that what has been launched upon us today as a diatribe by those speakers is nothing short of doomsaying. Those opposite are deliberately going out to doomsay this economy as economic traitors seeking to talk down the Australian economy so as to bring about a lack of confidence in the business community. Let me say to those opposite that the statistics that the Treasurer and I have cited today speak for themselves. That is why the Business Council of Australia, the Confederation of Australian Industry and so many others in the business community will have no bar of the supposedly flexible wages policy about which the Opposition is now talking, even if the most miraculous thing of all happens with its wages policy; that is, that more than half of the members of the Opposition agree with it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Sex Discrimination Bill Sex Discrimination Bill Sex Discrimination Bill Sex Discrimination Bill Sex Discrimination Bill Sex Discrimination Bill Sex Discrimination Bill Sex Discrimination Bill Sex Discrimination Bill Sex Discrimination Bill Debate resumed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(4.37) —Before the luncheon adjournment I was replying to matters raised by the Opposition in the second reading debate. I was making the point that with the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill we are trying to bring up to date the ten Acts set out in the Schedule to the Bill. When the Sex Discrimination Act was passed in 1984 a promise was made to review the legislation and, where necessary, to bring in amendments which might be appropriate to make that Act conform in terms of its drafting. In the course of the debate the Opposition started to say that it would oppose what might be called rectification of the drafting in areas such as the disabled homes legislation or delivery of meals to people who obviously are in need. I cannot see how that in any way would be of value to those people. At this stage we are making the Acts uniform in terms of the age requirement, whereas currently the age for males is 65 and for females is 60. The real concept of what those Acts intend to do is to look after people who are disabled or in need of some social welfare help by way of the delivery of a meal. That is what the Acts are about. They refer basically to people who have a need, regardless of their age, based on their disability or debility. I think it would be against what society is about for us to say: `Sorry, but you have not reached the age of 65 so we cannot look after you in this home, even though you are disabled', or `We cannot give you a meal even though you cannot get one yourself'. That was not the intention of these pieces of legislation. I am told that in practice those people would be looked after. The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) made the point that the system would look after them and there is no intention to exclude them from the provisions. The thrust of what the Opposition was trying to say is that this will cost a lot of money. But I am told-in fact, it was said in the second reading speech-that there would be very little, if any, cost. Mr Hodges —That is not right. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am telling the House that that is the position; that is what the Government has said. I am only acting on the advice of other Ministers because I am merely the engineer in the room; I am not talking about the actual delivery of the services. The legislation has been brought in to say whether we can provide a service. These things are done in a budgetary context, and I appreciate the interjection from the honourable member. I am sure that that could be a matter of further debate somewhere else. Sex Discrimination Bill Sex Discrimination Bill From the point of view of dependent spouses, when we came to de facto relationships and that affected compensation matters, whether Commonwealth or seamen's compensation, it was felt that we could really identify the question of dependency rather than put in that a couple had to live together for three years. That did not seem to be an appropriate test, so all we were doing was deleting the three-year period. A couple still have to meet all the other criteria of a genuine de facto relationship and dependency. So that is what it is all about; yet that is a subject of contest. Whilst I can understand arguments about cost, I have said in the second reading speech that the costs would not be increased. That is virtually the position. I suppose one can argue about that according to the logic used by the honourable member for Moncrieff, that is, that we usually help people in need anyway. Some of them are invalid pensioners; some of them are unemployed. They do not all have to reach a certain age before we help them; they have to reach a certain disability. I have no doubt that that is what we are doing. Honourable members will notice that in all the segments of my speech there was deemed to be no real increase in costs. That could be a matter for further debate. The honourable member for Moncrieff-I do not know whether she had a chance to hear me earlier-asked a number of questions which related to the costs generally of having to provide the same services to males at the age of 60 years as are now provided for women. I was able to say that I do not have that material at my fingertips but I will endeavour to get it from the appropriate Ministers. The information available in 1984 when the Sex Discrimination Act was introduced was that there would be an additional cost of $800m. That was one of the factors mentioned then. Whilst I am in no position to persuade the Opposition not to go ahead with its amendments in Committee, I just make the point that we are merely tidying up the Act to reduce discrimination on the basis of age. I think that the people we are concerned about would agree with me that they should be entitled to consideration because of their disability, their need, and I wonder why the Opposition wants to press its amendments. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. The Bill. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(4.44) —I move: Pages 2 and 3, omit the Schedule, substitute the following Schedule: SCHEDULE Section 2 AMENDMENTS OF ACTS Banking (Transitional Provisions) Act 1959 Sub-section 20 (2)- Omit the sub-section, substitute the following sub-section: ``(2) An officer appointed to the Reserve Bank Service under this Part shall not, except for incapacity or misconduct, be retired or dismissed from the Reserve Bank Service before the officer has attained the age of 60 years.''. Companies Act 1981 Sub-paragraph 578 (2) (c) (ii)- Omit ``wife'', substitute ``spouse''. Defence Act 1903 Paragraph 124 (1) (h)- Omit the paragraph. Navigation Act 1912 Sub-paragraph 70 (1) (a) (i)- Omit the sub-paragraph, substitute the following sub-paragraph: ``(i) the grandparent, parent, wife, husband, brother, sister, child or grandchild of the seaman; or''. Sub-paragraph 156 (1) (b) (i)- After ``widow'', insert ``, the widower''. Sub-section 158 (6)- After ``widow,'', insert ``widower,''. Sub-section 158 (7)- After ``widow,'', insert ``widower,''. Sub-section 161 (1)- (a) Omit ``his wife, or any of his children or step-children,'', substitute ``the wife or husband, or any of the children or step-children, of the seaman''. (b) Omit ``his'' (third, fourth and fifth occurring), substitute ``the seaman's''. Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945 Part VI- Repeal the Part. Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Act 1953 Section 2 (definition of ``eligible person'')- Omit paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), substitute the following paragraphs: ``(b) a former member of the Royal Australian Air Force Nursing Service; (c) a former member of the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force; (d) a widow or widower of a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); (e) a widower of a person referred to in paragraph (c); or (f) a parent of a person referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c), being a deceased person who was not legally married at the time of his or her death, if the parent- (i) is a widow or widower and was, at the time of the person's appointment to, or enlistment in, the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal Australian Air Force Nursing Service or the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, as the case may be, dependent upon the person; or (ii) has a wife who is, or a husband who is, so incapacitated as to be unable to contribute materially to the support of the parent;''. Seamen's Compensation Act 1911 Schedule 1 (sub-paragraph (10A) (a))- Add at the end ``or''. Schedule 1 (sub-paragraph (10A) (b))- Omit the sub-paragraph. In my speech in the second reading debate, I advanced the reasons for the amendment. I note that, in closing the second reading debate, the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said that we were talking about a question not of age but of disability. There is no real dissent with the view that we are talking about disability; but, if we were talking about disability, in that event there would be economic arguments before us as to need, and there would be evidence before us as to community need that has not been presented. We made the point earlier that we are concerned with priorities. We are concerned that the needy be helped and that there is not an unlimited amount of money to go around. Without taking up any further time, having moved the amendment which has been circulated in my name, I welcome the intervention and support of those on my side. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(4.45) —I wish to raise a couple of matters that the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) raised in his summing up of the second reading debate on the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill. I made reference to the fact that we were opposing the reduction of the age of men eligible for benefit from 65 to 60 years. That has budgetary implications. It means that tens of thousands of men will be eligible to enter, under the definition of an aged person, aged persons homes and be eligible to receive delivered meals. But, to put that to one side, there will of course be future budgetary implications if we continue down that same road and bring everybody back from 65 to 60 years. In any event, the point made by the Attorney-General was that at age 60 people would be eligible. That is true, but why not make it 59, 58 or 55 years? There will always be a cut-off point problem. In 1970, the life expectancy of Australian men was 67.8 years and for women it was 74.5 years. These figures have gone up; and, in 1984, the figure was 72.5 years for men and 79 years for women. So we have seen a rise in age expectancy of about 4 1/2 years in just a little over a decade. I suggest that bringing the age eligibility down when the age expectancy has risen is not really required. I take the point that the Attorney-General was making relative to people who are in need. If people are disabled, if they have a real need, these sorts of services ought to be available to them. As the Attorney-General has said, this Bill is consequential to the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984. Ten Acts are being amended. Earlier, before the debate was interrupted at 12.45 p.m. for the grievance debate, the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) made an excellent speech, particularly in regard to his reference to problems that have arisen as a result of the operations of the Sex Discrimination Act. Of recent times, I wrote to the Attorney-General about certain aspects of the Act as they apply to advertising for positions. In other words, businesses seeking to employ people have run into a tremendous number of problems as a result of not being able to advertise for the people they require. Of course the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) raised points of order on the honourable member for Gippsland, but this Bill is very much associated with the Sex Discrimination Act. It is perpetuating some of the problems in the Sex Discrimination Act, because the section that deals with the Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act talks about people being not legally married. I am an employer of nine people. Eight of those people are women; one is a man. I just want to make that point to the House because I believe that at no stage have I discriminated against women when it comes to employment. But let me cite to the House the example of one employer within my electorate who employs a substantial number of people. He has hotel, shopping centre and pastoral interests. That employer wrote to me and I forwarded his letter to the Attorney-General. In due course I received a reply from the Attorney-General which of course only answered the problem in part. I understand the reason, because the Act clearly sets out to cover some of the complaints that the constituent made. In wanting to employ barmen or barmaids in a hotel out in the country areas, he is unable to advertise for such. In wanting to employ a stockman, he cannot advertise for such but has to advertise for a stockperson. How absurd is this sort of legislation that requires an employer to have to talk about `persons'? We could look at the institution of marriage. It really is no longer meaningful in the terms of the Sex Discrimination Act. Indeed, for two people, a man and a woman, to present themselves as a married couple is, in effect, to use a term that is discriminatory. The Hawke socialist Government is breaking down our society and our institutions. Mr Maher —On a point of order, Mr Chairman: We are in Committee and the member's speech does appear to be a second reading speech. I have looked at the amendments moved by the Opposition to be canvassed in Committee and none of this speech appears to be relevant at all to the matters before the Committee. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for North Sydney has moved a number of amendments that change the titles in the schedule. Whilst there is some merit in what the honourable member for Lowe says, the honourable member for Petrie is addressing the question raised in the amendment, which is about the schedule. He has drifted off a little on to other aspects of sex discrimination. The honourable member may continue. Mr HODGES —The honourable member for Lowe has done this earlier, and I do not know why, because it is all very much tied in with the amendments to the Bill before the Committee at the moment. I refer to the case reported recently in the newspapers of an individual and his wife who have been forced to rent premises-this matter was raised by the honourable member for Gippsland-to a couple living in a de facto relationship. This legislation is saying, if you are truthful as a Christian-and the Attorney-General is a Christian, I am sure, and that therefore this aspect of the implementation of the legislation does not make him happy-that, if I or anybody else in this country owns a property, whether that property is a unit or a house or a shop for rental, we cannot refuse to rent it to somebody if they are living in a de facto relationship or, indeed, for any other reason, it would appear. It seems that when individuals cannot make a determination that they will not sell or rent their own property to whom they choose, we have sunk to a fairly low level in this country. Freedom of choice of the owner has been taken away. I say to the House that one thing no government or parliament can do is legislate to control the way people think. I am pleased that this Hawke socialist Government cannot legislate for the way people think. I have a further letter to substantiate my point. It appeared recently, on 16 April, in the Brisbane Courier-Mail. It is headed, `Married couple-is the term discriminatory'. The person states that they tried to insert an advertisement in the newspaper for a married couple to work on a property. They were told that they could not use the word `couple' but rather `two persons'-two men, two women or two unmarrieds. I think that the Attorney-General would agree that, if an individual wants to employ somebody, he ought to be prepared and able to say who he wants to employ, whether he wants to employ a male, a female or a married couple. Every time there is more than one applicant for a position, whether those applicants are male or female, someone exercises discrimination when a final choice is made. As an employer of more than 20 years, when I want to employ somebody as an employer, I will make my own decisions on who I employ. I will discriminate in favour of whomever I choose and, as far as I am concerned, the Sex Discrimination Act and those who administer it, namely, the Human Rights Commission, can go to hell. It is as simple as that. There are a lot of other people in this country who would agree. But in the process we are inviting people to make application for positions-in other words, we are deceiving tens of thousands of people, putting them to the expense of applying for positions when the employer has no intention of employing a lot of them. I say to the Attorney-General that it is absurd nonsense, absurd social engineering, it is doomed to failure because people will soon get to know what is happening and any legislation of this nature that is bad and being circumvented by people ought not to be in existence. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(4.56) —I rise very briefly to extend a couple of points referred to by me in my second reading speech and by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his reply. I reiterate that the discriminatory provision requiring women to go on to the age pension at age 60 if they are on a benefit, but not requiring men to go on to the aged pension if they are on another benefit until age 65, is of particular significance in the event of a women receiving a sickness benefit, indeed, for anyone receiving a sickness benefit. I pointed out in my second reading speech that the amount of money paid on the age pension is lower than the sickness benefit. I omitted to point out that there is also the operation of the assets test on the age pension which does not operate on a sickness benefit. I would like to raise with the Attorney another alternative, namely, giving women an option of not taking the aged pension until age 65 if they would lose by going on to the age pension. Has that form of elimination of discrimination been considered or will it be considered? In relation to the figure that the Attorney quoted of $800m that he thought would be the social security implication of men qualifying for the age pension at 60, as it had been revealed during debate on the Sex Discrimination Act, I would like to raise a couple of other questions. Obviously, he is not the relevant Minister in the social welfare area to give these figures off the top of his head, but I would appreciate knowing whether the Government is considering these angles and might supply the information. In relation to the $800m, did the calculation of that figure assume that the entire male population between age 60 to 65 would take the aged pension if it was available to them at age 60? What effect on that calculation would the assets test have, such test having been introduced subsequent to the Sex Discrimination Act? It was not clear from his answer whether there had been a quantification by the Government of how many men are on unemployment benefits, supporting parent benefits or invalid pensions at age 60 to 65 who, if transferred to the age pension, would make no difference in revenue terms. In the matter of quantification or estimation of whether the entire male population between age 60 to 65 would take the age pension if available at age 60, has any investigation been made of what percentage of that population group in fact retire on superannuation at such a level that they would qualify for, at best, a small part of the pension but, more likely, for none of it? As I said, I do not expect the Attorney to take those questions on the run, but they are now on the record, as is my second reading speech, and perhaps he could pick up the issues outlined in that speech and provide information on those quantifications, if they have been made in that form. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(5.00) —I wish to deal with the Opposition's amendments to the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill because, frankly, we find the Government's line on this Bill quite curious. Various Ministers in this Government have talked about welfare and the need to attribute priorities. The impact of two of the Government's proposals is to change the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act and also the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act to create an eligibility for males at the age of 60. I am not aware of any pressing community need or call for that change. I am, however, aware that many groups in this community claim that the welfare contribution made to their particular cause or need is inadequate and should be increased. I am also aware that this Government has said that there are insufficient funds to make those additional payments available. I am aware that in introducing this Bill the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) said that there would be no budgetary impact. I am sceptical about that impact because I believe that if one increases or broadens the eligibility for a benefit, there will be a demand and a need to satisfy that demand because of genuine need, and the need to reduce hardship will require expenditure. I believe that if we accept the remarks made by the Minister that there will be no additional expenditure, less will be spent on those with genuine need. In that case less assistance will be provided for people who are in genuine need. Either way I do not understand the Government's logic. I also am concerned that these measures are precedental. They establish precedents that will be used, I believe with some justification, to extend these changes in other areas. The Social Security Act is exempt from the Sex Discrimination Act, but obviously legislation covered by the Department of Community Services does not have a similar exemption. Consequently these amendments have been brought to the Parliament at this time. I find the logic of that also quite curious. If it is appropriate to exempt the Department of Social Security from the impact of the Sex Discrimination Act, why is it not also appropriate to exempt the Department of Community Services? Both departments deal with welfare and the eligibility for welfare. Both departments discriminate, up until the passage of these amendments, on the basis of sex. I believe that the Government is inconsistent in this area. It runs the risk of establishing precedents which will have a flow-on effect, but considerable budgetary impact which I do not believe it has duly explained to the Parliament. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.02) —I preface my remarks in the Committee stage of the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill by chiding the Government for once again chopping the second reading debate on an important measure. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will speak to the Opposition amendment. Mr HODGMAN —Yes, I will. I said in 1984 that this was an appalling piece of legislation. I adhere to that view, and it will follow, therefore, that I draw the attention of the Parliament, this Committee and the people of Australia to the fact that the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Senator Susan Ryan vanguard legislation, is by this amendment to be extended to the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954, the Banking (Transitional Provisions) Act 1959, the Companies Act 1981, the Defence Act 1903, the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act 1970, the Navigation Act 1912, the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945, the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Act 1953 and the Seamen's Compensation Act 1911. I should not be expected to come into this Committee beaming with happiness and joy that a Bill which I regarded in 1984 as an appalling piece of legislation is once again being extended. The question has to be asked: How much further does the Government intend to extend the application of this legislation, which is ambiguous, imprecise, totally incapable of comprehensible appreciation by those upon whom it is inflicted, and which does a disservice to the cause which it is alleged to be established to serve. I made the comment back in 1984 and will repeat it today, with the Chair's permission, that it seems to me incredible that the Government, in a parliament in which not a single member on either side would support discrimination-a government which has been caught by the petticoat brigade and whipped up in a frenzy of Marxist-feminist enthusiasm-wishes to put on the statute book legislation which, frankly, is a disgrace. Mr Hodges —Hear, hear! Mr HODGMAN —I thank the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges). It does no credit to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or to members of this Government not to stand up and say that they will not bring into the Parliament neon-sign legislation to appease feminist radicals who have got control of the Australian Labor Party. We have got to the situation now which is not even petticoat government. I feel sorry for the Attorney-General and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is one of the more sensible members of the Hawke socialist Government. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I hope that the honourable member will address himself to the amendment moved by the honourable member for North Sydney rather than commiserate with the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr HODGMAN —With the greatest respect, I understood that we were dealing with the entire Bill in Committee of the Whole. The amendments are before the Chair, and naturally I support the amendments moved by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), but, heavens above, I hope that the debate is not to be restricted and curtailed further to prevent members expressing views about the principal Act and the extent that it is now to be broadened in operation. I have just said that it is now being extended to 11 Acts of the Commonwealth Parliament, one of which goes back to 1911-even before you were born, Mr McLeay. How many more Acts has the Government in the pipeline? How much further will this radical feminist putsch in the ALP lead the Samsons, who have been shorn by these frenzied and fanatical Delihahs, into coming to this Parliament time and again with legislation that makes us look an absolute laughing stock? I repeat that there would not be a single person in this Parliament who would support discrimination against anybody, but this legislation is frankly to appease a lunatic, frenzied, feminist, radical clique, which has you and every other member of the Government, Mr McLeay, right where it wants you. Mr Hodges —On a hook. Mr HODGMAN —On a hook, by the short and curlies, and they are leading you a merry merry dance. I will not stray into that area, because I do not wish to run the risk of the Chair misunderstanding some of the things I have said and lead to an error of judgment by the Chair. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is trying to interject, used to be called the Bob Hawke of the bush. I have not heard Bob Hawke wanting to be called the John Kerin of the city. The plain fact is that Government members are captive to a small unrepresentative group of fanatical women. Mr Kerin —You have delusions like Groux. Mr HODGMAN —Oh, come, come, come! The CHAIRMAN —Order! Interjections will cease. The Minister for Primary Industry will not encourage the honourable member for Denison and the honourable member for Denison will not encourage the Minister. Mr HODGMAN —I certainly would not. He has done enough to damage primary industry in this country without anybody encouraging him. The short point is: How much longer are we to have this ad hoc legislation coming into this chamber? The poor Deputy Prime Minister is covered with embarrassment. He does not believe in this legislation. He has to come in here and put up poppycock like this. I want to ask one final question before resuming my seat, and that is whether the Government has carefully studied the horrific effects already brought about by this legislation in various parts of Australia, particularly in some of the small States and in some rural sectors. What does the Government feel about the actions of one female in New South Wales, who not only demanded membership of a particular club but the right to use the male toilet? What does the Government feel about that club being forced into expenditure of $80,000 to provide toilet facilities for one solitary female member? What does the Government feel about the nonsense of the application of this law to sporting events? It is now possible as a matter of law, thanks to Senator Susan Ryan and the Hawke socialist Government, for a player taking part in a football match comprising a team under the age of 12 years to find himself tackling a young lady. I suggest that the reverse situation could apply in a girls hockey match. Quite recently in Tasmania a 14-year-old boy was coxing a school girls rowing crew which went to compete in the Australian national rowing championships in Adelaide three weeks ago. He was 14 years of age and the son of a prominent Hobart medical practitioner. The girls concerned were 15 and 16 years of age. He was not permitted to cox that crew in the Australian national rowing championships in Adelaide. I say quite bluntly that Senator Ryan and her ilk should understand that, whatever we do by Act of Parliament, we cannot change the way in which God made us. I, for one, am sick and tired of being dragged into this Parliament to attend to legislation introduced by people who seem to have a permanent hangup about the fact that their physical makeup is not identical to those on the other side of the human spectrum. It is not my fault or anybody's fault that we are born with some things and others are not. But when we get to the stage of legislating, we will find that within a few years it will be illegal-of course, the Hawke socialist Government will go out at the next election-and sexist to put the words `male' or `female' on the door of a toilet. I say quite bluntly that I will react strongly-- Mr Holding —That would be right. Mr HODGMAN —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, more than anybody else in this chamber, should acknowledge the strength of what I am saying. Whatever the Parliament says, whatever the Hawke socialist Government says in this legislation, whatever Susan Ryan and her galaxy of Ms's and marxist lesbian feminist radicalists say, we cannot change the way that God has built us. I believe in men who are men and women who are women. I do not believe in legislation which makes a laughing stock of the Parliament, nor do I believe in legislation which is so badly drafted. Do honourable members really believe that it will be an earth shattering exercise, regarding the statutes of the Commonwealth, if we vary the provisions of Schedule 1 sub-paragraph (10A) (a) of the Seamen's Compensation Act 1911? The Deputy Prime Minister said that we could not have a proper second reading debate in this matter. I think the whole thing is nonsense. I will not kowtow to these people. I will not be led around by a group of so-called latter day amazons who think they will change the face of Australia overnight. I believe that, in the real Australia, 99 per cent of Australians know whether they are men or whether they are women and are very pleased whichever it might be. