Thursday, 22 May 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —Yesterday the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) raised as a matter of privilege a response he had received from an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs to a request the honourable member had made under the Freedom of Information Act. In particular, the question of possible intimidation of members in respect of requests under the Act was raised. In order to accord precedence to a motion with respect to a matter of privilege, I must be satisfied that the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity, and that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been established. I am satisfied that the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity. The House may recall that related matters were raised in October 1985 and my predecessor expressed certain views on them. I have considered the honourable member's remarks and I have examined the copy of the letter he received from the Department of Foreign Affairs. I note that no special provisions have apparently been provided in the Act for requests from members, and so, to that extent, there is no provision of the Act to be breached. Going to the question of possible obstruction or intimidation, I understand that members may feel that the arrangements being followed may serve to impede them. Nevertheless, having considered the matter, and having examined the particular words complained of, I do not believe that any action has been taken, or a statement made, which would constitute a prima facie breach of privilege or contempt. I also remind the House of the general reluctance of the House to extend the ambit of privilege and the belief that the penal jurisdiction should be invoked as sparingly as possible and only when it is considered essential in order to protect the House and its members from substantial interference. I am not prepared to accord precedence to a motion in respect of the matter. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney General)(10.04) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. In May last year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) presented the final reports of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies-RCASIA-to the House and stated the Government's initial reaction to them. Since then, considerable effort has been devoted to implementing most of the reforms proposed by Mr Justice Hope and to developing the three Bills I am introducing today. Madam Speaker, of necessity much of the work of the intelligence and security community is conducted confidentially and goes unnoticed. This intelligence and security community rarely receives public commendation, but its errors, and speculation about its activities, have a way of generating lurid headlines. Much of this speculation cannot be officially debated. It is an irony that the very confidentiality of the agencies' work seems to inspire demands to expose and publicise their activities and that the trust placed in them to conduct their work in confidence creates, in some, a want of trust. Speculation and ill-advised criticism can negatively affect public perceptions of the agencies. In recognition of this, and in an attempt to counter it, we have seen over the last decade two major reviews of the intelligence and security community pointing to the need for clearer public statements of purpose, more visibility, greater oversight and accountability-all aimed at demystifying and increasing public confidence in the agencies. In response to the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security in the mid-seventies, the Fraser Government took some necessary steps towards making the intelligence and security community more accountable and meshing it with the wider processes of government. For example, the charter of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation was clarified in legislation and a Security Appeals Tribunal was created; the existence of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, and the Defence Signals Directorate, was formally acknowledged; and bipartisan arrangements were put in place to keep the Opposition informed of significant intelligence and security issues. A change in government has not altered the character of these arrangements, although we strongly believe that further steps are needed to hold the agencies more accountable and to increase public trust in their activities. This Government has already announced some reforms, in response to the second of the royal commissions by Mr Justice Hope. These, together with the draft legislation being introduced today, will more clearly delineate the functions of the agencies and make them more accountable. I shall not repeat here all the measures announced in the Prime Minister's tabling statement to this House on 22 May 1985. Since then action has been taken to implement a number of the other recommendations. For example: We have revised ASIS's directive to exclude preparation or training for covert action in the form of special operations or special political action. This will prevent the type of training that led to the Sheraton Hotel incident. On 27 November 1985 my colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) announced details of action taken in response to the Royal Commission's recommendation to improve consultation between the Joint Intelligence Organisation and its major customers. The Office of Security and Intelligence Co-ordination has been established within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to provide an independent secretariat to the Security Committee of Cabinet and the Secretaries Committee on Intelligence and Security. We have also established a National Intelligence Committee, chaired by the Office of National Assessments, and including senior representatives of policy departments and JIO. The Committee advises ONA on the development of its work program, monitors ONA's product and advises it on intelligence needs and priorities. Additionally, the Government recognises that, under existing arrangements, responsibility for protective security is dispersed among a number of departments and agencies, and none has responsibility for co-ordinating policy in this area. In response to specific RCASIA recommendations the Prime Minister has therefore decided to allocate this responsibility to the Department of the Special Minister of State, which will convene a new high level committee to co-ordinate protective security policy and physical and administrative security measures. There are other measures which, for security reasons, we will not be announcing. A significant number of key recommendations of the Royal Commission require legislation. The three Bills I am introducing today will allow considerably increased scrutiny of the intelligence and security agencies. But the Government has also ensured that their effectiveness is in no way diminished. Indeed, we are satisfied that, as a result of these measures, public