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(5.13) —I think we ought to note that this is a Committee stage debate dealing with amendments moved by the Opposition. The Opposition has said that it does not want males aged 60 to be eligible for the delivered meals subsidy and that it does not want males aged 60 to be eligible for entry into aged or disabled persons' homes. The listening audience-which is probably a little larger than the one here-must be mystified by the extraordinary and extravagant remarks that have been made about what we are dealing with. The Opposition opposes males who are not aged 65 getting some benefit. That has not been mentioned in the course of the discussion. The question of costs was mentioned, and that is a valid point. I did say-I am obliged to repeat it-that, whilst I have no policy responsibility in the matter, except the technical responsibility of the law, the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act does discriminate on the grounds of sex. The amendment will remove that discrimination, because at the moment the Act does distinguish between a man aged 65 and a woman aged 60. Mr Blunt —Change the Social Security Act. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Wait a minute. The amendment has no significant cost implications because the allocation of assistance under the Act is discretionary. Everybody says that we should not worry about those poor unfortunate males who happen to be rather sick or perhaps debilitated but who have certainly reached the age of 60. We will certainly worry about them now. I suppose we will worry about them, be they invalid pensioners or unemployed, as there is certainly a payment involved. I do not think that, just because a person reaches the age of 60, he will suddenly become stricken with some sort of incapacity. Plenty of people over that age are making a contribution to the economy of this nation. Mr Blunt —Sickness benefits. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am telling the honourable member that the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act contains a discrimination. We then come to the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act. A person in need of a meal who happens to be 61 and male cannot get it. Mr Hodges —What if you are 59? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —You still do not get it. The Delivered Meals Subsidy Act, honourable members might be delighted to know, was passed by this Parliament in 1970. Some members who are present might remember that, although they are all a bit too young. The fact is that the previous Government included that discrimination so that a male could not get a meal on a delivered subsidy basis until he was aged 65. Honourable members opposite should think a little. There must be many sick males at the age of 59 and perhaps 58 who are still missing out, but it certainly helps to change the age limit to 60 so that men are not discriminated against. I know that honourable members opposite did not want the Sex Discrimination Act. Perhaps they will be able to correct it one day. But it was passed in 1984 on the basis that there was to be no discrimination. There were exceptions. The Act of 1984 stated that we would have a two-year period in which to identify whether we could remove some of the discriminations. This Bill does no more than that. It removes discrimination in a very small area. Again, from the point of view of cost, we make the point that there will not be any real financial impact. All we are doing at the moment is amending Acts so that, in the case of the Delivered Meals Subsidy Act, people will be able to receive those meals at the age of 60. It does not state that one will never get a meal because one is aged 59. I am sure that there are other social welfare benefits. We are amending that Act. We are not altering the problems of people in the welfare field. The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) made a very wide ranging contribution in the Committee stage regarding the cost factors. I am sure that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) or some other Minister will be able to help. I invite honourable members opposite to ask their questions of the appropriate Ministers during the next Question Time. But I am here obliged, as a technocrat in terms of the law, to alter the laws which have already been passed and which contain discriminatory provisions. Honourable members are entitled to ask questions about costs. I am entitled to tell them that these measures will have no financial impact. I am not expected to explain it because honourable members can ask the appropriate Ministers, when I think it would be explained in the terms I have outlined. People in need usually get welfare. But in this extraordinarily wide ranging debate, why in the name of fortune did the Opposition pick out four of the Acts and oppose them? If it were successful, if I were to agree to the amendments, we could no longer help the male aged 62 or 63 who wanted some assistance in the aged or disabled persons' homes area. We could no longer give to a male aged 61 or 62 a meal on a delivered subsidy basis. I am sure that no member of the Opposition wants that. The Seamen's Compensation Act provided that a person had to be deemed to be a dependent spouse, in a de facto relationship, provided the couple had lived together for three years. All that the amendment is doing is taking away the period of three years. I know that many honourable members opposite would take away the de facto provision. But that is not the issue. Those provisions are in the Act. All we are saying is that there is another method of working out whether or not there is a real dependency and there is no real financial cost involved. But there are four Acts that the Opposition has singled out. I think it has done so on the basis that it feels there is a cost factor involved. I invite honourable members opposite to ask the appropriate questions. The honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) discussed a concern, which I must say was an understandable concern, about the placing of advertisements for people, how one can phrase them and all the difficulties involved. I know that the community has generally tried to work out what the phrase `married couple' might mean. I think most people know what it means. But there is a bit of an argument at the moment, particularly in the Human Rights Commission, as to what it means. Mr McGauran —Oh! You might have expected that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am only telling the honourable member that it is an argument in the Human Rights Commission. Perhaps we could have said: `We want a male and a female, preferably married'. That might be a way out of the problem. That might be the best thing to do. I am not here to give advice; I am only here to answer the objections. At this stage I emphasise the point that there is going to be no financial cost. The Opposition is entitled to ask questions as to the reasons for that, and I am giving those reasons. However, we are obliged under the Act we passed in 1984 to talk about how to correct legislation which was passed back in time and which starts to draw discrimination, whether it be in terms of age or in terms of relationships for a period of years. Mr Slipper —Why not repeal the legislation? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not here to repeal the legislation. What we are doing is dealing with legislation we passed in 1984 in which we said that we would oblige all departments to review the appropriate legislation that has discrimination in it. No one would want to object that there is discrimination in age, and that is what this provision is about in the two areas that the Opposition is opposing. We are just removing that discrimination. Mr Hodges —But you have it in social security legislation. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is in social security. The honourable member for Petrie is entitled to raise that issue, but it has to be excluded on the basis of cost. That is a fact. Mr McGauran —Are you genuine about your own beliefs or not? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am. The honourable member will appreciate that males can be rather sick and are getting welfare now. What we are looking at doing is giving them a chance to come under the aged and disabled person homes provision. We are not giving them something for the first time, because I am assuming that they are getting something now as they are in that position. We are assuming also that a male who needs a meal delivered is probably getting some other form of welfare at the present time but could get a subsidised meal under that provision. To that extent that might explain why there is no increase in costs. These matters certainly can be pursued in another area in respect of the Ministers responsible for the policies. In respect of the amendment moved, I am sure the Opposition does not intend to pursue it and, from the Government's point of view, I could not possibly accept the amendment. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Spender's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 15 —— Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hunt, R. J. D. Beale, J. H. Jull, D. F. Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C. Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C. Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C. Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Sinclair, I. McC. Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Watson, DavidHall, Steele Webster, A. P. Halverson, R. G. White, P. N. D. Hawker, D. P. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Keating, P. J. Beddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J. Bilney, G. N. Kent, L. Blanchard, C. A. Keogh, L. J. Blewett, N. Kerin, J. C. Bowen, Lionel Klugman, R. E. Brown, John Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. Lindsay, E. J. Charlesworth, R. I. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D. Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L. Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W. Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Jacobi, R. Willis, R. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Hurford, C. J. Shipton, R. F. Darling, E. E. Nehl, G. B. Campbell, G. Tuckey, C. W. Cleeland, P. R. Sullivan, K. J. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.32) —I just want to make one final comment on the third reading. If this wretched Government brings in yet another piece of sex discrimination legislation during the life of this present Parliament, whatever it is I will oppose it on principle. I believe the Government is going mad. We have had the sex discrimination legislation, the affirmative action legislation and the sinister and dangerous Bill of Rights legislation. I have had a gutful of this socialist, feminist ratbaggery in this Parliament. Whatever the Government brings in, I will vote against it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence to table a document, for which I sought leave earlier in my personal explanation. Leave granted. Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.53) —The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in presenting the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1986 to the House, opened with these words: Madam Speaker, this Bill continues the practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sittings of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments to legislation not otherwise being amended. We have no opposition to the proposals before the Parliament. But there are one or two comments that need to be made and which I will make very briefly. First of all, the practice should be to present amendments that are really of a very limited effect. When the Attorney-General uses the words `non-contentious' in respect of the legislation, I wonder how that applies to, for example, the amendments to the Crimes Act 1914 in which the Penalty under section 29D has been lifted from $50,000 or imprisonment for five years to $100,000 or imprisonment for ten years. I can well understand taking into consideration depreciation or currency, but I am not sure that our life span is increasing at a rate commensurate with the rate at which the currency is going down. If we are talking about an increase to 10 years, we are talking about a very long period. Indeed, the amendments to section 86A, which increases the penalty from five years to 20 years, makes the point even more strongly. Mr Lionel Bowen —The parole provisions, of course, are different. Mr SPENDER —The Attorney-General says that the parole provisions are different. That may be so, but we are talking about maximum sentences. We are talking about very major increases in maximum sentences. After all, an increase of the order of four is major by any judgment. The other point I make is that in respect of certain Acts-I understand the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) will make the same point-the law has been amended in a way that gives greater powers, certainly powers that once again go far beyond the sorts of amendments that one would think appropriate in this kind of legislation. For example, if one looks to some of the amendments made to Acts relating to borrowing powers, the Norfolk Island Act amendments and the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act amendments are of a fairly major kind. Whilst we may agree with the intent of the legislation those kinds of amendments in principle should be brought in by amendments to the particular Acts. When I say amendments to the particular Acts, I mean amendments that can be debated separately and considered separately rather than incorporated in an omnibus Bill dealing with a whole range of Acts and a whole range of amendments to those Acts. Lastly, the last time that a Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill was before this House, a suggestion was put by one of the members on the other side. I forget who it was but the amendment was to the effect that these amendments should be arranged very much better, in a way which communicates to practitioners, and all those who need to have access to the legislation, the fact that an Act of Parliament is being amended. If that could be done by some physical means different from the way in which it is presently done, it would facilitate the understanding by practitioners and members of the general public, who need to have access to the laws, of what the present state of the law is. It is extremely difficult if one is unaware that an amendment to legislation has been made in a Bill such as this. It is very difficult if one is checking through amendments to a certain Act and is unaware that a Bill such as this has been passed that may contain a minor amendment to that Act, or on the other hand a major amendment of the kind that is made in this Bill to penalties under the Crimes Act. That being said, we have no opposition to the Bill. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(5.38) —My contribution to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1986 centres around amendments it makes to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act of 1970. These amendments are apparently designed to make the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation more sensitive to market conditions. They involve, firstly, the removal of the nexus between the Corporation and the Public Service Board in relation to staff terms and conditions of employment. Secondly, they replace the existing borrowing provisions with more modern provisions which clarify the power of the Corporation to borrow and raise money by use of the spectrum of available modern borrowing techniques. Before talking in more detail about these amendments to the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act, it would be useful to set the economic scene in which the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation currently operates. We have been told consistently by this Government that the Australian economy is in good shape. We have growth although the Government does admit that it is slowing down. The J curve is about to take off. Accord mark 2 is going well. It is an open question, given the comments of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) yesterday, whether we actually have accord mark 2 or accord mark 2 1/2, but an accord of some type we do have. Yesterday and today the Treasurer (Mr Keating) defended the Government's position and, as usual, attacked the Opposition in his customary vitriolic fashion. Australia is now moving to a position where, far from being in good shape, we have one of the world's worst performing economies. We can identify at least five major areas in which we are performing badly. The first is inflation. Inflation in Australia is now running at 9.2 per cent annually. Although it has been said in this House frequently today, it is worth repeating that this compares with the Budget forecast of 8 per cent which is bad enough but, more importantly, it compares with a figure of between 1 per cent and 2 per cent for Japan, which is our major trading partner, zero per cent for Germany, which is another big trader with Australia, and 3.8 per cent for the United States of America. In the last month, inflation in the United States has been below zero per cent. We are running an inflation rate over double that of our major trading partners and if something is not done soon about our inflation rate our international trading position will deteriorate even further. Secondly, in setting the stage for discussions on the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation where amendments are taking place in the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, there is the question of unemployment. This Government came to office with the cry of `jobs, jobs, jobs', yet unemployment in Australia still hovers around 8 per cent while unemployment in other western democracies has been edging downwards. Worse still, unemployment amongst our young people is an absolute disgrace and has not really improved over the last three years. Interest rates, the third area of our poor economic performance, are also at very high levels in Australia and are well above the levels of interest rates in other western democracies. The Government has been pursuing a high interest rate policy in order to protect the value of the Australian dollar. As we know, the Australian dollar is close to record low levels against the trade-weighted index and its further deterioration would increase inflationary pressures in Australia, lower our relative standard of living even further and would require accord mark 3 or, if we believe Senator Button, accord mark 3 1/2 or whatever. We all know the damage that high interest rates are doing to private investment in Australia. For example, housing starts were 153,000 units last year, yet a month ago the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) admitted to the nation that starts next year would be less than 100,000 units if the Government continued to pursue its then policies. We now know that non-residential construction is likely to collapse by over 25 per cent in real terms in 1986-87 compared with 1985-86 and work on infrastructure also remains subdued. Mr Deputy Speaker, this is relevant to the whole question of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation which, as you know, is an engineering consulting firm. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —I trust that its relevance will be demonstrated to us fairly quickly. Mr BEALE —The fourth area of our poor economic performance is our balance of payments. The balance of payments deficit for the current year is likely to be of the order of $14 billion and, in the last few months, has deteriorated by about $1 billion a month. Finally, this leads me to our overseas debt position. I have been saying that it is likely that, by the time the Bicentenary comes around in 1988, we will really have something to celebrate because we would have hit a ton with our overseas debt; that is, it would be in excess of $100 billion. However, it appears that the Government's performance is outrunning my dire predictions because in this morning's Age newspaper the general manager, economics for the National Australia Bank is reported as saying that our debt would rise to $93 billion by June 1987. It is clear that we will be in the shocking position of having a debt of $100 billion before our Bicentenary. Our poor performance is exemplified by comments that have been referred to earlier in the House today. Let me quote what was said: Figures released in the US have shown the Australian economy is trailing other major industrial nations amid signs that economic recovery may be slowing. There are reports from New York that Australia has slipped to the bottom of a list which it led just 3 months ago. Figures released by New York's Conference Board today show that Australia's leading business cycle index which is a barometer of future economic growth slipped from 15% to 3% over the last six months. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I think the scene has been fairly well set regarding this legislation. Just before some Government members raise the subject I invite the honourable member to address the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. Mr BEALE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and for allowing me to set the stage for discussion on the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation by identifying, in those five areas, how we are one of the world's worst performing economies at present. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that the Opposition is committed to transfer ownership of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to the private sector. This does not mean selling the dams because the dams in the Snowy Mountains have nothing to do with the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation; the dams are part of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority. The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation is a quite separate, engineering consulting, statutory body. Our policy on this matter was well enunciated by my colleague the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), and I am delighted to see him in the chamber today. I hope that he will support me on this matter. Since last May, when the honourable member for Denison enunciated our policy, the Corporation's report for the year 1984-85 has been issued. The Corporation's net loss, before an extraordinary item, was $3.7m, of taxpayers' funds, which is somewhat above the figure that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) forecast a year ago. I remind the House about the extraordinary item of $1.4m. That extraordinary item of $1.4m is the profit that the Corporation makes on selling houses that it owns to its employees. How extraordinary! The only way that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation can make any money is by selling houses to its employees. Last December the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) issued a statement telling us that, in order for the Corporation's superannuation statutory obligations to its employees to be brought properly to account, a provision of the order of $7m would be necessary. Mr Hodgman —Seven? Mr BEALE —It requires a provision of $7m in order to bring its accounts into good shape. About half of this will be paid from general revenue-that is, the taxpayer will assume the burden for half that $7m-while the other half will be paid for by the Corporation by increasing the accrual amount for superannuation obligations from 15 per cent to 21 per cent of salaries. This heralds a further loss for the current year, that is, the 1985-86 year, despite the assertion by the Minister for Housing and Construction that the Corporation would break even in that period. From this it can be seen how important it is to introduce more flexibility into the operations of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation in the way that the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill now before us does. But the Bill does not go far enough. It does not go to the heart of the difficulties with the Corporation, which are basically that a government authority of this type has no business competing with the private sector in this area and its shocking performance over the last few years demonstrates this. The Corporation is working under Public Service rules which are quite inappropriate for the entrepreneurial world of the consulting engineer. The Corporation has some union difficulties, the rigidity of which are such that it is more concerned with its internal difficulties than getting out into the market-place, selling its skills and delivering an appropriate service to its customers. It is not inappropriate to note at this time that the Opposition's industrial relations policy, which will shortly be released, will go right to the heart of these union difficulties and will provide a framework which will enable them to be quickly resolved. The Corporation's main skills are with water works and dams but even there it has lost some of its employee talent and, as we all know, in the past three years of this Government the number of employees at the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation has declined from 650 to 350 people. The two areas in which the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill attempts to make the operation of the Corporation more flexible are totally inadequate to meet the needs of the situation. What is needed is for the ownership of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to be transferred to the private sector- Mr Slipper —Hear, hear! A good move. Mr BEALE —Thank you-so that it can operate on a commercial basis, participate fully in a competitive engineering consulting market and deliver to its customers services based on its undoubted technical reputation. The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation's lack of responsiveness and innovation has meant that the size of its business has fallen. Despite injections of taxpayers' money there is little prospect of a quick and lasting recovery. In the private sector there would be an incentive for the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation's employees to build up more skills in the Corporation and the existing staff would then feel more secure, better fulfilled and have greater job satisfaction knowing that they would not be reliant on taxpayers' funds. The people in the Corporation are the key to its future and the Opposition would ensure that their interests are protected. The Opposition does not oppose those provisions of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that deal with the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. However, we urge the Government not only to put its macro-economic house in order, which, if done, would assist the fortunes of the Corporation, but also to give further consideration to additional freeing up of the operations of the Corporation so that it could more effectively compete with other private firms in the commercial market-place. We believe that the best way of doing this would be to transfer ownership of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to the private sector and we again urge the Government to give consideration to our proposal. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(5.54) —I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) on behalf of the National Party of Australia. I, like the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), am concerned at the way in which so many Acts of this Parliament are sought to be either amended or repealed by virtue of this one omnibus Bill. Mr Hodgman —A valid point. Mr SLIPPER —It is a valid point, as the honourable member for Denison points out. The people of Australia are entitled, when the Government sees fit to introduce amendments in this place, to have a proper and full discussion on the proposed amendments to the laws of this nation. I have calculated that 55 Acts are being amended and 87 Acts, or thereabouts, are being repealed. That is 142 Acts which are being amended or repealed by virtue of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1986. It is worrying because the areas of legislation being covered include such Acts as the Advance Australia Logo Protection Act 1984, the Naval Defence Act 1910, the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Amendment Act 1985 right through to Acts such as the Treaty of Peace (Bulgaria) Act 1947 and similar Acts with respect to Finland and Hungary being repealed. The list goes on. None of these Acts seems to have very much in common with one another. This is a matter for concern because this Bill might ensure that these amendments, many of which are not insubstantial, will not be properly debated in this place. Mr Hodgman —Legislation by stealth. Mr SLIPPER —It could be and I hope that the Government will take note of what honourable members on this side of the House are saying to ensure that before further legislation of this type is introduced there is reconsideration of the issues and a consideration of whether the Parliament should proceed in this way. The Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), a man for whom I have the highest regard and respect, said in his explanatory memorandum that the amendments made by this Bill have a number of purposes such as tidying up, correcting or updating legislation. We do not oppose the tidying up, correction or updating of legislation. Indeed we support those principles very strongly. Some of the amendments are very minor and are in keeping with the Minister's explanatory memorandum. However, as the shadow Attorney-General pointed out, there are amendments of great importance, amendments which affect the rights and responsibilities of Australians. Penalties are increased very substantially. In one case at least, an amendment to the Crimes Act provides that a person would be gaoled not for five years, as the previous Act provided, but for 20 years. That matter should be the substance of a separate Bill to come before the Parliament so that we can discuss it fully. There are provisions relating to the Northern Territory. We all know how shamefully the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) was suspended last night from this place for 24 hours. He is not here to express his views on this legislation which affects both his Territory and his electorate. Norfolk Island is also affected. I wonder whether the legislatures in the Northern Territory and in Norfolk Island have indicated their consent to the provisions before the House. I make a plea to the Deputy Prime Minister that in future we should not have a Bill before this Parliament which purports to amend 55 Acts and which repeals another 87, a total of 142. We have just over that number of members in the House. So many Acts of Parliament are changed or wiped off the statute book. The people of Australia are concerned because honourable members will not, in the time allotted, have the opportunity of expressing their views on the 142 Acts being amended or repealed by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1986. In a bipartisan way I sincerely and honestly ask the Deputy Prime Minister in future to look at a better means of amending Acts that have to be amended. As the shadow Attorney-General pointed out, we do not oppose this legislation but we wish to register concern, on behalf of the people of Australia, at the way in which these Acts are being amended or repealed. I hope that the Attorney-General will take on board what I have said and that in future we will have the opportunity of debating, in a fuller and more comprehensive way, Acts which the Government wishes to amend. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(6.00) —This is the second occasion within the past few months that omnibus legislation has come before the House. I support the principle of reducing the impact on the parliamentary timetable that amending legislation of this nature has. I take the view that in proceeding down this path-a path of convenience-the opportunity for debate on the constituent parts of the legislation is of the same order and nature as each would have encountered under the old procedure. I therefore trust that Ministers accept the principle that the right of honourable members to debate is in no way reduced. For example, in ordinary circumstances, if we as a Parliament were to have separately announced on the Notice Paper the repeal of the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty Act 1954, we would have had considerable debate as to what was intended by way of Government policy. Other cuts which are part of the process of repeal are the Treaty of Peace Acts relating to Japan, Italy, Finland and the Balkan states. It is obvious that the treaty documents are valid and peace is accomplished, but are they in the same category as an Act enshrining a treaty which legal binds us to go the aid of Thailand against armed attack? The Philippines is in the same category. Here we are repealing Acts which were passed, according to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the explanatory memorandum, `merely to approve Australia becoming a party to the respective treaties'-a practice which he now says is abandoned because it serves no purpose. It is clear that the South East Asia Treaty Organisation is now wound up, but the Manila Treaty, for which the organising Act is now being repealed, exists as a commitment in much the same way as the ANZUS Treaty. The Treaty was subject to a number of withdrawals and it was agreed that it would apply severally or collectively. It is interesting that the Treaty governs security relations between the United States of America and Thailand and is mutually quoted by the United States and the Philippines. In other words, the Treaty applies between members who wish to be a party to its application. It is interesting that Australia has never taken the view that it has no force, say, between Australia and Thailand. Now we come to the point. Does any legal force remain after repeal of this Act in, say, our relations with Thailand which was present before the act of repeal? If the Attorney-General says that no legal change results from this action, I will accept his advice. But I have to point out that in his second reading speech he confined his remarks to the peace treaties and did not refer to the Manila Treaty. Let it be understood that the Manila Treaty is fully ratified by the United States Senate; the United States operates security relations with Thailand on the basis of this Treaty; and the Thais have been very emphatic about it. The Attorney-General should now clarify the situation, rather than avoid it. We have absolutely no cause to be undermining the legal structure of the United States-Thai relations and it would be a tragedy if that became a real perception in the eyes of Thailand. So assurances are needed on the consequences and purposes of this repeal. If a matter of legal substance is at issue, clearly the Government would have placed itself in a position of misleading the Parliament. For all of us that would be an undesirable consequence of this cost-saving parliamentary procedure. The advantages to the government of the day are not only those which concern parliamentary time. They can be of serious political value. Under the procedures of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) the Attorney-General sits at the table and presumably answers questions on, say, a piece of legislation affecting the jurisdiction of another Minister. For instance, it might be a Minister in some trouble who could find it desirous to avoid being in the House at the table. A notable candidate for such an honour is, of course, the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins). One of the Acts being amended is of great current political significance-the Australian Trade Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1985. It is significant that the amendments, small though they are, occur in Part VII of the Trade Commissioners Act dealing with the appointment of trade representatives. The Act governs the duties, entitlements, removal and determination of conditions of service. I am asked to take it on trust that the amendments to the principal Act coming before the Parliament at this time carry no significance at all. That is as may be, but the amendments with which we are dealing relate to conditions of service, which is the subject of some interesting legal claims now being advanced by Mr Walton. Whether this amendment helps or hinders his cause I cannot say, but I merely point out that in the circumstances it would be inconvenient for the Minister in trouble to be sitting at the table. It is convenient for him that a full debate on the conditions of service under the new arrangements will be handled, presumably, by the Deputy Prime Minister, the Attorney-General. I will not proceed further on that view, except to suggest that the Attorney-General should look to the political motives when a Minister seeks to use this device. The Bill provides for an amendment to be made to the Automotive Industry Authority Act so that reports will be furnished on 31 March instead of 1 March. I am not sure that much will improve as a result of that amendment. The problem with the automotive industry appears not to lie in the provision of annual reports but in the sudden attack last year by this Labor Government on the taxation provisions for company cars; in short, the failure of the Government's taxation policy to be settled and the uncertainty that surrounds the wisdom of it as it affects the automotive industry. Annual reports may well reflect these problems, particularly if the Government does not apply itself with greater care and deliberation to the betterment of the industry by a more coherent and sensible taxation policy. I refer to the significant amendments to the Crimes Act, raising to a more realistic level the penalties for fraud. The Attorney-General in his second reading speech noted that these increased penalties-imprisonment for 20 years is possible-are needed to meet the Government's concern about large scale conspiracies to defraud the Commonwealth. At least the threat of a 20-year gaol sentence raises the risk for conspiracies to defraud. It is not only action on penalties that is required but also action by the law authorities to bring people engaged in systematic fraud before the courts. Recently I heard the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) quite correctly advocate a greater activation of national concern about Medifraud induced by conspiracy, which is what these amendments relate to; conspiracy to defraud the Government of millions of dollars, largely through the bulk-billing loophole. The Government is not reluctant to raise the level of penalties for conspiracies; it is reluctant to frustrate the misuse of Government funds on the medical scheme. Of course, penalties for conspiracies compensate neither for the great losses to the public purse nor for the other effects on public health. The benefits of the medical system in public hospitals have to be curtailed due to the lack of Government funds. If the Government took more effective action, or some action at all, to defer this huge defrauding of the public purse, something effective could be done about it. Penalties do not compensate nurses whose problems are poorly addressed, to use the Government's best loved words. Penalties do not reduce the waiting lists for necessary elective surgery or the pain people have to put up with because the resources that should go to them are misappropriated. Penalties are meaningful only if people are deterred, but they are not deterred by penalties alone. Penalties deter when people have a likelihood of being caught, which is why I sympathise with the Australian Federal Police officers who say that inadequate provision has been made to capture those engaged in systematic fraud. It is one of the great scandals of this Government that such a huge proportion of public money has not been collected simply because proper resources have not been made available to allow the Federal Police to effectively investigate and prosecute the people concerned. I move now the Judges' Pensions Act. The second reading speech contained this distinguished reference to the public need to provide for the personal welfare of judges in a social environment which leaves them free to work without the pressure of personal financial insecurity. As we know, that is an aspect of everyone's life; providing for the future when one's capacity to earn has come to an end. I quote a felicitous reference: The purpose of this Act in providing for pensions for judges . . . would be frustrated if a judge were to put his pension entitlement at risk by accepting other tasks . . . Clearly judges are human and it is the essence of that point that they can be induced to feel insecurity. We on this side of the House have been legitimately concerned that this element should be brought into play as a point of coercion on magistrates by no less a person than Mr Premier Wran, who made it quite clear that Magistrate Briese should feel so threatened. It is an instance of the measure of insecurity, which this legislation recognises in a realistic and forthright way, sensibly to improve the lot of the judiciary. It is ironic that it should be pointed up as a basic element in the affairs of judges at the time of the Wran threat-a threat which I think brings great personal disgrace to the Premier of New South Wales and does nothing for the standing of the Australian Labor Party as a whole. Again, we have amendments to the Family Law Act, which clearly reflect the Attorney's admirable concern, for which he is admired, to build up a more profound appreciation of the role of the family, so devastated by some of the trends let loose by some of the ill-judged provisions of the Act. The amendments give the Attorney power to refer particular research issues to the Institute of Family Studies. I hope that he will use that power to look at the adverse effects on the family of the latest decision of the New South Wales Equal Opportunity Tribunal, which fined a real estate agent for refusing to let premises to an unmarried couple. The Equal Opportunity Tribunal-a creation of the Labor Government-is going to become a base for attacking our sacred institutions. It is no wonder that the churches are outraged. Why should a landlord be coerced in this terrible way? Landlords should have discretion. I know some who have had very unhappy experiences with this type of tenant. There is often considerable instability; so, on just prudential grounds they are judged by some in the business as poor tenant material. So, I hope that the Attorney will use this case to have the Institute look across the board at the most probable ill effects of some of the socially destructive aspects of trendy legislation that he, amongst others opposite, has overlooked. Let it be clear: There will be a social cost if this is not done. I refer now to important amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act concerning the staff-elected director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This has been a difficult area, particularly as the executive head of the Corporation has tried to make too many changes too fast. I hope that people like Mr Molomby can bring some sanity to the broadcasting area, which has become chaotic in its programming in recent months. The foolish experiments on television upset many staff members, who are often too unfairly criticised. The ABC staff has maintained a lot of public respect for the organisation. Its senior men, such as James Dibble, now retired, developed a public prestige for their work. There is a tendency for ABC staffers now to editorialise. A current example is the effort of the ABC to dictate policy on immigration matters, which is totally outside its authority. I heard an American voice, presumably a staffer of sorts, asking whether Australia wanted to be the last country in the world to give domicile to a nazi or former-nazi. We all know that that is a nonsense proposition and that the communist regime in East Germany has elevated nazis to the highest positions in its Administration. If that were a genuine proposition of concern, Corporation staff would have so informed their listeners. What nonsense! Clearly, when ABC staff members start playing games with public attitudes, the role of the board and the staff representative should be to look very carefully at the right of staff members to conduct editorial campaigns as if they were running the local town crier. It is important for staff to achieve some personal identity-that is the nature of the business-but that is not at issue. The issue is that the staff have no mandate to editorialise on the public medium and the board which Mr Molomby represents would do well to look at these recent trends. I refer now to the section of the Bill on the Audit Act. Here we have amendments to give the Auditor-General greater effectiveness in dealing with the auditing standards set for stat- utory corporations. These corporations often use private auditors, so an overview is needed. How important this is can be seen in the apparent loss of effective ministerial control over these statutory corporations. The use of these quangos has been a popular device with all governments, to build up public sector activity on a more flexible and less stringent model than the departmental model. As we know, under the Constitution the existence of the Department brings into being the office of Minister. This imposes, naturally, a central role for the department as a public sector authority. Great attention is paid to the efficiency of the departmental structure. Yet the quangos which are strung on to this edifice have escaped a great deal of scrutiny. Obviously, a busy Minister cannot cope with the problems of statutory authority chairmen as often as he would like. We all know how a presumably busy Minister could not even contact a member of his staff who disappeared for a month. We heard that in the Parliament today from the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). He could not find one of his staff members for a whole month. So how can Ministers possibly deal with authority chairmen as often as they would like? Given greater reliance on the Auditor- General, these amendments are necessary and welcome. In my view, they are so substantial that they should not have been cobbled into a Bill of this kind. I am quite bewildered by the spendthrift nature of some of the authorities. Some of the money being doled out by the Australia Council, for instance, is extraordinarily suspect in its value. I have here a ministerial statement of 23 April 1986 announcing a grant of $10,200 to the Victorian Trades Hall Council to put up 40 large billboards on major building sites. We are given no other information about the theme, the value or the aim. There is a grant of $15,000 to the South Australian Labor Council for 13 union banners on the theme of peace. Why not the theme `peace and work'? The unilateral disarmament organisation is to receive $22,000 for an artist-in-residence. To fund this sort of thing the Government is prepared to tax the car industry to the wall. It simply does not make sense. The auditing of some of these activities will indeed be very revealing, and this legislation hopefully will greatly assist the exposure of this kind of arrant, nonsensical pork-barrelling. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(6.16) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is appropriate that I follow the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who made a stirling contribution to this debate. I might just say in passing that it brought back to my mind the time when I was Minister for the Capital Territory and there was an application for a grant to provide changing sheds for the Canberra nudist society. I thought it was a joke at first, but ultimately I declined on the simple basis that, if they wanted to go nude, they could get changed in the raw. The honourable member's point is quite valid because we are just seeing the money of the taxpayers of Australia going to anywhere at all that this crazy Government wants to hand it out. If a person is a normal, hard-working married man with dependent children, the Hawke socialist Government is not interested in him; but, if someone comes in asking for land rights funding for gay wombats, he will get a big cheque. Mr Holding —Only if you are representing the gay wombats. It would not do for anybody else; just for you. Mr HODGMAN —That is all right, but I just say that we have a Minister who could not find a member of staff for one month. I will tell the House how I would have found him had I been Minister: I would have cut off his salary. Mr Beale —He would have been back the next day. Mr HODGMAN —He would have been in like a rocket. The honourable member for Deakin knows that what I am saying is quite correct. Is the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) now going to limit me to four minutes? Mr Lionel Bowen —You started with five, but one has gone. Mr HODGMAN —I would just like to say to the people of Australia that, the way this Parliament is going, it is only a matter of time before we see a hammer and sickle up over the Speaker's chair. The way this Government is behaving, we will see the kangaroo and the emu removed from the Australian coat of arms to be replaced by a bandicoot and a ferret. If honourable members do not know whom I am talking about, they have not been paying attention. This is an absolute disgrace. The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will change over 150 Acts of the Parliament of Australia. It is an omnibus Bill which needs to be properly scrutinised, yet we are told that we have five minutes to speak. Mr Rocher —I am waiting to speak. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for Curtin, representing that outstanding elect- orate in Western Australia and one of the finest speakers in the Parliament, will be given about one minute to speak. I am allowed five. Is that right? Mr Rocher —It sounds like it. Mr HODGMAN —Disgraceful! This is Canberra, not Moscow. It is about time the Hawke socialist Government stopped treating this Parliament as a little plaything of its own. We have seen in the last two days-I just say this in passing-this Parliament used for a political show trial. At a later time I will say something relevant to the legislation about the practice in Parliament of attacking people outside the Parliament, because I think there is a question of natural justice and fundamental fairness here. It is all very well for us. We have privilege; we can say anything. Mr Hand —Why don't you talk to the honourable member for O'Connor? Mr HODGMAN —You go back to the embassy. What about the individual outside the Parliament who cannot even get into this chamber to defend himself and who has no parliamentary privilege to cover his response? I want to deal with two areas in a cognate sense, if I may. I want to deal specifically with the amendments in relation to the Crimes Act 1914 and the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980. I believe, from the way the Attorney-General is looking, that the Government's whole schedule is crazy, as I said in the previous debate. The Hawke socialist Government is totally dominated by lunatic factions-many of them extremist radical feminists and the like. This debate is now being curtailed on the very day on which volume one of the report of the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions has been presented to the Parliament. You will be pleased to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that report ran to 405 pages about tapes which the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia assured us were `fake tapes' and in respect of which the Premier of New South Wales and President of the Australian Labor Party felt so strongly that he was going to gaol the police officers who were responsible for them. Obviously, Mr Justice Stewart does not think that they are fake at all. Mr Beale —He can keep Briese company. Mr HODGMAN —I say, thank God for Mr Justice Stewart, thank God for Mr Briese and in fairness I say thank God for a Deputy Prime Minister who stood in this Parliament two days ago and, to his great credit, said that he had full confidence in Mr Briese, and damnation to the Premier of New South Wales who dared to stand over the Chief Magistrate of that State with the threat of dismissal. Full credit to Sir Laurence Street and the other seven members of the New South Wales Supreme Court who told Premier Wran in no uncertain manner how outrageous and improper were his remarks. I ask the Government, through the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General, whether it is really fair dinkum in attacking national crime. Will we have to wait for the Stewart Royal Commission report as long as we have had to wait in relation to the Costigan recommendation? I know that it is not directly in the Attorney-General's area. Others are more guilty than the Attorney. I would like to say that, having now met Mr Costigan personally and having been able to talk to him about what he tackled and what it did to his life and his family, and how he has honoured his professional obligations, I do not think it is fair to the rest of Australia. I notice the presence of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), who spoke with very great passion and fervour on this major cancer of national crime in our country. It is not fair to anyone that so many of the recommendations that have come to this Government have not been acted upon. If we are going to legislate in regard to crime and in relation to the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act, do not just let us have neon sign legislation-we are going to increase the penalty to 20 years-but what about providing the tools and means to bring to justice those who are ravaging this country. The cancer started in New South Wales and has spread. New South Wales today is a national tragedy. The premier State of this country, the cradle of our nation, is corrupt and dishonest and everybody knows it. The sooner Mr Greiner becomes Premier of New South Wales and cleans up that State, the better it will be for all Australians. Mr Lionel Bowen —Sit down. Mr HODGMAN —The Deputy Prime Minister will not sit me down on that note. Whilst New South Wales is corrupt, the whole of Australia is at risk. Mr Holding —It was very corrupt under a Liberal Premier; that is the problem. Mr HODGMAN —I am not interested in going into ancient history. I am interested in 1986 and I am interested in the state of corruption in the State which is the birthplace of our nation. The honourable member for Richmond should not provoke me further. Mr Holding —Melbourne Ports. Mr HODGMAN —Melbourne Ports, yes, sorry. The other word plays on my mind. Do not provoke me. I ask the Attorney in all honesty: Does he want to finish this debate before 6.30? Mr Lionel Bowen —I wanted to. Mr HODGMAN —You see; it is just not fair. Mr Lionel Bowen —Forget it. You are just wasting time. You are not talking about the Bill. Mr HODGMAN —I am talking about the Bill. Does the Attorney want me to go into chapter and verse the chicanery of increasing penalties? Mr Lionel Bowen —You like listening to yourself. Mr HODGMAN —That is an offensive sort of remark. The Attorney is getting overtired and crabby. It is the sort of offensive remark that spoils the whole thing. The Government expects us to debate a Bill dealing with amendments to 150 Acts and expects us to be limited. I will come right to the point. I do not think the crimes amendments are fair dinkum. I do not think that the Government is fair dinkum in tackling crime. The record is proven because it has not acted on the Costigan recommendations. It stuffed around when it came to transferring from Costigan to the National Crimes Authority basic information fundamental for that Authority to do its job. It comes in here and says that we have a great authority-sure we have-and it is trying to fight crime with one arm tied behind its back. I just mention two other matters in a cognate form. I refer to the amendments to the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980, the Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972, and the National Museum of Australia Act 1980. Again, we have three amendments to three Acts dealing with an area of importance, particularly to Tasmania, and about which I feel very strongly. Thanks to the Fraser Government-I include in my remarks the honourable member for Warringah, a former Minister in the Fraser Government at the time decisions were taken-the Antarctic Division is based in Kingston. We have a situation where the International Commission on the International Covenant for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources is based in Hobart and, hopefully, the International Commission to regulate the control of the Antarctic mineral resources, that is, in the actual continent of Antarctica, will also be based in Hobart. Yet, we have a Government which yesterday announced in its legislation that the National Maritime Museum, instead of being located in Australia's maritime State, Australia's only island State-I acknowledge the presence of the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), who has come to Tasmania very frequently over many years-is not going to be in Tasmania. That is a matter of profound regret to the pioneer maritime State of Australia. That leads me to my next point. This Hawke socialist Government is even tossing up as to whether it will put the National Antarctic Museum in Tasmania or in suburban Melbourne. We can bet our bottom dollar it will finish up in some Labor seat in Melbourne-it will put the Antarctic museum there. If the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) has something to do with it, that will be quite on the cards. It would be quite funny if it were not so serious. Every Antarctic expedition from 1890 onwards left from Hobart. The first British expedition going down there in the 1890s left from Hobart. One will find that in the 1930s in the Mawson expeditions there was a Hodgman on board. If one checked Sir Douglas Mawson's proclamation of claiming the Antarctic territory, one will find that he claimed the Hodgman Islets. It is an absolute disgrace, a national scandal, that when we are trying to reach a decision on a national Antarctic Museum, some around the traps want to put it in one of the suburbs of Melbourne in a died-in-the-wool Labor electorate. Mr Peacock —The first man to the pole came back from there and went straight to Tasmania. Mr HODGMAN —That is quite true and he in fact telegrammed direct from Hobart to Norway his achievement. That is quite correct. If it will make the Deputy Prime Minister happy, I will not speak on all the other things in regard to running down the defence of the country. Here we have the Naval Defence Act-I wish we had a navy. I say that, having served for 10 years in the Royal Australian Naval Reserve. The Royal Australian Navy is 75 years of age and what a pathetic thing it now is-run down by this Government. It is a Navy that cannot go to sea. The Royal Australian Navy has less power today as a result of the Government's deliberate policy of running it down. We do not have an aircraft carrier. We have these marvellous frigates but until recently the Government could not work out what sort of planes were going to fly off them. It now turns out that it is going to be helicopters. The Government has given away all our patrol boats to Indonesia. We have been left in a marvellous situation. Anybody who wants to stay in the Naval Reserve is taxed; yet the Government spends $2.3m on a public relations television campaign with Prime Minister Hawke jumping out of a helicopter and asking people to join the Reserves. Mr Rocher —The helicopter wasn't high enough. Mr HODGMAN —The helicopter was barely high enough, quite right. The plain fact of the matter is that we have an Air Force that cannot fly, a Navy that cannot go to sea, we have less defence capacity than Argentina had in the Falkland Islands war; yet the Government talks about amending the Naval Defence Act. I will not take the time of the House further. It is a disgrace. We have amendments to 150 Acts in this omnibus legislation. The Government is not interested in debate. The Deputy Prime Minister, the captive of the feminist lobby, wants to get it through quickly. We have had rubbish legislation since this session started. I am sick and tired of affirmative action, sex discrimination and legislation like this. The Government ought to get on with governing the country as it has not got long. It will be out on its neck at the next election. The Hawke socialist Government might think it-- Mr Holding —You said that last time. Mr HODGMAN —Yes, I said that last time and I was a little bit wrong, but the chickens will come home to roost and some of the Minister's will come home to roost. The bandicoot and the ferret had better enjoy themselves now because they will not be playing in this playground much longer. Debate (on motion by Mr Cunningham) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. (Quorum formed) Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(8.03) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, together with its companion Bills, Supply Bill (No. 2) 1986-87 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1986-87, seeks interim appropriations for the services of the Government for the period 1 July 1986 to 30 November 1986, by which date it is expected that the equivalent Appropriation Bills, which will form part of the Budget for 1986-87, will have been enacted. Supply Bill (No. 1) seeks appropriations totalling some $7,996.8m for the ordinary annual services of the Government. This is $807.2m or about 11.2 per cent, greater than the equivalent amounts provided in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1985-86. A significant part of the increase reflects the flow-through of staffing approvals in 1985-86 and salary and other cost increases. The increase also includes $107.2m reflecting major contractual defence payments which fall due before end November 1986 in respect of the purchasing of new, and the replacement, repair and overhaul of, defence equipment and stores; $60.6m for defence buildings and works required because of a greater number of major works with significant expenditure in 1986-87 compared with 1985-86, of which some will have a disproportionate impact in the Supply period; $36.5m to cover increases in education allowance levels approved for 1986 and increased participation levels in both secondary and tertiary education; $35.5m for the carry-over effects of new employment training programs begun in 1985-86 and their continuation in 1986-87; $32.8m for property services, to cover the flow-through effects of new leases entered into in 1985-86 and the renewal of existing leases at higher rates; and $23.7m reflecting the additional requirements of the Australian Bureau of Statistics during the Supply period for the conduct of the 1986 census of population and housing. I wish to emphasise that this Bill seeks interim provision only in respect of approved ongoing policies of the Government. It does not anticipate decisions yet to be taken in the 1986-87 Budget context, for which provision will be sought in the Appropriation Bills. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(8.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks interim appropriations, totalling $2,116.5m, for expenditure on capital works and services, payments to or for the States and the Northern Territory and certain other services for the period 1 July 1986 to 30 November 1986. The amount sought is $363.8m, or about 20.8 per cent, greater than that provided in the Supply Act (No. 2) 1985-86. The main increases relate to: $59.8m in payments to the States and the Northern Territory reflecting higher estimated payments under Medicare reflecting finalisation of base year hospital utilisation data; indexation of grants; and provision for an additional monthly payment during this supply period, as compared with 1985-86. $21.0m in assistance to the sugar industry comprising $20m for price support and $1m for adjustment assistance. $12.4m in increased assistance to rural producers during the Supply period following the Government's recent economic and rural policy statement, comprising $10m in increased payments to the States and the Northern Territory for rural adjustment assistance; $2.1m for agricultural marketing innovation; and $0.3m for the establishment of a rural counselling service. $65.1m for payment to eligible savings banks reflecting the estimated July and October 1987 instalments under the deposit interest subsidy arrangements to be implemented following the Government's decision on housing finance. $31.5m to the National Capital Development Commission in respect of funding for approved ongoing construction programs in the first five months of 1986-87. $66m for the Parliament House Construction Authority reflecting the stage reached in construction of the New Parliament House. Consistent with completion of the building in 1988. Certain new provisions in respect of which Government decisions have been taken, some of which I have just outlined, have been separately itemised in the Bill in accordance with convention. As indicated with respect to the Supply Bill (No. 1), the provisions in this Bill do not anticipate decisions yet to be taken in the 1986-87 Budget context. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced. Bill presented by Mr John Brown, and read a first time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(8.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks interim appropriations to meet expenditures by the parliamentary departments during the period 1 July 1986 to 30 November 1986. They total some $21.3m which is $1.8m or about 9.2 per cent greater than the amount provided for the same functions in the Supply period 1985-86. The increase is necessary to maintain the ongoing operations of the Parliament, and to meet unavoidable salary and other cost increases. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(8.15) —The legislation before the House seeks to amend, on my count although it differs with others, 56 Acts and to repeal another 91. Of the latter, the repeal of statutes can only be welcomed by the House, particularly by the coalition parties in opposition, committed as we are to deregulation and to smaller government. Needless to say, most of the 90-odd Acts to be repealed, if not all, have no practical continuing effect because the measures they facilitated have long since run their course and continued existence of the statutes on the statute books is, of course, meaningless. However, the reasons for repeal are amusing in at least one context. Let us look at the repeal of the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty Act 1954, the Treaty of Peace (Bulgaria) Act 1947, the Treaty of Peace (Finland) Act 1947, the Treaty of Peace (Hungary) Act 1947, the Treaty of Peace (Italy) Act 1947, the Treaty of Peace (Japan) Act 1952 and the Treaty of Peace (Romania) Act 1947. It seems that the Government, through the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), in his second reading speech, wants to give some topicality to its decision. That is why I confess to some amusement at the justification offered. Most of the original Acts were passed by the Parliament in 1947 but two became law in 1952 and 1954. The reason for their passage as now given is that those Acts enabled the promulgation of regulations to give effect to treaties with former enemy states. That regulations were not necessary in light of subsequent developments might say something about the post-war state of mind, which should not be judged with the benefit of hindsight; nor should the foresight or lack of it of either the 1947 Chifley Government or the Menzies Government of the early 1950s exercise our minds at much length. Why then is it necessary for the Attorney-General to add the justification, as he did in his second reading speech, that a factor is: As 1986 is the International Year of Peace, it is appropriate that I briefly mention the background to the repeal of the various treaties of peace Acts. That is plainly flavour of the month rhetoric and should be dismissed as totally irrelevant. It will no doubt go a long way and go down well with those attending seminars and the endless conferences that will be held next year to review the achievements of the nations of the world during the International Year of Peace. But that is about all it will do. However, the casual observer committed to the cause of peace will be more than a little interested to know how the repeal of six Acts of law which include in their titles the words `treaty of peace' somehow contributes to Australia's achievements during 1986, the International Year of Peace. It is a bit of nonsense in which the Attorney should not have indulged himself, even if he had been fed that line by the relevant department. I sincerely hope that we do not peddle that line in international forums because Australia will be brought into even greater disrepute. After all, in the words of the explanatory memorandum, these Acts were passed merely to approve Australia becoming a party to the respective peace treaties, a practice abandoned by the former Government, and an example to this Government. There should be no doubt, I sincerely trust, that the repeal of treaty of peace Acts that merely approve Australia being a party to peace treaties with Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Romania and Japan does not mean a return to a state of enmity with those nations. I am sure it does not. In any event, it is not much of a contribution to the International Year of Peace to repeal laws which facilitate those ancient peace treaties. The repeal of the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty Act 1954 could not possibly harm our relationships in South East Asia. Or could it? Mr Slipper —There is no relationship left. Mr ROCHER —Well, the timing is hardly impeccable, given the failure of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to develop workable relationships with the Association of South East Asian Nations in general and Indonesia in particular. Our role with Vietnam and the settlement of that country's invasion and occupation of Kampuchea, as well as our silence on the military presence of the Soviet Union in Vietnam, hardly inspire confidence in the region. Having referred to something the Attorney-General said in his second reading speech, it is just as interesting to note amendments to Acts that he has not even bothered to mention at all. Of a total of 55 Acts to be amended only 26 get a mention in his speech. Not one syllable was uttered by the Attorney-General about 29 of the 55 Acts to be amended. One is obliged to wonder why. Mr Hodgman —Legislation in secret. Mr ROCHER —Perhaps. There are some pretty important changes that do not get a guernsey in the Attorney-General's second reading speech, and I could list them. They start with the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and they go through others, including amendments to the Audit Act, the Defence Act 1903, the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 and the Naval Defence Act 1910, which I will mention in a moment. In fact, the Defence Act 1903 and the Naval Defence Act 1910 are only two of a great number of Acts to be amended which do not rate a mention. It is the less than noble intention of the Government symbolically to change the time honoured procedure for termination of commissions granted to probationary officers serving in the Australian Navy and Army. Since 1903 in the case of the Army and 1910 in the case of the Navy, commissions to all officers have been granted and withdrawn by the Governor-General representing the monarch-the Queen's commission. For probationary officers, following the passage of this omnibus Bill, their commissions may be terminated either by the Chief of Naval Staff, in cases involving members of the senior service, or by the Chief of General Staff if a probationary Army officer is to be sacked. On the face of it, it hardly seems necessary to change a procedure that has prevailed for the past 70 or 80 years, to cope with what after all must be a relatively rare occurrence. Certainly, the Government does not appear to be too fussed about it because the Attorney-General does not even mention the amendments. Mr Hodgman —Closet republican. Mr ROCHER —The honourable member for Denison claims he is a closet republican. Assuming that the present method for withdrawing the commissions of non-probationary officers is workable and the termination of their warrants of commission is handled in the time honoured way, there seems little justification for discriminating against probationary officers in the manner described without so much as an explanation. Not numbered amongst the proposed amendments to Acts which do not get a mention in the Attorney-General's second reading speech are those concerning penalties in the Crimes Act 1914 and the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980. We are told that, following judicial criticism about the inadequacy of the quantum of penalties for conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth, the maximum penalties currently prescribed are to be doubled. In fact, the amendment to section 29d of the Crimes Act provides for an increase in the maximum penalty of $50,000 or imprisonment for five years to $100,000 or imprisonment for 10 years. The amendment to section 86a is even better because it proposes an increase in the penalty of $50,000 or imprisonment for five years to $200,00 or imprisonment for 20 years. That must be for a particularly heinous crime in the area of conspiracy to defraud. In the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980 a similar change is to be made to the first dimension. The arrogance, I suppose, of government is well established in the imposing of a more severe penalty for crimes which defraud the revenue than the punishment for crimes of violence against individuals involving death or bodily harm. This seems to be just another example. Just as important is that the penalty for certain offences under the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act can be revised upwards in the time it takes literally to blink an eye, as the saying goes, whereas the tax measures announced and effective from as long ago as 14 December 1984 have not yet seen the light of day in legislative form. This Government is very adept at modifying penalties at short notice, as in this instance, while 19 separate taxing proposals announced by the Government over the period 14 December 1984 to 16 December 1985 have not even been brought into this Parliament. Taxpayers to be affected know the penalties all right for a conspiracy to defraud, but they do not even know the law in many cases because the legislation does not even exist. That is the measure of this Government's priorities and prejudices when it comes to milking Australian taxpayers by taxation and related penalties. Let me refer to the explanatory memorandum. In relation to this tax measure it is said that none of the amendments made by this Bill has any significant financial impact. Why, then, double the financial penalties? If $100,000 a time is not going to have some effect or is not going to have some significant financial consequence, why bother? What is the reason that the Government needs to increase penalties in this way? Also in the explanatory memorandum we are told that, among other things, this legislation is intended to carry out a tidying up, correction and updating operation for legislation. Many of these amendments would not now be necessary if in the first place the measures were fully debated in this chamber. It is a condemnation of this Government and, I have to say, to a lesser extent of previous governments, that we do not have the opportunity so often to deal thoroughly with the legislation that is placed before this chamber. If we were given that opportunity and if we were given the time to examine thoroughly the existing laws and the laws proposed to be brought into this Parliament and enacted, it would not be necessary to do this tidying up, correcting or updating of legislation as we are so often asked to do. Parliament has a responsibility to legislate as well as to do the other things that we seem to give priority to, such as politics from time to time. I have to say that we in this chamber get less time to deal with legislative provisions than members of the other place. That is one reason, until things change here, for the continued existence and the continued work of the Senate. Since the size of this Parliament was increased by some 30 per cent or whatever it was- Mr Peacock —Unnecessarily. Mr ROCHER —Unnecessarily and against the strong and dedicated opposition of the Liberal Party, but since that increase we have not seen an expansion of our speaking time in this Parliament. What happens is that the Government and the Leader of the House (Mr Young) are quite happy to go along constraining the opportunities for honourable members on the Government back benches but more particularly on this side to deal with legislation. So we see the increase in what the present Governor of Western Australia, Professor Gordon Reid, referred to as the growth of executive imperialism. Unless this Parliament and, of course, the government of the day, whatever complexion it might have, do something about that, we will see this chamber-and if any government ever again gets control of the upper House we will see the Senate-become merely a rubber stamp. Mr Peacock —Not under a Liberal government. Mr ROCHER —Not under a Liberal government because I am sure the voters of Australia will have the sense to give us a majority in both this House and in another place at the next opportunity, which I hope comes very soon. Mr Slipper —You mean a Liberal-National Party government. Mr ROCHER —I said a coalition government, did I not? I should have. Under a coalition government this Bill would not be necessary in its great length. There are provisions and amendments in this Bill which, despite the claims of the Government that they are inconsequential or unimportant, require further debate. Of course, I cannot cover them in the 20 minutes allotted to me, and nor will I attempt to do so. However, unless this device of bringing in omnibus Bills to cover 140 or 150 pieces of legislation is stopped once and for all, we will go through this process time and again and we will see such legislation dealt up to us in ever increasing lumps. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will consider seriously if not my earlier remarks at least those latter ones because, if we are to have omnibus legislation like this, he must at least come to some arrangement with the Leader of the House to give honourable members the opportunity adequately to debate those provisions. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(8.31) —in reply-I thank all members for their contribution to this debate. I am very pleased to know that the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) is not opposed. There seems to be concern about the fact that the Opposition has been given insufficient time. But honourable members will notice that the Government has attempted to co- operate by allowing the Opposition to provide all the speakers on this legislation; the Government has left it to me to reply. In fact, from the point of view of time, the Opposition has been given more than a fair share. I acknowledge the fact that if honourable members were members of the Senate they would not be subject to the same constraints. I am not here to criticise the Senate but I only wish that it could deal with its program in the way that we submit it to the Senate. That is one of the problems that we face at present. In fact, one Bill before the Senate-I need not name it-has been debated for 36 hours and debate is up to clause 3. That is a record for the Federation of Australia. We have to look at legislation with a view to the time limits in this place. I hope that when Opposition members have a chance to make speeches, as they all do, they keep their speeches relevant to the matters before the House. That is a point that should be recognised tonight. Some of the speakers have strayed a little from the issues in front of them. I was delighted to know that my good friend the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) wanted to talk about the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. He mentioned it every five minutes but, in between, he went on to give the Government a bit of lecture on economics. I just want to say that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation has been trying to do work-I am sure the honourable member applauds this-in a sense of earning money overseas for Australia. In fact it has been very capable in that regard. I know that the honourable member is critical of the Corporation and proposes to do away with it. That is a matter of judgment. But, from the point of view of earning funds and doing major construction work in other areas, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation has been able to earn money. I am not against the concept, but to do away with it seems a very negative arrangement. Mr Beale —We are not going to do away with it. We are going to make it more competitive so that it earns us something overseas. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No. It was said that it should be turned over to private enterprise. I invite him to look at the fact that the Overseas Projects Corporation was not able to get off the ground. He should have a look at those matters. It is a pity that Australians are always so self-destructive. In that Corporation there is a lot of talent and engineers who are trying to do work for Australia. All they receive from the Opposition is a belittling of the fact that they have to try to get orders from around the world. Opposition members should look at what is being done to help the private sector. They will find that the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, in order to deliver on a contract, goes to the private sector in Australia to get the actual goods and services needed to fulfil the contract. Members of the Opposition should be more loyal to their country at times and understand what these engineers are able to do for Australia and what talent the Corporation provides across the world. If they are downgraded, it is only natural that that affects their morale, their future and everything else. The work that they do has to be competitive across the world, and they have been able to do that reasonably well. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), who led for the Opposition, indicated clearly that there was some concern about a couple of matters. I will advert to them. Firstly, he referred to the Crimes Act amendments which propose to increase penalties. I am reminded that under the pre-1984 provisions of the Act, the offence of conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth carried a maximum penalty of only three years imprisonment. There has been criticism of that by the judiciary. The recent criticism has been in the case of R. v Baker in which the judiciary said that it was about time that the Government did something about these penalties. I do not need to mention the people involved who have already suffered the penalties-I do not need to give their names-but reference was made to a case in Melbourne where tax of $16.5m was evaded and the penalty was two years; a case in Brisbane of $23m tax evaded and the penalty was two years nine months; another case in Brisbane where the tax evaded was $23m and the penalty was two years three months; again in Brisbane where $23m was evaded and the penalty was two years; another case in Brisbane of $23m evaded and the penalty was two years. The point is made that the current level of penalty under this section is still not proportionate either to the level of penalty for an offence under section 29b of the Act, which relates to imposition on the Commonwealth, or of section 67b relating to forging and uttering which carry maximum penalties of two to 10 years imprisonment. For that reason it was felt that because of these penalties, which are pretty massive and which relate to what are called bottom of the harbour promoters, and bearing in mind the criticism of the judiciary, something ought to be done to bring penalties up to the level of existing penalties in respect of those other provisions. That explains the reason for that. The amounts involved were very substantial indeed. Mr Rocher —You should put it in a speech. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is a valid point. But a larger number of sections of Acts have been altered and an explanatory memorandum has been issued. I suppose it is my role here to answer questions. Not everything can go in the second reading speech; if it did, the speech would go for hours and hours and would be longer than the Treasurer's Budget Speech. Mr Peacock —Not as big as the deficit though. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We are getting that down. The other point raised by the honourable member for North Sydney is that it is difficult for practitioners to understand what Acts are being altered. I am reminded that in the preface to each Act there is an alphabetical summary of all the Acts that have been altered. The departmental advice is that that is a very effective way of enabling someone to look at the Act and to realise what pieces of legislation have been amended. The other matters that seemed to attract quite a great deal of attention related to something that I must acknowledge I did not know would encourage debate. I refer to the South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty Act. Naturally, I tried to find out what my brief was. I am sure Opposition members will be interested in this because they were in government at the time. The South-East Asia Collective Defence Treaty Act of 1954 is moribund, my brief states. It states: The organisation established under the Treaty, SEATO, was phased out in . . . recognition of the changing circumstances . . . The final phasing out took place on 30 June 1977 . . . Mr Peacock —That is right. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am glad that the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) is here; he is able to give some intelligent appraisal of the situation and obviously understands it. I am sure other honourable members have forgotten the fact that the final phasing-out took place in 1977 on which date all functions of the organisation were terminated or assumed by other entities. We then got into a very challenging debate about what we are doing about the Treaty of Peace Acts with Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Japan and Romania. Again, I was somewhat nonplussed. Mr Rocher —You said it was because of the International Year of Peace. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, but it has nothing to do with that, as the honourable member may now realise. These treaties were passed after the Second World War to give Parliament the opportunity to discuss the treaties with the ex-enemy states and to enable the government of the day to make regulations. As it turned out, it was never necessary to make any regulations. The Acts could be repealed without affecting the treaties. That is a measure not at all inappropriate in the International Year of Peace. Honourable members will be aware that the situation was very different with the Treaty of Peace with Germany in 1919. I am sure all honourable members are aware of that. Voluminous regulations were made under that Act, following the First World War, to deal with enemy property. These are still in force, Opposition members will be delighted to know. They have not been changed since the outbreak of the Second World War. It is thought that we may even change those. I know Opposition members will appreciate what an assiduous sort of advocate I am in trying to answer their queries. They will be delighted to know that the International Year of Peace has the full support of all of us. But these matters are somewhat redundant. The honourable member will understand that he played an effective role in phasing them out in 1977. I think the other matters related to a few political remarks made by the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) who got a bit worried about crime in New South Wales and matters of that nature and started to talk about a report that was tabled this day. We only got the report last night. Action will be taken concerning those matters. I am sure that everybody is concerned about the proliferation of organised crime in Australia. We will seek the co-operation of all honourable members in the Parliament to try to deal with this massive international organisation. Crime has become very much internationalised and it has very horrendous links now. When we talk about crime we have to talk about not just the petty criminal but also the one who does not usually front up in court but who has access to a lot of funds. Mr Peacock —Like Mr Trimbole. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Like Mr Trimbole. Mr Peacock —Where is he? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He left on a forged passport when the honourable member was in government, and I have never been able to recover. Mr Peacock —You let him go to the Irish court. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is a problem that we have at times with international treaties or the lack of them. Mr Peacock —But where is he now? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If I were able to answer that question I would not. On that score I thank honourable members for their contributions. The Government has a small amendment which it wishes to move in the Committee stage which talks about the matter that I endeavoured to explain in respect of the Crimes Act. The amendment is to ensure that the penalties can come into operation as of now. I hope that honourable members can see fit to pass that amendment without- Mr Peacock —The honourable member for Denison matters on Tasmania. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I never quite know with the honourable member for Denison. I only wanted him to speak on the Bill but on this occasion he did not seem to have a chance to do that. I do not think he made any contribution that really impressed me. I was so overwhelmed by his contribution to the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill where he started talking about being caught by the short and curlies and matters of that nature that I did not know how to deal with it. As far as I am concerned, the honourable member for Denison is an asset to the Opposition and I think he is a bigger asset to us but I will let honourable members opposite judge that. We need to go into Committee to deal with the amendment that has been circulated in respect of clause 2. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(8.42) —I move: Clause 2, page 2, line 16, after ``amendment of'', insert ``paragraph 8a (a) of''. The amendment provides that paragraph 8a (a) of the Crimes Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. This will enable those matters related to penalties to come into operation on a date to be fixed. It is virtually a machinery measure and it is on that basis that the amendment has been moved. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.43) —The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) was uncharitable enough to refer to me a moment ago. But having said that, I will not take the time to reply. It is a matter of de minimis non curat lex. The Minister can have as many shots at me as he likes but he will not stop me. I rise to make a general comment that the Government is resorting more and more to the legislative provision that the Act will come into effect on a date fixed by proclamation. I am fully aware that that is a time-honoured, statutory process. But we have had it abused recently. It was abused in the case of the Trade Practices Act, or the Holmes a Court benefit as it is better known. The Parliament does not know at what point the Government, through the Executive Council, will exercise the proclamation to bring that law into effect. I put it to the Deputy Prime Minister quite bluntly that I accept that, in many cases, the date of proclamation is determined by matters which are quite innocent administrative matters such as the convenience of government and an appropriate time to proclaim, but there must also be other cases where the unfettered discretion to fix the time of commencement of the Act by date of proclamation can be abused for political purposes. This is a portmanteau or omnibus piece of legislation. It carries very wide implications right across the spectrum involving 150 Acts of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. This specific amendment, of course, is limited. But the point that I make, and I have to make it over and again, is that I do not trust the Hawke socialist Government. Mr Slipper —Who does? Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member is quite right. Mr Peacock —Are you bringing politics into this? Mr HODGMAN —I certainly am. I say to the honourable member for Kooyong, the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, that I am bringing politics into this. Mr Blunt —A good shadow Minister. Mr HODGMAN —He is an excellent shadow Minister. He is probably in line for promotion; one never knows. I do not trust a government which has shown itself to be prepared to act for reasons other than the best reasons in relation to the enactment of legislation and when it is to come into effect. I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that, when he is finished with his walkie talkie and getting instructions, perhaps on some occasion it would be appropriate to fix a date for proclamation which is not later than such and such a date. We could put into the clause a provision that there is a period during which the Act can come into effect by proclamation but there is a cut-off date. That is not as usual as it might sound in view of the increasing practice of the Senate to impose what is called a sunset clause. I have made my point. The Deputy Prime Minister has returned to the fold. I am not having a shot at him, so he need not look hurt; I am simply saying that fixing a date for proclamation is one thing. But I do not trust this Government and I suggest that the Minister should do this sort of thing a little less. He should have a rough idea when he intends the legislation which he has brought into the Parliament to come into effect and should not have any of this airy-fairy stuff. Depending on what happens in the Caucus the date the Minister might have in mind for proclamation could be thrown out of the window by the Socialist Left and the people who live in Moscow corner. They might want it to come into effect in two years time, and it makes a nonsense of the whole Parliament. I say to the Minister that, as a matter of practice, he is doing this sort of thing far too much. I do not think it is incompetence; I think there is something more sinister behind it, and I hope that we see less of it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney General)(8.49) —I thought I would quickly reply to the honourable member. The reason for the proclamation in this clause is that it relates to the Australian Capital Territory. On that basis, whilst we want the penalties to come in, that would be appropriate once the Act is consented to. In respect of the amendment which applies to the Australian Capital Territory, it is deemed not to be appropriate because it relates to domestic violence and other matters on which the Law Reform Commission has produced a paper. I think I can tell the honourable member that I have issued a draft ordinance on domestic violence which has a lot of new matters in it, and it is open for public comment. So rather than have it married to the fact that it would be related to assent it would be more appropriate to do it by proclamation at a later date. That is the explanation. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(8.50) —Before the House tonight is the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill which is an omnibus Bill like so many Bills brought to this Parliament by this Government. This Bill deals with a range of aspects of the Social Security Act and also amends the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. I welcome the opportunity to debate this Bill and the matters covered by it because unfortunately it is rare that we get the opportunity of debating social security policy in this place, mainly because of the legislative framework under which the Department of Social Security operates. It is a very important part of this Government's operations and a very significant part of the Government's Budget. Unfortunately, the community image of the Department of Social Security and the social welfare system in Australia is at an all-time low and much of this is attributable to the Government's policies and its attitude to social security, the Department and its philosophy on social welfare. Unfortunately, we on this side of the House do not agree with the philosophy or many of the policies underlying the measures in this Bill. For that reason I move the following amendment which has been circulated in my name and which will be seconded by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). I move: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for- (1) implementing the amnesty for the clients of the Department of Social Security who have received overpayments as the proposal (a) establishes a double standard, (b) disadvantages honest clients, (c) undermines the work of Departmental field officers, (d) sabotages field investigators' morale, and (e) provides no guarantee that overpayment and fraud will not occur in the future, and (2) its economic policies such as the capital gains tax and the prohibition on negative gering which have increased the cost of housing and rent necessitating extending the rent subsidy to the long term unemployed'. It is regrettable that this Government does not recognise the significance of public contempt for social security clients. Unfortunately, in this community there is an increasingly held view that people in receipt of social security benefits are exploiting the system. This is a long way from the truth. The overwhelming majority of people seeking assistance from the Department are in dire need of that assistance and should be treated with compassion by the Government and the people of Australia. However, because of some celebrated incidents and an attitude which is not being addressed by this Government-in some areas it is being inflamed and aggravated by the Government's approaches-there is a hardening of community attitudes to social welfare benefits and this is operating to the great detriment of those people who need them. This Government should be working to develop a consistent and comprehensive social security policy and should not be bringing into this place ad hoc and piecemeal amendments to a rather large, cumbersome and confusing piece of legislation. It should be working to overcome the public perception of social security, the inefficiency of the Department and also the perception of the clients of that Department. The Government should also be addressing the problems of management within the Department of Social Security. Unfortunately, a great number of the clients of the Department have a very low regard for it. The Government's own research has revealed that in terms of the Department's younger clients. The Government should also be working to overcome some of the major impediments that exist between the Department of Social Security and other departments of this Government with which it deals. I cite the Commonwealth Employment Service as one particular aspect. I will elaborate on that later. Unfortunately the public perception of people claiming payment of unemployment benefit when they are supposedly not entitled to it is not only developing in terms of the number of people receiving unemployment benefit but also spreading to other benefit recipients, and I cite single parents. Of course, a responsible government would be moving to address that problem immediately, to overcome it, to correct that public misconception and to ensure that we have in this country a system of social security that is respected by the public in general. This Bill before the House tonight proposes a number of measures. One of the most significant is the establishment of what the Government calls the social security amnesty. This amnesty was treated very briefly in the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe). I believe that it involves a lot more than the Minister gave it credit for in its introduction to this House. It involves some very fundamental questions about the principles and philosophy of social welfare, about the management of the Department of Social Security and, of course, about concepts of justice in this community. This measure that has been brought before the Parliament tonight seeks to establish a double standard that has been admitted by the Minister. I heard him admit it on Canberra radio in answer to a question put to him by a current affairs journalist. He said: `Yes, it does establish a double standard'. Quite frankly, I am amazed that a Minister of the Crown would bring to this House legislation which creates a double standard and which treats the citizens of this country in different ways depending on how they happen to fit into a legislative framework created by this Government. The Department needs this amnesty because it obviously is not capable of coping with the system that it has; and that, of course, is related to the Act and the resources at its disposal. The Minister has one particular approach. He has proposed this amnesty as a way of coming to grips with the problem of overpayment and fraud as it exists within the Department of Social Security. He perceives that the way to cope with it is to write off the bad debts. Of course, another way to cope with it would be to find out who is getting benefits to which they are not entitled and who should repay them. However, the Minister does not see that it is appropriate to provide the necessary resources to his Department to ensure that that course of action can be followed. It is not just me who makes this criticism of the Department. The Auditor-General in three successive reports has made that criticism of the Department of Social Security. He has claimed that the Department has not enforced its own procedures, is not capable of following through its own internal control procedures and has suggested that it is very slack in following through those conditions which are applicable to the payment of benefits to clients. The Australian Federal Police has also said that the Department is lax and that the police do not have the staff resources available to them to address the problem of social security fraud and overpayment. Not only has this amnesty been criticised by the people I have mentioned; it is not even supported by all officers of the Department of Social Security. As I said, it is not supported by the Australian Federal Police and I am told that it is not supported by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Yet the Minister has come into this place with a legislative initiative which proposes to write off overpayments made by the Department of Social Security. The Minister is asking this Parliament to approve a blank cheque. He cannot tell us the degree of overpayment; he cannot tell us to whom the overpayments have been made, but he is asking this Parliament, on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia, to pass legislation which will give him a blank cheque to write off overpayments. If this happened in any other place the man responsible would be accused of fiscal and financial irresponsibility. Yet the Minister has brought into this Parliament legislation which does exactly that: It is a proposal to write off bad debts owed to the Department of Social Security. I find it absolutely amazing that in no circumstances has the Minister or the Government made any attempt to explain to this Parliament exactly the level of overpayment, or the anticipated level of write off that will occur under this amnesty arrangement. We are not writing off paper figures; we are writing off cash that has been paid out by the Department of Social Security, money that has been collected from the taxpayers of Australia and sent to those people who supposedly are in need of assistance because of their circumstances. I have no objection-neither has anyone in this House, either on this side or the Government's side-to making social welfare available to people in need, but the proposal brought to us tonight is that people who have received assistance to which they are not entitled should be exempted from repaying it. Not only should they be exempted from repaying it; this measure proposes to repeal those sections of the Social Security Act that would have previously made the receipt of those payments a criminal offence. At the same time as the Minister is talking about this proposal he is also allowing the withdrawal of earnings concessions previously available to Australian pensioners. I mentioned earlier that this legislation creates a double standard in terms of people in this country: It really creates a double standard in terms of clients of the Department of Social Security. Let me take the example of an age pensioner who is seeking to earn an additional amount of income to supplement the pension paid to him by this Government which, of course, is not at the level that was promised by the Prime Minister on several occasions; that is, 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. We are wondering when this Government will honour that promise, like so many other promises it has made. When this pensioner earns more than $30 a week he or she is required under this Minister's administration to tell the Department. What happens? The Department immediately reduces the benefit payable. If the person tells the Department slightly after the income has been increased, he or she is required to repay that and deductions will be made from future benefit payments. Under the terms of the amnesty, if one goes to the Department and says `I am sorry, I have been getting a benefit to which I am not entitled and I would like to claim the amnesty', not only is one exempt from repaying it, but also there will be no prosecution. How do the Minister and this Government reconcile that approach to those two clients of the Department of Social Security? We have a double standard. If one is honest one pays the penalty; if one is dishonest and claims the amnesty, one gets absolution. I cannot understand how the Minister could propose such a legislative measure. It is no wonder that not everybody supports the proposal, nor is it any wonder that it has been subject to such criticism. I will refer later to some of the criticisms made by people in this community about that proposal. In discussing this amnesty the Minister has been at great pains to explain that really it is nothing very significant at all and only people who have made genuine mistakes will receive it. I refer to the explanatory notes circulated with the Bill which state: Clause 45 (1) deals with the case of a person who fails to comply with an obligation under the Act to notify the occurrence of an event or a change in circumstances. That sounds quite innocuous, but let us examine what it will mean when it is applied in the field. It will mean that if a person receiving unemployment benefit gets a job for six months or a year and all of a sudden that person realises that he or she is getting a benefit but is not entitled to it because he or she is earning wages or a salary, that person can go to the Department and say: `I would like to claim the amnesty'. The Department will say: `Fill in this form, and because you simply omitted to tell us about a change of circumstances-that is, you got a job and you were still getting unemployment benefit-we will give you the amnesty. You will get to keep the unemployment benefit money and we will not prosecute you'. Where is the fairness in that? Does this Government honestly think that the taxpayers of Australia think that that is the way to conduct one of the most significant government departments in this country today-a department which spends $17 billion a year or about 30 per cent of the Budget? Is that the sort of internal control procedures that should be adopted? Is that the sort of stewardship this Minister should exercise over the taxpayers' funds? I do not think so at all. Let me give another example of a circumstance which the Minister is reluctant to admit applies. Again it deals with a change in circumstances. Assume we have a person who is receiving a social security benefit-again let us cite the example of an unemployment benefit-and that person is not one of the most upstanding members of our community and for some reason is sent to gaol and is kept at Her Majesty's pleasure with all expenses paid-accommodation, food, clothing and even a small amount of money for the labour which is contributed to the gaol system. If the person omits to tell the Department of Social Security of the changed circumstances, the benefit continues to be paid. If the amnesty is claimed, the person will be entitled to keep the amount of money that has been paid and there will be no prosecution. The fact of the matter is that there are prisoners in gaols throughout New South Wales-at Maitland and Singleton-who have been receiving benefits from the Department of Social Security. The Minister has not told us whether they have claimed the amnesty or the amnesty has been made available to them, but under the terms of clause 45 (1) of this Bill the amnesty would be available to them. I do not think that there would be a person in this Parliament or this country who would think that that is the right way to conduct the Department of Social Security. The number of examples goes on almost ad infinitum. A change in circumstances could relate to a person who is receiving a benefit on the basis of being a single parent. If that person obtains some other means of support but forgets to tell the Department that that additional means of support has been received, that person can claim the amnesty. One other very significant impact of this amnesty within the Department of Social Security has been conveyed to me by officers of the Department. If the limited number of field staff in the Department who are still doing their job come across someone who is getting a benefit to which he or she is not entitled and the officers knock on the door and ask some questions, the person may think: `Ah, the game is up; I had better do something about it'. If the person can get to the Department and claim the amnesty before a formal prosecution can be launched by the Department, the amnesty is available to that person. What sort of impact will that have on the morale of the field staff working in the Department of Social Security? Of course it is an absolute nonsense. No wonder the Department is complaining about it and no wonder that the staff wonder whether there is any purpose in doing their job. That is a further example of the lack of a comprehensive and consistent policy and a real answer to the problems of the Department of Social Security which is exemplified by this Government's approach. I said earlier that public respect for the Department of Social Security was at an all time low. I think ample proof of that is available when one considers that an ex-officer of the Department has written a book entitled Dole Bludging for Beginners-A Little Book on Who is Getting Your Share of the Welfare Cake and How You Can Get It Back. That book tells members of the public how to take the Department of Social Security for a ride; how to milk the system. I for one am grossly offended that this Government is running a system that is capable of being milked to that extent and has not done anything significant to address the problem other than to come in to this place and ask for a blank cheque to write off the overpayments. That is a disgrace and the Government ought to be looking to its laurels about its approach to social security. It is no wonder that we on this side of the House cannot accept or support in any circumstances the amnesty proposed by this Bill. One of the other matters addressed by this Bill is the creation of what is known as a homeless allowance. I found it very curious when I examined the second reading speech in respect of this allowance. The Minister estimates that the payment of this allowance for 1986-87 will amount to $2m and for 1987-88 it will be another $2m in broad terms. I am not quite sure what `broad terms' means; I guess it means that the $2m for 1987-88 will be more than $2m and that the Government does not have any estimate of what level of allowance will be paid. Prima facie the Minister would have us believe that there will be no growth in the level of this benefit. I find that very hard to believe because in my experience, even with the inadequate level of social security benefits paid, people follow the money. I know that the Department and the Minister have been at pains to establish conditions for the payment of this allowance which are fairly tough and will not encourage people to leave home. I fear that young people, adolescents, in highly charged emotional circumstances may feel that the availability of this allowance even under tough circumstances will facilitate their departure from home and parental care. While I freely admit that in some instances the home circumstances of young people are not desirable and it might be appropriate for them to leave, I believe also that in some circumstances, particularly with adolescents, emotions run hot and, if they see an opportunity to run away and this allowance is available and is not strictly controlled, we will be facilitating more runaways-and that is not an appropriate policy. The Minister has not provided great elaboration on how this allowance will operate. I know that a number of welfare groups have approached him about how it will operate and the confusion that will probably exist in terms of the administrative guidelines and the interaction with the Department of Education because of the relationship between the homeless allowance and the education allowances which are payable to people of that age. I will now address some comments to the rent assistance measures proposed by this Bill for the long term unemployed. A moment's reflection on the statistics of unemployment in this country will give one some idea of why it is necessary for this Government to bring to the Parliament a measure which establishes rent assistance for the long term unemployed. It really underscores the failure of this Government's economic policies. Poverty in Australia is increasing. I am pleased to see that the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) is in the chamber because he has freely admitted that fact in this Parliament. It must be a considerable embarrassment to him and the Minister that under this Labor Government poverty has increased in this country and welfare spending is increasing. The policies of this Government are the reason why it is necessary to introduce or extend a benefit for a particular class of welfare recipients. One of the major causes of poverty in this country is the cost of housing. This Government's record in terms of housing is an absolute disgrace. Its policies have caused an astronomical increase in the cost of housing-not only in the cost of housing for those members of the community who seek to buy but also for those members of the community who have to rent. This Government's high interest rate policy, its ban on negative gearing and its capital gains tax are admitted by the Cain Labor Government in Victoria to have contributed significantly to the increase in rental and housing costs in this country. Only today we had further evidence from the Reserve Bank of Australia that, because of this Government's economic policies and its failure to address the fundamental flaws in our economy, we can expect a continuation of high interest rates. That means a continuation of high housing costs. That increase in housing costs is now coupled with this Government's failure to address the real problems of unemployment. The Government is fine at coming up with Priority One programs and Hollywood-style promotions, which are really froth and bubble and do nothing more than put the face of the Prime Minister in newspapers, at a cost of $2m. But when it comes to solving unemployment, the Government has done absolutely nothing. In 1983, the average time of unemployment was 34.3 weeks. In 1986, after three years of Labor government in this country-three years of government by this Government that claims to be concerned about the unemployed and to have addressed the unemployment problem in this country successfully-the average time of unemployment has risen to 51.9 weeks. In 1983, it was 34 weeks; in 1986, it is 51.9 weeks. No wonder it is necessary to introduce rent assistance for the long term unemployed; if one does not have a job these days, the prospects of getting a job are about half as good as they were in 1983, as the average time of unemployment has almost doubled. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland, the honourable member for Melbourne and the honourable member for Riverina-Darling will cease interjecting across the chamber. Mr Hand —I point out that I am in my right seat. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Melbourne is at least in his correct seat, for a change. It is unusual. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I appreciate your protection. I hope that the time wasted will be added to my allotted time. The fact of the matter is that, because of the absolute failure of the economic policies of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the right wing of the Australian Labor Party, the left wing of the Labor Party is forced to run around patching up with extra welfare payments. The Treasurer's economic policies have put up housing costs and have failed to create real long term jobs for the people of Australia. So, of course, the Minister for Social Security is forced to spend more of the taxpayers' money and more of his limited welfare budget on providing additional benefits to the people who are in these circumstances because of the failure of the policies of the right wing of the Labor Party. No wonder the Minister is exasperrated, increasingly, by his failure to have his way in Cabinet. No wonder there is increasing tension between the factions of the Labor Party. No wonder the Treasurer at a recent meeting of the economic caucus nearly went off his brain over the problem of the long term unemployed and the failure of this Government to make any impact on the number of people drawing the unemployment benefit at present. No wonder it is an embarrassment to the Treasurer, as the Minister for Social Security can rightly and justly argue for an increase in funds available to his Department to pay welfare benefits because the policies of this Government are creating more people who need welfare benefits. We have the situation of a dog chasing its tail. The Treasurer creates the recipients and the Minister for Social Security spends the money. What an absolutely incredible situation we have. We have irreconcilable economic views and conflicting policies between the Treasurer and the Department of Social Security. Frankly, I find it absolutely amazing. No wonder the Minister for Social Security, the advocate of the Left in Cabinet, is galled by the situation; no wonder his frustrations grow daily; no wonder he is forced to leak documents. It is a great pity that he did not have more able assistance on the front bench. Mr Hand —What about a bit of protection from that? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Did the honourable member for Richmond suggest that the Minister had leaked documents? Mr BLUNT —If I suggested that the Minister for Social Security was directly responsible for the leaking of documents, I withdraw that remark. No wonder documents of great significance to the arguments of the Left were made public. No wonder the Minister is arguing, with six of this colleagues, for increased expenditure. No wonder the Prime Minister is embarrassed by the magnificent seven who have claimed the need for increased expenditure because of the consequences of the Treasurer's policies. In my opening remarks, I mentioned inconsistencies that exist within the Government's social security policy. In the limited time left to me, I would like briefly to make reference to that policy and also to address some of the problems that exist in the compensation Act, which is also amended by this Bill. The Government is running one of the most inconsistent social security policies it is possible to conceive. We have a situation in which family allowances in this country are non-means tested. Recent changes were made that meant that those allowances stopped for children at the age of 18 years, whether or not they were students. So we have a situation where family allowances are non-means tested but they stop at 18. After 18 the benefit available to those students is either the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance or the secondary assistance allowance, which of course are strictly means tested. Each is subject to one of the most strict and tough means tests one could possibly imagine. The option, of course, is to receive the unemployment benefit. This is a Government that claims to be concerned about the youth of Australia, so the conflicting and confusing signals that its social security policy sends out to this country's youth are absolutely astounding. We have non-means tested family allowances, strictly means tested benefits for students and a non-means tested unemployment benefit with the prohibition that one cannot undertake study if in receipt of the unemployment benefit. Where is the consistency in that policy? What are the long term consequences of telling the young people of Australia that they are better off being unemployed, that there is no point in studying and that the Government will not provide any assistance or encouragement for them to undertake study to improve their skills and training and their capacity to deal with this rapidly changing world with which Australia is failing to come to grips? The Bill also amends the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act. Very real problems exist in the administration of that Act and in recent weeks some of those problems have been illustrated. I would like to cite one or two of these problems that exist and make reference to the proposals contained within the Bill. The annual report of the Commonwealth Commissioner for Employees' Compensation for last year shows that 60,000 successful compensation claims led to compensation payments to Government employees more than doubling, rising to $157m, compared with the last full year of the Fraser Government and that a further blowout in compensation payments is expected for the current financial year, which is to end shortly. Of that $157m worth of payments, $121m went to public servants who suffered a total incapacity to work. There were 60,000 claims from a total work force in the departments and authorities of 530,000-60,000 claims and only 530,000 employees-and of those claims 45,000 were for total incapacity. That represents an incredible claim rate of one for every 12 employees. One in every 12 employees of the Commonwealth Government made a claim under the compensation Act for total incapacity to work. Being a Commonwealth public servant must be the most high risk occupation in the world, unless of course there are some fundamental problems in the Act. Of the 298,000 employees of government departments under the Commissioner's authority, 25,900, or almost 9 per cent, made successful compo claims while only 527 were rejected. That is a 50 to 1 success rate. Of course that success rate blew out to 130 to 1 for government authorities. That probably means that those employees have far more effective advocates, or that in fact it is far more dangerous to work for a government authority than a government department. I hope all those members of the public service listening recognise that statistic and take it into account in their career planning. Obviously there is something fundamentally wrong with the compensation Act administered by this Minister, but instead of having a significant review of the Act we have piecemeal amendments introduced by an omnibus social security Bill. We on this side of the House question significantly the compensation Act, the basis of payment, the way those claims are assessed and the level of payment. I think it is incumbent upon this Government to explain to this Parliament and to the people of Australia exactly what is going on. The level of compensation paid within the Commonwealth Public Service is incredibly higher than the level of compensation paid to private sector employees in the community. Obviously, there is something fundamentally wrong, or employment within the Commonwealth Public Service is far more dangerous than employment in the private sector. Since I cannot accept that fact, I believe there is a need to review that legislation. That need is as urgent as the need to review the Social Security Act itself. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr WHITE(McPherson)(9.20) —I second the amendment and will speak briefly to it. It condemns the Government for implementing an amnesty for those who receive social security benefits and who are defrauding the system and, secondly, condemns the Government for its economic policies in relation to housing. I ask, first: Where is the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe)? I note with some interest that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) is at the table representing him. I wonder whether he is preparing to understudy the Minister for Social Security to take over that portfolio. One would think that perhaps any change might be for the better, except when one looks at what the Minister for Defence has done to the defence forces in this country while they have been under his stewardship. One would think that he would be the last person to go into another big spending portfolio such as the Department of Social Security. I would hope that, while the Minister for Defence is at the table, to address one remark to him, he takes note of what has happened in the last couple of weeks and how unpredictable international relations can be. If there is one thing that is going to happen in terms of military adventures by one country or another, it is the unexpected. When it does it is too late then to try to resurrect moribund defence forces, which is the state of the forces in this country at the moment. The reason we are opposed to this Bill and are moving these amendments is that the Government is proposing a measure that is supporting fraud in this country on a massive scale. One would have thought that any responsible government would be out there trying to prevent fraud instead of handing out encouragement to people who have been ripping off the system. The problem is, of course, that there is almost no field staff out there to check on people who are defrauding the system. The Australian Federal Police simply cannot cope with the amount of fraud going on. One wonders, of all the reports one makes to the Department of Social Security from information that comes in, what exactly happens on the other end of the phone when the person takes down such reports. It seems to me, from evidence I have, that not one of them is ever investigated because they know that in due course they will get an amnesty from this Government. I cannot believe that all six honourable members sitting on the Government side listening to this important measure really support what the Minister for Social Security is doing to the public funds of this country by encouraging people to double dip and triple dip at times whilst being told `Don't worry about it boys and girls, just ring up and we will look after you', because that is what is happening. All the fancy reasons that it is easier to do this because we have not got the field staff to go and check, because it would clear the books, because it will make life very simple for the Minister, do not wash. The reality is that people are taking, and have been for some time, money contributed by hard working taxpayers in this country and they are now being encouraged by the Minister and by the Government to say that is all right and not to worry about it. Let me give an example: I have just realised the fact that I have been living with someone for the past 12 months. It is an accident. I have just realised that so I will ring up and tell the Government. It will say: `Don't worry about it'. Or I find that I have been in receipt of unemployment benefits for some time, with two or three jobs to boot, and I am told: `Don't worry about that. Just ring up and we will give you an amnesty'. It is inconceivable that any responsible Minister would not want to contain the fraud that is going on in his Department. Instead, encouragement is being given to people to take what is not theirs, something that is contributed by the bulk of hard-working taxpayers in this country. It is given to people who in general-some of them through no fault of their own-are unemployed and contributing nothing, and it is taking from people who are contributing everything. How in God's name are we ever going to encourage enterprise in this country again if we support a system that encourages people to take what is not theirs from people who are working to contribute to it. It seems to me that it is just a classic case of social philosophy where we try to bring everyone down to the same level and in so doing kill all the initiative of those who want to get out, who want to work hard, who want to prosper, who want to get ahead, who want to employ other people, who want to create savings and who want to create capital. It destroys all that because when they look at the social security area of this country they are saying `Why the hell should I work hard and bust a gut to give it to the Government which is going to give it out to people who do not deserve it, who are ripping it off', and then being told, on top of that: `Do not worry about it. It is all right. Ring up and we will give you a pardon'. People are fed up with that and it is no wonder. I will briefly address a few remarks on the shortage of housing which is the second part of this amendment. Of course there is a shortage of rental housing in this country. Part of it is because of the high interest rates and people cannot afford to buy their own houses. The second element is that the threat of a capital gains tax and negative gearing has driven thousands and thousands of investors out of the market. Why should they be in the chancey business of investing in rental housing when they can take out their money, put it in some safe investment at 20 per cent and reap the benefits of that? So, what has happened? The investors have abandoned that field in droves and they are not likely to come back to it while a capital gains tax and the imposition of negative gearing is placed on them. The result is that rents have been driven sky high, more and more people are queuing up for government housing, which is going to put further pressure on government policies and the public purse, and more and more people are queuing up for extra assistance for rental accommodation. The whole thrust of this Bill is just crazy in terms of any economic or social philosophy. The mind boggles at how the Minister for Social Security, and what is supposed to be regarded as a pragmatic government, can get these crazy policies through Cabinet and have honourable members on the Government side supporting them like dumb mutes and saying that this is good Labor Party policy. I have great pleasure in seconding the amendment. Mr LEE(Dobell)(9.30) —I address the first part of my comments to the speeches made on the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). I thank them for their contributions to the debate because I shall endeavour to see that as many copies as possible of their speeches will be circulated to the Combined Pensioners Association within the electorate of Dobell. If ever anyone needed an argument to explain the differences between members of the Australian Labor Party and the conservatives on the Opposition benches he has only to listen to those two speeches. I see the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges) nodding in agreement with the anti-pensioner and pensioner-bashing arguments that have been put forward in this debate by Opposition members. The two speeches we have heard from the Opposition benches are a disgrace to this chamber and a disgrace to the Liberal and National parties. The honourable member for Richmond suggested that there is increasing concern in the community about social security. He went so far as to suggest that an increasing number of social security beneficiaries are being held in contempt. Opposition members say those things on the one hand, but on the other hand they seek to fan the flames of hatred and division in the community. They support the bigoted groups that seek to suggest that somebody who is out of work does not have the right to claim unemployment benefits. Opposition members appear to be suggesting that a pensioner, who has paid taxes and worked all his life, is not entitled to the age pension. Mr Hodges —You support cheats. Mr LEE —Labor members do not support cheats. The honourable member for McPherson totally misrepresented the social security amnesty. It is plain that he does not understand the amnesty or the legislation before the House. He made the outrageous statement that this legislation will encourage people to double-dip and triple-dip because they will be able to take advantage of the amnesty and not suffer any consequences. He simply does not understand the legislation. Any person who double-dips or triple-dips cannot get an exemption under the amnesty. Labor members would not agree to that. Opposition members, either through ignorance or seeking to create divisions in the community, are seeking to attack pensioners and beneficiaries of the social security system. The honourable member for Richmond claimed that the social security amnesty was not the way to fight fraud and overservicing. He said that the Department was not spending enough money to enable field officers to visit people. He said that the Department had no proper procedures to identify people who claimed social security. Those were the statements he made in the chamber here tonight. I would be interested to know what statements he has been making on the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card. If media reports are correct and the leaks about the decision of that Committee are correct, the honourable member for Richmond who said tonight that the Government was not doing enough to stop the fraud and overservicing is voting to stop the Australia Card. Mr Price —Disgraceful, hypocritical. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Chifley suggests, it is inconsistent to suggest that we can fight fraud and overservicing without an identification card. I personally believe that there should be an identification card containing a photograph to ensure that only Australians who pay their fair share of tax receive Commonwealth benefits under the Social Security Act. That is why I am amazed at the double standards of the Liberal and National parties, whose members come into this chamber and flay Labor members for not fighting fraud and overservicing. At the same time Opposition members are doing their best to sabotage the Australia Card and to stop a photograph appearing on the card. At the next election they will be judged for their double standards and hypocrisy. In discussing social security it is important to remember that we all accept that $17 billion is paid out under the Social Security Act each year. It is also important to remember that those billions of dollars represent individual Australian citizens who for whatever reason-because they have worked for many years or are suffering sickness-have a right to social security. It is not a privilege but a right. Mr Slipper —Can we afford to pay it? Mr LEE —Having heard the comments of the honourable member for McPherson and the outrageous interjection from the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), I begin to suspect that those two individuals would be happier if we abolished all social security. They would be happier if there were no social security in Australia and if we went back to the days of their forebears. The people who preceded them opposed widows' pensions, they opposed child endowment and, today, Opposition members are opposing the young homeless allowance. Those members will be judged by their actions at the next election. I understand that my colleague the honour- able member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) will be making further comments on the young homeless allowance. I know that she has put in a lot of effort and discussion within the Labor Party internal caucus committees to ensure that this allowance does the most possible for young Australians who, for whatever reason, have become estranged from their parents and are in real need. It is important for Opposition members, who criticise us for providing assistance to the young homeless people, to remember that it is easy to condemn somebody who is young and homeless just because they have ended up that way. It is important to remember that there but for the grace of God go their sons or daughters, or neighbour's sons or daughters, or their own nieces or nephews. Perhaps one day one of those people may be lining up at the Department of Social Security to benefit from the homeless youth allowance. It would then be realised that the allowance we are now debating is long overdue and will assist many young Australians who are in real need. (Quorum formed) It is good to see so many Labor members coming into the chamber; I am amazed at how few Liberal and National Party members responded to the quorum call. The honourable member for McPherson made the outrageous allegation that under this Government poverty is increasing. I refer him to the unemployment figures under the Fraser Government. In 1980 there were 300,000 out of work and receiving unemployment benefits. When that Government was defeated in 1983 there were 635,000 out of work-more than a 100 per cent increase. If ever one needs to define a person or family in poverty one looks at the group which is out of work. The record of that Government resulted in a doubling in the number of Australians who were in poverty and who were out of work; and Opposition members now have the hide to criticise us. I turn now to some of the broader areas of the Labor Government's policy on social security. This Government's achievements in social security are a matter of which Australian Labor Party members can be rightly proud. In the 1983 election we promised to increase the base rate of pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The honourable member for Richmond had the hide to criticise us for not reaching our target of 25 per cent in three years. I remind the House of what happened to the value of pensions under the Fraser Government. Mr Gayler —Tell us. Mr LEE —I will tell honourable members. When the Fraser Government was elected, pensions stood at 24.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. When it was thrown out of government in March 1983, they had fallen to 22.7 per cent, a great decline in the purchasing power of pensions. Under our Government, as of today, 1 May, when the base rate of pension was increased to $102.10, and using the most recent average weekly earning figures for the December quarter of $413.90, the rate of pension at the moment is more than 24 per cent of average weekly earnings. I think that is something of which those on this side of the House can be rightfully proud. On top of that we have increased payments to pensioners and beneficiaries over and above indexation by more than $1.2 billion. Under Senator Don Grimes, the former Minister for Social Security, and the current Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), we have directed that extra $1.2 billion to those Australians in receipt of social security who are in the greatest amount of need. We have targeted the extra assistance to those in greatest need. In the 1984 Budget we increased the rental allowance by 50 per cent. We agreed to index the income limits for fringe benefits. Under the tax package, from November this year we will take action to reduce the impact of poverty traps which have been entrenched in the social security system for many years. Pensioners will be able to receive the full pension. A single pensioner will be able to receive the full pension and earn $40 a week compared to the current level of only $30 a week. Married pensioners will be able to receive the full married rate when they receive $70 a week of non-pension income, compared to the current level of only $50 a week. We are also increasing the amount of non-pension income which pensioners who have children can earn. That is certainly worth while. The area which I think will have the greatest benefit will be the abolition of the separate means test on rental allowance. From 1 November 1986 there will be no separate means test on rental allowance. The $15 a week will be added to the base rate of the pension. That package will provide an increase of approximately $20 a week to pensioners who have more than $40 a week in income and who are renting. I think that is something of which we can rightly be proud. In addition we are increasing the tax-free threshold by $505 from 1 September this year. This will certainly help many pensioners in my electorate. The amendment moved by the honourable member for Richmond and seconded by the honourable member for McPherson seeks to criticise this Government for introducing the capital gains tax and for quarantining negative gearing. Mr Hand —Because it will tax their mates; that is why. Mr LEE —As the honourable member for Melbourne suggests, it is because it will tax their mates, their friends, the spiv lawyers and accountants who specialise in working out how to rort the taxation system. The simple question I put to honourable members opposite is this: If they oppose the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and the action on negative gearing, how do they intend to pay for the extra money going to pensioners which we are delivering as part of our tax package? Can we also assume that they are opposed to the income tax cuts totalling $2 1/2 billion which we are delivering, on 1 September 1986, and the second round of another $2 billion on 1 July 1987? If they oppose the capital gains tax, the fringe benefits tax and our actions on negative gearing, we must assume that they also oppose our giving those pay as you earn taxpayers and pensioners a reduction in their income tax. In conclusion, I simply remind the House of the stark comparison between the arguments put forward by the conservatives opposite and the arguments put forward by the Australian Labor Party. Honourable members opposite launched an all-out attack on pensioners and an all-out attack on people who work for the Department of Social Security. They sought to suggest that people who double dip and triple dip can come forward under the amnesty and, through fraud, seek not to suffer any penalty, which is just plain wrong. The honourable member for McPherson does not understand the legislation that is before the House. I have great pleasure in joining other honourable members on this side of the House in thoroughly endorsing the sentiments of this Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —I call the honourable member for Flinders. Mr Slipper —This will be a good speech. Mr REITH(Flinders)(9.45) —I am indebted to the honourable member for Fisher for his early support. The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 1986 covers a range of matters, including the new young homeless allowance, amendments affecting the payment of family allowances, amendments to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 and amendments to the rent assistance provisions. So this is a pretty important piece of legislation. It is legislation which quite properly has been described tonight by some of my colleagues as legislation which will give away millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to cheats and frauds in this community. It is given out by a Minister-the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe)-who, at the conference of the broad Left, if my memory serves me right, told the Australian public that a 50 per cent increase in taxation in this country would be no trouble at all. That is the sort of Minister with whom we are dealing. What a pity that the Minister is not in the House tonight to be involved in this debate. I think it says much for the Government and certainly very little for the Minister. The provisions relating to rent assistance and the young homeless allowance have some common threads. It is typical of the Australian Labor Party to claim a monopoly on compassion for the disadvantaged in our community when so many of its policies keep people on the poverty treadmill in this country. Before the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) interjects, let us not forget that it was he who said-and he is the Victorian President of the Australian Labor Party-that under Labor homelessness in this country is on the increase. Labor's answer to the inadequacy, for example, of our education system to prepare young people for work is to run a program called Priority One: Young Australians. Priority One is one of the most cynical exercises in publicity seeking that any government has ever undertaken. No wonder young people are cynical about this Labor Government and no wonder even the Young Labor Movement is cynical about that program. Of course, many young people-the figure is as high as 22 per cent-cannot get a job. They cannot get a job because the Labor Party, in conjunction with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, has ensured that wage rates are too high so that young people cannot get a job. I was interested to read a quote the other day from Clyde Cameron's Unions in Crisis. People will remember Clyde Cameron as the Minister for Industrial Relations under the Whitlam Labor Government. Mr Cameron stated: We have not helped the young by demanding that they be not employed unless paid excessive wages. We priced them out of the labour market and we deserve no thanks for that. How right he was. As another example of the cynicism of this Labor Government, Labor's answer to the drug problem is the drug offensive, which is yet another cynical example of vote buying by the production of a glossy pamphlet, which an Opposition survey showed only 54 per cent of people had received, instead of giving money to the voluntary non-government organisations that have to deal with the real problems at first hand. The proposal for the young homeless allowance must be the Minister's response to the likelihood of the family allowance being cut under Labor. It is no good for the Minister or other members to say that there will be no cuts, because let us not forget that it was the Labor Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) who said that there would be no capital gains tax. We now have a capital gains tax. In the electorate of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) the Prime Minister said that the Labor Party would not remove the ceiling on home loan interest rates. After the South Australian election we had the lifting of the ceiling on home loan interest rates. If the Government really wants to do something about the young homeless in this country, it ought to do something about supporting families for a change. The families which are going to suffer from this proposal are the low income families and the large families. Family allowances are not a welfare payment; they are a means introduced by a Liberal government, the Fraser Government, to give back-- Mr Slipper —A Liberal-National Party Government. Mr REITH —I am properly reminded that it was with the support of our coalition partners, the Nationals. It was a means introduced by that coalition Government to give back some of the people's taxes in recognition of the fact that it costs more to look after children, particularly for large families. It is no wonder that the 180,000-member Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission and the Victorian Council of Social Service are opposed to the proposed cutback. The real value of family allowances has already been cut back 18 per cent, and families throughout Australia are being further crushed by the highest taxing government that this country has had in its peacetime history. If that is not enough, families are also penalised by this Labor Government's recent decision to abolish the general concessional rebate. The other attack on Australian families today is Labor's deliberate policy of high interest rates. Everybody has been talking about the removal of the ceiling on home loan interest rates, but the real issue is the fact that interest rates are just too high and people cannot afford to make the repayments. I did a survey recently of the interest rates charged by some of the finance companies. Let me make it quite clear at the outset that I am not proposing that we should shoot the messenger. I think we have to get after the big boys behind the high interest rates in this country and, of course, they are the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Interest rates are very interesting and I do not think that many people are aware how high they are. With HFC Financial Services Ltd and Custom Credit one is looking at interest rates of 27 per cent and 32 per cent. With Australian Guarantee Corporation Ltd it is 26 per cent and that company will just take an application over the phone, as will many of these companies, and up to $2,000 is available no trouble at all. When we rang Esanda Ltd we were told that its rate was 16 per cent. When pressed we were told that the 16 per cent was flat and the effective rate was 28.22 per cent. Avco Financial Services Ltd was contacted and, again, at a loan of $2,000 one is looking at an interest rate on this easy cash money of 29.5 per cent. The thing that really concerns me, and I have had first hand evidence of this, is that there are people in the Australian community who in increasing numbers are using this easy money to buy groceries because the Labor Party's deliberate high interest rate policies have put them into that situation. So we have a situation of a government effectively ripping into Australian families with its high interest rates and then coming into the House full of compassion and understanding with its rent assistance packages and payments for the young homeless. In regard to the young homeless allowance the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) in his second reading speech said: The allowance is available only on strict conditions which are intended to ensure that only those in genuine need are assisted and that there is no undue incentive for a young beneficiary to leave home. I am not sure that the proposed new sub-section 112 (4E) satisfies that because a qualification for the allowance is to be away from home for a period of not less than six weeks because the young person's parents are not prepared to allow the person to live with them. I think that is a pretty loose definition but, even if one accepts the Minister's argument that there is no undue incentive for young beneficiaries to leave home, there is certainly a financial incentive for parents to state blandly that they do not want to accept the responsibility of having their children at home and, by that simple statement, place the financial responsibility of that child on to the long-suffering taxpayers. Mr Chynoweth —What a load of rubbish. Mr REITH —I simply suggest to those who interject and to those who are serious about this problem that they ought to read the Bill that has been introduced because, as I have stated quite clearly, the Minister himself has established the criteria. The point that I have raised exposes a considerable flaw in the Minister's argument. The Minister says that governments should not encourage people to leave home, but this Bill does not in fact meet his own criteria. Lastly, I will address some remarks to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. I think many taxpayers would be aghast at some of the Press that has been available recently on the high levels of compensation paid out of the scheme. There was an article, for example, in the Melbourne Age of 28 April 1986 which was headed `Neurosis takes its toll in the Public Service'. I quote from the third paragraph of that article, which states: The extremely high rate of invalid retirement from the Commonwealth Public Service was revealed by the Federal Opposition's ``waste watch'' committee 10 days ago. But a detailed breakdown of figures for 1984-85 from the commissioner for superannuation presents an even more disturbing picture. That is disturbing because the payments, as we have seen, show levels which are considerably higher than those in the private sector. This should not be a matter of disagreement between the parties because the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) was quoted in the same article as promising tighter invalid pension rules and checks on how many retirees are really permanently disabled. The amendment before the House this evening simply provides for the removal of any time limitations within which a person can lodge a claim against the Commonwealth. Currently the legislation provides that a claim can be made outside the statutory limit of six months as long as the claim does not prejudice the Commonwealth's position. The existing clause is very wide and in fact bends over backwards to ensure that people who have justifiable claims against the Commonwealth are not unreasonably limited in their rights to lodge applications. Quite frankly, in view of the fact that those existing provisions, as I say, bend over backwards to allow people to make claims against the Commonwealth, I am surprised that the Minister for Social Security is, after the Minister for Finance has indicated an inquiry into the provisions of this particular scheme, opening the door even further. I expect that the response from the Minister for Social Security will be that there should be no time limitations for two reasons: Firstly, because there are no time limitations in the States and, secondly, because there are costs involved in people making applications to put themselves beyond or outside that six months statutory limitation. I simply want to say this: Firstly, in regard to there being no time limitations in the States, that is an argument of some persuasion but, of course, it is not an argument in itself. Because someone else is doing something is no argument that we ought to follow blindly. I believe that, as there has been clearly no real pressure for this move, that ground as a ground of substantiation of this amendment is pretty weak. The second ground relates to the costs of applications. Quite frankly, there would be a simple means to overcome the alleged costs of applications, and that would be to increase the statutory time limit from six months to, say, three years. Three years is a common statutory time limitation in negligence claims and I would have thought that the Government might have moved in that direction rather than totally opening up the provisions for Commonwealth employees to make claims. I conclude by saying that this is a piece of legislation which gives with one hand while Labor's policies take away with the other. It is about time that the Government realised-some of its members have realised, and I refer to the remarks of the honourable member for Melbourne-what the implications are of Labor's deliberate high interest rate policies. I think some members are aware of the ramifications of a removal of the family allowance. I would hope that they will take their understanding of those issues into the Labor Party Caucus and start arguing with some real compassion for the disadvantaged in this community. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.00) —As the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) said, I will address myself to the young homeless allowance which we are discussing tonight under the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill. Before I do so, I had better say something about those honourable members opposite who condemn the amnesty and talk incessantly about cheats. Perhaps they understand cheats. Perhaps they even know cheats. Do they not understand, as this Government does, the sorts of people whom this amnesty will assist? Have they never had go into their electorate offices the sorts of people for whom they will go in to bat against the Department of Social Security because that person is on the treadmill, probably through ignorance, and is in pretty desperate circumstances? The person has probably got into a situation of being overpaid by the Department of Social Security and is too frightened to tell. Those are the sorts of people that this amnesty is directed towards, not the sorts of cheats whom the honourable members opposite seem to understand so well. I will now talk about the other group of people whom those opposite do not understand-young homeless people. In speaking about this amendment, I briefly point out what our Government has been able to achieve by way of assistance for them. In our plan to provide common allowances for Australia's youth, whether they are in education or looking for work, we have taken the first steps to achieve an age related allowance by 1988 that will provide more assistance for students and improve incentives for them to continue in education. Part of that plan is the Government's Priority One program much maligned by those opposite. Let me list what we have already achieved under that program for young people. We have increased the unemployment benefit for 16- to 17-year-olds to $50 a week, which will be indexed when the whole youth allowance is phased in. We have increased secondary allowance scheme payments to $35 a week. We have created a new intermediate rate of unemployment benefit for 18- to 20-year-olds of $88.20 per week. We have increased the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance to $73.28 per week for students living away from home. As the next step we introduce this Bill which will enable young people under 18 with no other means of support to receive an unsupported youth allowance of $73.28 which is equivalent to the TEAS allowance being paid to students living away from home. We announced this measure last year and we are now in a position to introduce this legislation six months earlier than anticipated. As the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said in his second reading speech, the allowance is available only on strict conditions which are intended to ensure that only those in genuine need are assisted and that there is no undue incentive for a young person to leave home. Certainly, young people will not be able to qualify for the allowance simply by their parents making a statement such as that referred to by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith). In any event, if such a situation exists in a home, and if parents are so uncaring, those are the sorts of children that we should look after. As a nation we must face up to the ever increasing numbers of young people who are homeless. We will not find a solution to this problem by adopting the practice followed by the previous speaker, of continually taking the high moral ground and attacking the Government for encouraging our young people to leave their family and their home and live off the Government. Unfortunately, not all Australians live in a stable family environment. In today's world heavy strains are imposed on most families. Some cope with the conflicts that inevitably occur; some do not. For those families on low incomes and facing high rental costs, the pressures are 10 times as great. There are many reasons why so many young people are forced into homelessness. One reason is domestic violence and another is sexual abuse. Recent reports published by the Institute of Family Studies show that sexual abuse is now estimated to affect one in every five or six girls in the community. Should those people stay at home? There is also the impact of divorce on young adolescents. The latest figures supplied, again by the Institute of Family Studies, show that 10 per cent of children have experienced the divorce of their parents by their tenth birthday and 18 per cent by their eighteenth birthday. The families most disadvantaged are those in the private rental market. Twenty per cent of Australian families are in the private rental market. They pay more and get less than other housing consumers. Payments by low income households for their housing in the private rental market place a large proportion in poverty. In turn, this places pressure on the family, often resulting in disastrous consequences. Overcrowding often exists. Approximately nine per cent of Australians experience overcrowding. If you live in a caravan, or if you are a family in a small flat or two families crammed together, you have little privacy-nowhere to escape the tensions within the household. Overcrowding can lead to dissension and conflict in families and that can lead to the mistreatment of children. (Quorum formed) I appreciate the attention of my colleagues. However, they already understand the problems of young homeless people. That is why this Bill is being brought in tonight. But, if one is young and homeless, not only does one not have shelter but also one does not belong anywhere. One has no base for friendships. Loneliness, despair and rejection are constant companions and one is vulnerable to exploitation as one grabs at any means of survival. In New South Wales alone it has been estimated by the Department of Youth and Community Services that there are 15,000 homeless young people. Just how many of those are 16 and 17-year-olds is not known. Even the figure of 15,000 is not conclusive. The extent of youth homelessness is just not known. The figure of 15,000 is based on occupancy and turnaway rates of the refuges. But, complete or not, the figure is alarming and cannot be ignored. We are not ignoring the problem. In 1985 the Federal Government introduced the supported accommodation assistance program which provided support accommodation and related support services to assist men, women and young people and their dependants who are permanently or temporarily homeless as a result of a crisis and who need assistance to move towards independent living. The program is jointly funded by the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories. Commonwealth expenditure in 1983-84 on programs for the homeless was $14.89m. In 1985-86 more than $40m is being provided under the program. In New South Wales under the program youth accommodation services receive $3.9m from the Commonwealth Government and $3.9m from the New South Wales Government. There are 95 services, with 43 crisis refuges, 38 medium term services, 10 long term services, two fostering services and one referral service, providing altogether an estimated 570 beds each night. In spite of all this, refuges constantly turn away young people due to lack of room while medium and long term services have waiting lists. So where do these homeless youth this Bill is seeking to help go to find shelter? We must remember they are unemployed, aged 16 and 17 and at the moment receiving $50 per week. We all know what a remarkable job the Labor Government has done to reduce the number of unemployed, however in the 12 months December 1984 to December 1985 unemployment for 15 to-19-year-olds actually rose by 3.76 per cent. It is this group of disadvantaged young people that this Bill seeks to assist. The allowance of course will not in itself solve their homelessness. Steps have to be taken on all levels of government to ensure that real options are available for this disadvantaged group in our society to secure affordable, decent housing. What is the appropriate housing for this particular group? As I mentioned before, they are 16- and 17-year-olds without a home or a job. Can we expect the landlords of Sydney, for example, to show compassion for these young people? I think not, besides they are not legally old enough to sign a lease. Because of their age and because of the problems that might have precipitated their leaving home, these young people need different types of housing from that suitable for those who leave home independently and have a job and access to the private rental market. Last year the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) tabled an excellent report entitled: `Study into homelessness and inadequate housing'. This study showed the extent of the problem of youth homelessness. It pointed out that the housing needs of young people are diverse, and a substantial group requires supported services linked to accommodation. This report suggest many services that can help those young people. Next year is the International Year of Shelter and it is to be hoped that resources will be allocated and a high priority given to solving the problem of youth homelessness. As the report I referred to points out, if we do not address these continuing inadequacies in housing it is not just the financial costs which will be great but also the social costs. Without adequate programs we are forcing many more kids onto the street and potentially into a life of drug taking and crime with increasing cost to the community. In the long run it is more cost effective to provide the funds needed for these programs. The Minister for Social Security understands the needs and the problems of these young people and the Government has acknowledged its responsibility and taken the necessary step to assist them with this Bill. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(10.13) —This Hawke socialist Government has done more to hurt pensioners and disabled people than any other government in the history of this nation. I will tell honourable members opposite how this has been done. This Government claims to look after pensioners and the disadvantaged, but the high interest rates-the policy of the greatest Treasurer in the world-the abolition of negative gearing, inflation that is higher than this nation has had for the last two decades and the introduction of a capital gains tax have hurt those people. All these measures have resulted in rents in this country going sky high. Just in case Government members do not know, I point out that some of the people in this nation who rent premises are low income people and people on pensions. These are the people that this Government purports to look after-the little people of the nation. This Government's policies, its assets test, its abolition of negative gearing and its high interest rates policies have caused rents to go sky high. Madam Speaker, I ask you: Where is the compassion of the Hawke Labor Government? Honourable members opposite should ask the pensioners of the country when they go to the supermarket whether the inflation rate is 9.2 per cent. They will soon tell honourable members opposite the rate of inflation. The rate of inflation is likely to be 15 per cent to 20 per cent on the goods and services that they buy. So the 9.2 per cent, which is a very high rate of inflation, is indeed a low rate when it comes to the effect that it has on pensioners. This is having a really adverse effect on pensioners' standards of living. This is the Government with the greatest Treasurer in the world and which supposedly looks after those who are disadvantaged-the low income earners and the pensioners. Even the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), and Premier Wran indicate that pensions-- Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.15) —We talk about compassion but I think it is about time that we started to get into the fashionable thinking of population and development. I think it is about time we started to realise that we in Australia have problems. I heard the remarks of the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh) when she talked about the poverty we have in Australia and the problems associated with those who cannot find homes. I appreciate that. Sometimes I think that parents should do a little more for some of these homeless youths. When we go overseas to Sri Lanka, India and Bangladesh we realise that outside Australia there is real poverty where little babies are washed in the gutters, where people do not have enough even to feed themselves. Let us get things into their right perspective. I know that charity begins at home but I am saying that we need to get involved in population and development. They are both inextricably bound. The Third World countries are suffering. Sometimes we forget about it. Sometimes I think we should get more involved. I know that the honourable member for Greenway (Mr Gorman) and the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) understand what I am talking about. We heard all the discussion about the Tamils; people were jumping on their hobby horses and getting involved. I know that honourable members opposite will say: `Bruce, do not say that'. We talk about our hobby horses but we should start to realise the dire plight of the Third World countries. We should start to get involved in it a little more. We should start to form committees in this Parliament. We should understand that the Third World countries also need assistance. As honourable members would know it is not very fashionable to talk about it. Mr Downer —They have reduced the aid program. Mr GOODLUCK —The Government has reduced the aid program. Anyway, that aside, a friend of mine in Tasmania announced this week the opening of the production of apple pies in the Huon. Dr Charlesworth —Are you his agent? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Perth will not interject. He is not in his own seat. Mr GOODLUCK —Madam Speaker, I really cannot concentrate tonight. There is so much noise and crossfire that I cannot get my thoughts into perspective. Honourable members opposite are not a bit sympathetic. Let me return to the apple industry in Tasmania. I have been talking to a particular person in Tasmania for years. I said to him: `Why do you not diversify? Why do you not get into apple pies?' This week he decided to get into apple pies. Once again Tasmania will be known as the apple isle and the apple pie isle. I intend to bring some of these apple pies to the Parliament; I am sure that I can sell them. I am sure that they could be sold in our cafeteria. Everybody likes apple pies, particularly ones that are made from Tasmanian apples. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) has a tree in the chamber. The way that environmentalists are going on we will not have any trees at all. Government members interjecting- Mr GOODLUCK —I ask honourable members opposite to listen. Each State has to try to develop and make certain that the products that are produced are promoted in this Parliament. That is terribly important. We can be salesmen not only for the people we represent but also for all Australia. This Parliament is the very forum where we can talk about goods that are produced. We can talk about the Third World because we have-- Mr Cadman —We could have an apple pie at home program. Mr GOODLUCK —Yes, we could. The honourable member gives me the pip. That is what we need to do. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(10.20) —Tonight I have taken the liberty to do something that I do not normally do, that is, to bring into the House an object which is difficult to incorporate in Hansard. It is a gum tree which I was proud to receive at the front of this House tonight, together with members from all parties in the House and the other place, from a group of people from the Campaign for Economic Justice. That group included a large number of children. Because most members of the House received one of these trees, I ask you, Madam Speaker, to investigate through your good offices a way in which they could be planted somewhere in the surroundings of the Parliament. These saplings were given to us to signify young children and the plight of young children in this country today. A few Opposition speakers referred to remarks I have made which have recently been reported in the media and other places. Mr Goodluck —You are talking about a limb. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr HAND —I do not run away from those comments at all. However, I ask members of the Opposition to refrain from laughing about an issue which I think is pretty serious, that is, the poverty of 800,000 young children. If honourable members want to turn this into a circus and if that is what people in Tasmania care about, they may go ahead and do it. This is a rather serious issue. Some 800,000 children in this country are living in incredible poverty and hardship and are not receiving the same benefits that we in this place or our children enjoy, and it is not fair. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck), talked about the plight of people in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and other places. There is no denying that incredible poverty exists in those places. But in a society such as ours, I repeat, it is not acceptable for any party, whether in government or opposition, to accept that 800,000 young people, children, are living in poverty. Mr Ian Cameron —But you are the Government, Gerry. What are you going to do about it? Mr HAND —Tomorrow when I get an opportunity to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill which we were discussing earlier I intend to show the Opposition why this high number of children exist at that level of poverty-because of the massive deterioration in living standards when those opposite were in government. The figures speak for themselves regarding the problem that we have had as a government, and the costs involved, in lifting those people out of that poverty level. Honourable members opposite bleat about their farmers and every other rip-off merchant that they talked about earlier. The tax avoiders, the corporate manipulators, the gamblers on the stock exchange are the people they care about. We on this side care about the poor. Opposition members do not have to tell us to go into the Caucus room and talk about the poor. We know how to talk about the poor because we talk to them at the front of Parliament House, in our electorate offices and in our electorates. If those opposite look at all of the figures on every single area-- Mr Goodluck —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr HAND —The honourable member has come out of his apple. What does he want to say? He has sat down again. He has gone back into his apple. The problem is that in every single area at which we looked we saw a massive decline in the living standards of people on benefits when honourable members opposite were in government. In percentage terms it has been massive. It is not good enough. I am not afraid to say that, and neither is anybody on this side of the House. We ought to be able to do more. The way we are going to do more is to get the people whom the Opposition constantly represents-the rip-off merchants. That is what this sapling is about. It is about the elimination of poverty and giving all kids a fair go. I am proud to receive it today along with my colleagues. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard if possible. Madam SPEAKER —I must tell the honourable member for Melbourne that there is no way it will be incorporated in Hansard. Most honourable members will not be able to take their trees home, so I will investigate what can be done with them. Mrs Kelly —I will have it. Madam SPEAKER —There you are; the honourable member has an offer. The honourable member for Canberra will have them. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.25) —Honourable members, particularly those from South Australia-of whom I see none in the House at the moment on the other side-will be aware that today is a black day for South Australia. It is somewhat ironical that we hear the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) speak in such heart-rending terms about poverty when his Government has done what it has done to the car workers and the car industry in South Australia. The decision that the Government has made in respect of the fringe benefits tax is certainly an amazing decision, given the course of events over the last 24 hours. After all, just yesterday in the Senate Senator Richardson, the numbers man of the Australian Labor Party and of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), I am told and I read in the newspapers, was speaking on behalf of Senator Button, the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, about the fringe benefits tax. He foreshadowed in his speech a meeting between the Government and the automobile industry-the managers of the various car companies. He told those people and the Senate that the issue was not over yet, that negotiations would still proceed and that it was not clear what the Government's decision was going to be. Twenty-four hours later the Cabinet met and decided to continue with the original proposal. Soon after that, we hear, there was a Caucus meeting where apparently the South Australian members made no real effort to overturn the anti-South Australian decision of the Government, with the simple effect that the car industry will now be in real trouble in South Australia and all over Australia. Mr Hodges —They'll stop working. Mr DOWNER —As the honourable member on my right has pointed out, there are clear indications that the Labor Party has some feeling against car workers, which is incomprehensible bearing in mind that most of the car workers in South Australia live in what are now Labor electorates, although I doubt very much they will be for very much longer. I must say that the performance of the South Australian Labor members of parliament has been particularly disappointing. Anyone who read the Adelaide News yesterday-a distinguished and unbiased newspaper-would have read the comments of people such as the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan), the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney), the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and even the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and a whole range of South Australian senators-there are a lot of them-about how they were going to change the fringe benefits tax. Mr Gayler —How many more? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Leichhardt is pushing it a bit. I suggest that he keep quiet. Mr DOWNER —The attitudes of the honourable member for Leichhardt are typical of people in the Labor Party. They think that the jobs of workers in the car industry are trivial matters, matters for just childish interjection in the Parliament. They are matters of real concern to those people who work in that industry, to their families, to their children and to the whole future of their lives. For all the waffle about compassion expressed by honourable members on the other side of the House, the reality is that the Government just does not care. Those South Australian members did nothing to overturn the decision of Caucus and nothing to overturn the decision of the Cabinet. The arrogant Treasurer (Mr Keating)-the man who so arrogantly drinks coffee in this House during debates-completely ignored the pleas of the automobile industry, the South Australian car workers and even the South Australian State Government. I think that those South Australian Labor members ought to show a bit more respect for their constituents. They ought to show a bit more respect for people and a bit less respect for the niceties of party politics. Those people can do that in a very honest and very honourable way: They can do it by voting against the fringe benefits tax in this House and in the Senate. The Labor Party will not expel them; it cannot expel every member of the Labor Party from South Australia. It will let the matter go by. Those people will do a deal for the auto workers in South Australia and a deal for their State if they vote with us against the Government's pernicious measure, its measure which attacks the working class of Australia and which is apparently much beloved by that arrogant Treasurer, so seldom seen in this House except to sneer and make degrading comments about other members of the Parliament. It is a serious matter. In South Australia 4,500 will lose their jobs-not according to me, not according to the Liberal Party of Australia, but according to the Premier of South Australia, who is a member of the Labor Party. Australia-wide 10,000 people will be thrown out of work. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(10.30) —I bring before this Parliament tonight what I consider to be a very bitter discrimination which is an indictment of the standards of our community. We have seen two sets of protests in this nation's capital recently. Several months ago an aggrieved farmer dumped wheat in front of Parliament House. He was arrested and released after the proceedings because it was considered that he had suffered enough by being arrested by the police. On 18 March the People for Public Housing came to Canberra. They are a number of Australians citizens who for all intents and purposes are homeless tonight or are without secure day to day accommodation. They demonstrated their concern for their own homeless situation and that of many others like them. A number of the demonstrators moved from Parliament House to the display centre on the construction site of the new Parliament House on Capital Hill where a sit-in occurred. The Chief Executive Officer of the Parliament House Construction Authority complained to the Australian Federal Police of the trespass by these demonstrators. Accordingly, the AFP was obliged to ask the demonstrators to leave. When 18 demonstrators refused to leave at the direction of the AFP, on the complaint of the Parliament House Construction Authority, they were arrested, gaoled and remanded until the next day, 19 March. There have been occasions in Canberra lately where farmers have dumped wheat and fowls in the Treasury offices and the Commonwealth Bank and no action has been called for or taken against them. A few weeks ago in Canberra we saw with our own eyes a series of demonstrations by farmers-people from the National Farmers Federation and the Livestock and Grain Producers Association-who call themselves poor. Many of them drove to Canberra in their fancy cars-Fairlanes, Mercedes Benz and Range Rovers. Many flew to Canberra in their private aircraft. On Tuesday, 8 April those people blockaded Canberra Airport on Commonwealth property at 6 a.m. with 86 vehicles. All 86 vehicles were locked and totally blocked vehicle access to and from the airport. The Director of the airport contacted the AFP, which advised him that nothing could be done because the AFP did not have enough equipment to remove the vehicles. The AFP advised the Director that he should let the demonstration run its course. No action was taken because no equipment was available. The owners of the vehicles were not even booked for obstructing the road. That is the difference-they were not even booked for leaving their cars locked on a road. The farmers took the same action at the Commonwealth car pool at Fyshwick. The media-radio, television and news- papers-extensively covered the demonstration of the farmers and the rural crisis. It does this continually but virtually ignores the poverty of the two million to three million Australians, including 800,000 children, who live in poverty in this so-called lucky country. While the media concentrates so much sympathy and attention on the 170,000 farmers, many of whom are genuinely in poverty, it virtually ignores the day to day life of poverty, fear, risk and depression of that same number of Australians who will be without shelter tonight and will be sleeping out in the cold or in very insecure shelter. Those people are not farmers; they are the majority of the super poor of this country. How are those people treated by our great system of justice? The farmers blockaded the airport and other property, yet no action was taken. The homeless blockaded a public building-the site of the new Parliament House-and they were thrown into gaol. What do people in a situation of poverty have to do to have their poverty recognised? To demonstrate under the protection of the country, when the People for Public Housing next come to Canberra do they have to wear R.M. Williams boots and broad-brimmed hats, drive modern cars and trucks, blockade the airport and have a fresh, warm barnyard odour about them to prevent being arrested, to escape from being gaoled or prosecuted or to gain extensive media coverage? What is the worth of justice in this country if it discriminates at all levels of society-the community, the media and the law-against poor people? It is about time that this Parliament, the media and the community realised the basic denial of justice that goes on against the real super poor of this country, in particular the 100,000 people tonight who are without shelter and without a home. One in five Australian adults and one in five Australian children live day by day in abject poverty, living on 70c a day. Members of Parliament get $95 a day, yet these kids live on 70c a day and have no hope for the future, as the generation before them had no hope. The Bicentennial and the new and permanent Parliament House are a bitter reminder to the two million to three million Australians-one in five Australians-that the lucky country is not for them unless we in this Parliament who are more privileged and society in general do something now to share the common wealth of Australia-think of the word, `Commonwealth'. It is about time that really poor people, the two million to three million poor Australians, got decent and fair treatment by this Parliament, the media and the law of this country. Mr CONQUEST(Hinkler)(10.35) —I would like to raise some problems that are facing some of my constituents in the electorate of Hinkler. Last year a citrus factory was established in Mundubbera in the Burnett district. The establishment of that factory was welcomed by the citrus growers because it had a twofold effect. It took the second grade fruit away from the markets, because it was being put through the juicer, which had a beneficial effect on the markets because premium fruit was being placed there. Unfortunately, last year's joy is beginning to sour as this project faces unfair competition from the cheap citrus concentrates from Brazil. Continuing viability under such trading policies will be difficult; therefore one must question whether this Government has its priorities right. It is not a question of addressing a trade imbalance. Figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the 1984-85 year clearly indicated that Brazil enjoyed a most favourable trading position with Australia. Those statistics showed that Brazilian exports to Australia totalled some $A257,372,000, while exports from this nation to Brazil were $108,205,000. This trade imbalance has favoured Brazil to varying degrees since the 1973-74 year, but it certainly has been there. The fruit juice trade from Brazil is the second highest import by value from that country into Australia. Fruit juice is not the only imported commodity affecting rural producers in the Hinkler electorate. The import quota of passionfruit pulp from the Pacific forum countries has recently been increased from 100,000 litres to 200,000 litres and has created immense problems for local producers. Mr Gayler —That is very interesting. Mr CONQUEST —I dare say that some of these problems are being felt in the electorate of Leichhardt. The growers cannot understand the policy of this Government and I find it very hard to understand also. Pineapple imports, especially from the Philippines, are seemingly being dumped on the Australian market. When we consider the two-year period required to grow a new crop of pineapples, it is indeed a matter of concern to those who have already committed their plantings to this produce. I understand that Hawaiian based groups have established in the Philippines to take advantage of the favoured position that country enjoys in exports to Australia. A review of these policies must be initiated with some urgency if we are to maintain some viability under the current adverse situation faced by rural producers. I implore the Government in all sincerity to initiate a review of policies which so disadvantage our hard-pressed rural sector in relation to generous import quotas and foreign aid programs. The economic effect on rural communities will impact on other service and supplier groups in Australia if changes are not initiated. I know that what I bring to this adjournment debate this evening is something that is shared by lots of members on both sides of the House who represent rural electorates. I feel that it is imperative that the Government has a look at this problem. If we are to keep favouring the Pacific forum countries and giving favoured treatment to countries such as Brazil and the Philippines and if we are to allow people from the Hawaiian islands to move into the Philippines to set up factories when they pay their growers only $US45 per tonne of produce, while farmers in Australia need something like $A125 per tonne to break even, there is no way in the world that Australian farmers can compete. I believe that the pineapples are being dumped on the Australian market. The behaviour of this Government should be to take notice of what I have said and to initiate some inquiry to see whether it can reverse the situation. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(10.40) —I rise tonight to speak on a matter that I believe is of some sensitivity. I refer to what is called burn money. Why would I want to be talking about burn money? I wrote to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) on 1 February 1985 about this issue. It is an issue that concerns the aged and senior citizens in our community. I am sure, Madam Speaker, that as you go around your electorate, as I do in mine, one conclusion you reach very readily is that the elderly in our community have one desire-that is, to die in peace and in dignity and without causing any hardship to their relatives or immediate friends. So it is that a lot of pensioners set aside what they call burn money-money which they have in a savings account and which they invariably never touch, so that in the event of their death their funeral expenses can be covered. But that causes problems. Whilst it might not be touched by the individual pensioner, it can have an effect on a variety of forms of assistance available from the State Government of New South Wales. For example, if pensioners want spectacles or want to be eligible for benefits including transport, blankets, footwear and clothing, each benefit is subject to a special means test. The amounts of money involved are quite modest. In relation to the provision of spectacles, the threshold is $500 for a single person or $1,000 for a married couple. That burn money is automatically taken into consideration and so, of course, pensioners who have that money set aside are denied the benefit. Having the bureaucracy insist that they eat into their burn money hurts them very much. I regret that the Minister for Social Security fails to understand and appreciate this problem, which impacts so much on the dignity of pensioners in my electorate. It is all very well for him to say in a letter, as he did, that pre-paid funeral expenses are not included in the assets test. But I am not talking about the basic pension or in fact about the assistance that the Federal Government provides; I am talking about State Government benefits. All that I ask of the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Security is that they consider setting up within the banking system special accounts that would facilitate pensioners and the elderly in our community making these arrangements which they see as so important. In that way the money can be quarantined; but, as it is quarantined and not accessible until it is required for the purpose for which it was set aside, it ought not be taken into account under various State Government legislation. I thought that was a fairly simple proposition and, as I said, it was one of the first matters I raised as the new member for Chifley. I have been around to see my pensioners and I have been to the nursing homes, and I have a great respect and affection for these people. I bitterly regret that, notwithstanding quite lengthy correspondence between me and the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Security, the Minister for Social Security should write to me on 22 January in these terms: I am replying to your letter of 1 October 1985 to the Treasurer concerning the establishment of a fund for pensioners' funeral expenses. I interpose that this was obviously not the first letter but a follow-up letter. He continued: In my previous reply of 1 April 1985, I outlined my department's legislation in this area and explained the treatment of pre-paid funeral expenses under the means test. While I appreciate your concern, there is nothing further that I can usefully add on this subject. A lot of people, quite rightly, do not have confidence in the funds that have been established for pre-paid funeral expenses. Indeed, we have a sorry history of those funds being rorted and of people not being able to pay their expenses. I make this plea to the Ministers concerned: Please reconsider this matter not only for the people in my electorate but for all the elderly and pensioners throughout Australia. Surely, with all the innovations we have made to the financial system, we can make this financial innovation. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.45) —Tonight we have seen a concerted effort by the Left of the Australian Labor Party to influence the Cabinet to increase junior unemployment benefits. I take it that that is the campaign that is being waged by the Left. It has failed in its obligations to its own Party and I believe it will fail in this program, no matter how worthy it is. Let me point out why. Speaker after speaker tonight has presented the needs of young people. What have those opposite done to ensure that the training program their Government has instigated will be successful? We had the grand announcements and glossy brochures. What has resulted? About 200 jobs have been created for trainees. There might be 1,000 jobs by the end of the year, instead of the 10,000 that have been promised. Mr Milton —Two thousand. Mr CADMAN —The 2,000 figure is up in the air. It does not represent people at work, and the honourable member knows that. It is time that those opposite applied their efforts to doing something for the young people of Australia. What happened with the marvellous phone-in program-the million dollar phonathon, the cost of which the Freedom from Hunger Campaign or World Vision of Australia would be very pleased to receive. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was sitting at the end of the telephone listening to young people. That will not result in action. There was another glossy document this week. What does it say? What will the Government do? Its efforts in this area are doomed to failure because it has not achieved things in other areas. What happened with the drugs program? Money was not squandered; it was just missed. What is the result of the drugs program on the ground for young people? All the Australian Labor Party has done is inform every household that it knows there is a drug problem. How will lives be saved? How will young people be brought back by rehabilitation? Where are the worthwhile educational programs for young people when they are faced with the drug problem and their lives are under threat? Nothing in the drugs program will assist them. What are those opposite doing to convince the union movement that youth wages need to be looked at, as do youth wages need to be looked at, as do youth employment conditions? The left wing controlled unions are the ones that freeze young people out of opportunities. They insist on quotas for apprentices and they set conditions for employment of young people which are so high and so heavy in their demands on employers that employers will not take on young people. If those opposite are really serious about jobs for young people they need to convince the union movement and employers too to work together to employ more young people. On the broader issues, how is inflation, running at the rate that it is today, affecting our young people on unemployment benefits? The Government has a policy which positively encourages the growth in inflation and the extra costs that people on fixed wages or incomes have to bear. How do they cope with inflation week by week? The cost of everything they buy and everything they do is increasing at a massive rate each year, far above that of any other comparable country. Yet Government members are prepared as a Party to let the Treasurer (Mr Keating) day by day paint a false and sunshine picture of Australia and where it is heading. What about the impact of the interest rates on young home buyers and people with young families? The sense of security, safety and well-being of the family has been destroyed by the policies of the Australian Labor Party. Let us consider the impact of high interest rates on rental costs. Young people who are homeless and young couples who cannot afford to buy a house are now being frozen out of the rental market. They cannot afford the rents that are being charged. The Government has let the housing commissions and the housing trusts of Australia fall into rack and ruin. It says nothing about that. Those opposite should get to work on those issues and policies in which they know the Government is failing. The only person who says that the Government is succeeding is the Treasurer, who every day brings in his cup of coffee and, with complete disregard for the real needs of Australia, sits back and admires his antiques and his fine presentation of words-words that are irrelevant in today's economy. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.50) —As I was not given the chance to speak on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill this morning because the Opposition could not find sufficient speakers who were interested in Aboriginal matters, I am taking the opportunity tonight to express my strong support for Aboriginal land rights. Based on the Federal Australian Labor Party policy platform, there are five principles in relation to Aboriginal land rights which must be observed by the Federal Government. They are, firstly, that Aboriginal land should be held under inalienable freehold title; secondly, the protection of sacred sites; thirdly, Aboriginal control in respect of mining on Aboriginal land; fourthly, access to mining royalty equivalents; and, finally, compensation for lost land to be negotiated. It is important for Labor parliamentarians to declare their support for the five principles because of the anger that has been generated among Aboriginal communities and their supporters as a result of Federal Government proposals to take away the veto rights of the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory in relation to exploration and mining on their land. I can only trust that it is not the intention of the Government to water down that veto in any way and in this respect the Bill, which was approved by the House today, was a model to be followed. Over the last year I have received a large number of letters from individuals and groups expressing their concern and anger at the Federal Government's apparent intention to forsake the five principles mentioned earlier in my speech. In discussing the principles of Aboriginal land rights, it is impossible to overlook the deplorable attitude of the Burke Labor Government in Western Australia, which embraces a total acceptance of the vested interests of miners and pastoralists in Western Australia based on a campaign of prejudice, ignorance and deliberate misinformation. It is interesting that, whilst the Burke Labor Government is prepared to accept the hysterical and bigoted views of those who oppose land rights for Aboriginal people, it is also prepared to accept the fact that farmers and graziers have the right to withhold consent for exploration on their land. The New South Wales, Victorian and South Australian Labor governments have all shown that they are willing to grant secure title to Aboriginal people. In South Australia, in particular, the Labor Government has transferred 176,000 square kilometres of land to direct Aboriginal ownership. Even in Queensland some progress has been made in discussions between the State and Federal governments in relation to Aboriginal reserve communities, although serious problems still remain with regard to the great majority of the Aboriginal people living outside the reserves. In Tasmania no progress has been made at all and in Western Australia the attitude of the Labor Premier towards the rights of Aboriginal people is a disgrace. The problem with Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia is that vested interests in those States are not prepared to recognise that the Aboriginal people possess a spiritual and cultural heritage based on land ownership. It is just not possible to separate Aboriginal culture from the physical features of the land from which their culture has been derived. Professor Colin Tatz, in his essay entitled `Aboriginals and Uranium', has drawn attention to the views of Aboriginal leaders in relation to what the Aboriginal people call `shifting the djang' or sacred sites. In relation to the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory he states: Oenpelli traditional owners were `worried about the land breaking up with machines', `worried about the land being destroyed, about changing rivers, making of holes, changing the land forms'. Several talked of a despoiling of the hunting grounds, of `things' being too close to sacred sites: `white men don't care-they do what they like'. Professor Tatz quotes the words of Dick Malwagu, Chairman of the Minjilang Council. I want to quote his words too, because, as Colin Tatz says, these words say it all. In the words of Dick Malwagu: How much a time we got to tell the government that [is] our djang, that we can't dig here or use it or knock some trees or push the rock away . . . Be nothing left of this land. We can't stay any more longer because you doing a lot of damage on our country . . . You know I said we losing, we losing this country, but up there this northern part is getting smaller and smaller . . . I wonder 50-60 years time what will happen this Northern Territory after this mob . . . When you smashing a djang, well, just like a church you moving church away or things like that. Well! Church its got to go away. And it got to take the story with him . . . When you shifting you shifting our story too. Same as like a church. We believe church story. I suppose you can believe our story too . . . These most eloquent words explain why the Aboriginal people need land rights. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.55) —I rise to speak in this adjournment debate because I have been forced to my feet by the divisive and destructive statements made earlier by the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh). Government members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr ANDREW —Thank you, Madam Speaker. What has been an affront to me in the House tonight has been the implication that the only people who know anything about poverty, compassion or suffering happen to reside on the Government side of the House. That implication has been less than generous to every honourable member of this House of Parliament. It is a fallacy for anyone to believe that only honourable members on the other side of the House know anything about the reality of physical work. It is a fallacy for anyone to suggest that there is anything less than a bipartisan concern in this chamber for poverty in Australia and, in fact, as the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) has said, for poverty right across the entire globe. In the short time I have had to prepare my few remarks I have not been able to rush out to get a copy of the Merchant of Venice but what was it that Shylock said about breathing the same air, eating the same food and bleeding the same blood? That is true in this chamber. Here all parties share a concern for poverty and a compassion for those in need. I have been affronted by the suggestion that people on this side of the House know nothing about the problems that other Australians face and about the problems that can be solved either by the better sharing of our resources or, let me add, by the equally positive step of creating more resources to be shared. The record of conservative governments from the present opposition parties is a record of progressive rates of taxation-simply underscoring the point that the philosophy of those on this side of the House is a belief that the resources of all Australians ought to be shared. Whether we have the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) making the point about expanding the car market and jobs for car workers, or the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) or the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) making the point about the needs of farmers, we in fact have a plea to help the export industries of Australia so as to create more wealth. It was grossly unfair of the honourable member for Jagajaga to come into this House and suggest in any way that the farmers of Australia were here protesting in Canberra because they chose to be or that they arrived here in luxury cars, aeroplanes or trucks. We all saw those cars and trucks, and precious few aeroplanes, I might add. None of them were as luxurious as the cars that we expect to carry us to and from the House. None of them, I suspect, were any more luxurious then, if as luxurious as, the cars that honourable members take for granted in their own electorates. It is quite wrong to suggest that physical work is unknown on this side of the House or that the problems facing the poor in the community are unknown to those of us on this side of the House. The honourable member for Wannon and the honourable member for Corangamite and I have all known what it is to work in rural Australia. We have all known what it is to earn income purely by hard work. I have no doubt that that same statement can be made about the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). What in fact do honourable members think that one discovers when one is working day in and day out with people? One discovers that one needs a co-operative relationship with people. There one learns what it is to share the work burden. In fact, it is a sharing on which no particular party in this House can claim to have a monopoly. Finally, I must say that I was most distressed to hear honourable members opposite suggest that there could be any monopoly on compassion. Governments cannot be compassionate. Real compassion comes only when individual Australians make an individual sacrifice for the sake of people who are their fellow brothers and sisters. It is not possible to be compassionate when one is merely redistributing other people's resources. Real compassion comes when one is redistributing what is in one's pocket. Therefore, I want to say that it has been quite wrong and deceitful for honourable members on the other side of the House to suggest tonight that on this side of the House there is no measure of compassion and no understanding of what poverty is all about. We happen to share with the Government a real concern for poverty in Australia. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Uren to present a Bill for an Act to provide financial assistance for local government by means of grants to the States and the Northern Territory. Mr Burr to move- That this House urges- (1) the political party that wins the next and subsequent elections to appoint all Ministers of the Executive Government from the Members of the House of Representatives, and (2) the Senate to further expand its committee system and to adopt greater powers of investigation and enquiry. Mr Burr to move- That this House calls on the Government to hold a referendum in conjunction with the next general election to- (1) extend the term of the House of Representatives to 4 years and the term of the Senate to 8 years, and (2) to provide that the date of elections be held on a fixed day at 4 yearly intervals. Mr Keating to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the notional application of fringe benefits tax in relation to benefits provided in respect of the employment of Commonwealth employees. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 1 May 1986: Fisheries Act-Plan of Management-No. 5-Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery (Amendment). Public Service Act-Determinations-1986-Nos. 16, 26. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 2522) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) Does the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority responsible to the Minister, provide grants to organisations operating in the ACT. (2) Do such grants have a requirement that any organisation so funded be registered under the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance 1953; if so, what steps are taken by the Minister's Department to ensure that the funded organisation has complied with the Ordinance before any grant is made. (3) Does the Minister's Department or statutory authority carry out a search of the register at the ACT Corporate Affairs Commission. (4) If the search discloses a failure to comply with the ACT Associations Incorporation Ordinance, what steps are taken to ensure that the matter is remedied by those responsible for administration of the Ordinance, or the incorporated association. (5) Have all incorporated associations within the ACT funded by the Minister's Department or statutory authority complied with the Ordinance requirements for lodging particulars of financial affairs and balance sheets annually. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: DEPARTMENT OF ARTS, HERITAGE & ENVIRONMENT (1) Yes. Grants were made to organisations operating in the ACT in the 1985-1986 financial year under the following programs: Program of Grant to Voluntary Conservation Organisations National Estate Grants Program (co-ordinated by DAHE and administered by relevant State/Territory authorities) National Tree Program Australian Biological Resources Study Participatory Program (Grants under the last two programs were made to government organisations and institutions only). In addition, grants-in-aid were provided to 5 organis- ations operating in the ACT. (2) The above-listed programs of grants do not have specific requirement that recipient organisations be incorporated. However, in accordance with Department of Finance Directions, non-government organisations receiving grants are to be properly constituted and to acquit their grant, and many are in fact incorporated. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) As mentioned in (2) above, a condition of grants being given to organisations under the above schemes is that recipients produce satisfactory evidence that the funds provided were expended for the purpose for which assistance was given. Satisfactory evidence is an audited statement, or a certificate that the purpose and conditions were complied with, together with a statement of expenditure audited by a public accountant. AUSTRALIA COUNCIL (1) Yes. Grants have been approved to 18 non- government and 6 government organisations in the ACT in the period 1 July 1985 to 28 February 1986. (2) There is not a specific requirement that recipient organisations be incorporated. However, guidelines for this grants program recommend that recipient organis- ations be incorporated and require that organisations receiving grants be properly constituted and acquit the grant. (3) No. (4) Not applicable. (5) As mentioned in (2) above, a condition of grants being given to organisations under the above schemes is that recipients produce satisfactory evidence that the funds provided were expended for the purpose for which assistance was given. Satisfactory evidence is an audited statement, or a certificate that the purpose and conditions were complied with, together with a statement of expenditure audited by a public accountant. GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK AUTHORITY (1) Yes. Grants have been made to two organisations operating in the ACT during 1985-86. Both were government organisations. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable. (Question No. 3004) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What action has he taken to adopt the 1980 UNESCO Recommendation on the Status of the Artist and to give effect to its provisions. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: UNESCO Recommendations are essentially intended to serve as guidelines against which nations may assess their progress. They impose no formal requirements upon Member States. The 1980 Recommendation concerning the Status of the Artist is directed towards improving the moral, economic and social position of artists, with special reference to education, training, employment, living conditions, freedom of expression, social security and contribution to public life. The Government's expressed cultural policies are consistent with the broad aims of the Recommendation. (Question No. 3153) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Is it a fact that the numbers of Australian Defence Force Reserve service personnel have declined from 31,849 in 1984 to 26,334 in 1985; if so what are the reasons for this decline. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The numbers of reserve personnel varied by the following numbers: Service...Variation 1984-1985 a. Navy... 85 b. Army... 5175 c. Air Force... 255 (2) The most significant variation was experienced by the Army Reserve. This is attributed in part to a direction in 1980 to expand the Army Reserve to 30,000: Expansion progressed beyond the authorised level; and control measures were introduced to contain the Army Reserve within its authorised ceiling of 30,000. (3) These controls were based primarily on discharge of non-effective manpower, reduced recruiting effort and revised criteria for efficiency. (4) These controls began to take effect in 1983-84 and continued through 1984-85, whilst recruiting was maintained at reduced levels. (Question No. 3648) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: To what extent will the recent decision to refurbish the present fleet of M113s and not to produce a new light armoured vehicle ultimately reduce the deployability of the Australian Army. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Army is currently developing its proposal for the modification of the M113 and intends to present a submission for departmental consideration later this year. Army is aware of the need to retain the M113's existing compatibility with strategic transport assets. The other aspect of deployment is that related to battlefield or tactical mobility. The Army proposal will provide for a tactical mobility capability for the type of contingencies considered most credible. The M113's strategic and tactical mobility will not be reduced and hence the decision not to produce a new light armoured vehicle at this time, will not adversely affect the deployability of the Australian Army. (Question No. 3702) Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 April 1986: (1) Does the infra red suppression equipment fitted to the Black Hawk helicopter interfere with the performance of the T700 engine. (2) How does the drag penalty incurred by the Black Hawk compare with that of other helicopters being considered for acquisition by the Defence Forces. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am advised that Black Hawk flight test results show that the infra red suppression equipment reduces T700 turbine engine power by up to 2.2 per cent whereas bench (not flight) tests on the Makila 1A1 engine fitted to the Super Puma have revealed engine power losses of up to 2.5 per cent. (2) I am also advised that the `hover' infra red suppression system for the Black Hawk is an integral part of the engine exhaust assembly and only has a minimal effect on aircraft performance and drag. Maximum speed reduction at gross mission weight and hot and high conditions is only 2.2 knots. The Super Puma's kit is mounted on each side of the upper cowling near the main gear box and is covered by a fairing. This arrangement increases aerodynamic drag and decreases the Super Puma's maximum and normal operating speeds by up to 10 knots. (Question No. 3730) Mr Maher asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: What was the estimated cost of disregarding disability pension as income for recipients of a service pension in 1984-85. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The cost of disregarding disability pension as income for service pension purposes in 1984-85 was estimated to be of the order of $93m.