confidence in the agencies will be increased and as a consequence they will become more effective. The measures set out in the Bills are based on the Government's firm belief that the agencies should be accountable. Following close examination, they have been accepted by the agencies. Before moving to the details of the proposals, I would like again to express the Government's appreciation to Mr Justice Hope. The Government has now considered, and in large part acted upon, all of the recommendations in the Royal Commission's reports. As we have looked more closely at his reports, which deal with some particularly sensitive issues, our appreciation of his contribution has grown. As Attorney-General I shall present shortly a Bill incorporating a number of major reforms relating to ASIO. These include more careful definition and limitation of ASIO's functions and activities, and the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee on ASIO. I now turn to the proposal for an independent watchdog over all the agencies, which stems from the Australian Labor Party submission to the Royal Commission, and which was further developed by Mr Justice Hope. The Government's aims in establishing an Office of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security include assisting Ministers with the oversight and review of: Firstly, the compliance with the law by Australian intelligence and security agencies; secondly, the propriety of their particular activities; thirdly, the effectiveness and appropriateness of certain procedures; and, finally, certain other aspects of the activities and procedures of some of those agencies, for example, concerning employee grievances. Our aims also include assisting Ministers in ensuring that the activities of the agencies are consistent with human rights and allowing for review of certain directions given to ASIO by the Attorney-General. While the emphasis is on the Inspector- General's assistance to Ministers, elements of the Inspector-General's work will be available for parliamentary and public scrutiny. Provision is made for an annual report to be furnished to the Prime Minister, with a copy to the Leader of the Opposition. Edited as necessary on grounds of security, defence, international relations and privacy, the report will be laid before each House of the Parliament. A person of exceptional skills and particular qualities will be required for the Office. Being a new position, having a pivotal role in Australia's security and intelligence machinery, its occupant will deal with highly sensitive issues and respond to a range of ministerial and public requests. In recognition of the importance of this appointment, the Bill requires that before a recommendation on appointment is made to the Governor-General, the Prime Minister shall consult with the Leader of the Opposition. As the Prime Minister mentioned in May last year, the Office will be within his portfolio. Initially, it will comprise a small staff, but the Government will closely monitor its work load to ensure that staffing remains adequate. Turning to the functions of the Inspector-General, honourable members will note that the Bill distinguishes between the agencies, both in terms of the Inspector-General's functions and the mechanisms by which inquiries can be instigated. The distinctions are consistent with the functions ascribed to the Inspector-General in the various RCASIA reports, and reflect the different purposes of ASIO as our domestic security intelligence organisation, ASIS and DSD as collectors of external intelligence, and JIO and ONA as assessors of intelligence. These differing purposes are reflected in the mechanisms for initiating inquiries. For example, the Inspector-General may initiate his own inquiries into the legality or propriety of activities of ASIO, ASIS or DSD, but only the responsible Minister may initiate such an inquiry with respect to the activities of JIO or ONA. As Mr Justice Hope points out, questions of legality and propriety rarely arise with respect to ONA and JIO, which do not collect intelligence themselves but simply assess intelligence collected by others. Similarly, the Inspector-General may initiate an inquiry into ASIO's procedures for ensuring legality and propriety, but not into those of the other agencies whose operations rarely have a direct impact on individual Australians. Despite these differences, the Bill confers a number of important functions on the Inspector-General with respect to all of the agencies. Specifically, the Inspector-General will inquire into the propriety of the agencies' activities; their compliance with Australian law, ministerial directions or guidelines; human rights; and their procedures relating to grievances of employees. In recognition of his overall responsibility for intelligence and security matters the Prime Minister, in addition to the responsible Ministers, will be able to request the Inspector-General to inquire into any one or more of the agencies. There are two additional functions that relate to ASIO alone, in recognition of its potential impact on individual Australians. Honourable members will recollect that, in his report on the Combe-Ivanov affair in December 1983, Mr Justice Hope pointed out that circumstances can arise where ASIO produces a report adverse to the interests of an individual Australian and there is no existing right of review unless he or she is a public servant. His Honour recommended a statutory procedure whereby an independent body decides whether and, if so, how much a person should be provided with an opportunity to be heard. On tabling that report, the Prime Minister welcomed the recommendation; this Bill includes provision for the Inspector-General to make such inquiries. The second additional function relates to directions given to ASIO by the Attorney-General concerning the collection or communication of intelligence about a particular individual. In the ASIO Amendment Bill, which I shall introduce shortly, a number of changes are proposed to section 8 of the ASIO Act to clarify the nature and extent of ministerial control of the Organisation. One element of those changes will provide that the Attorney cannot override the opinion of the Director-General on the question of whether the collection or communication of intelligence concerning a particular individual is justified on security grounds, except by a direction in writing which sets out the Attorney's reasons. The Inspector-General Bill gives the Inspector-General the function of inquiring into such directions, specifically into whether collection is justified by reason of its relevance to security or whether communication would be for a purpose relevant to security. The Government agrees with Mr Justice Hope that the combination of these measures gives recognition to the paramountcy of ministerial control, whilst providing a safeguard to inhibit and bring to light any misuse of that control. I mentioned that in respect of each of the agencies the Inspector-General is given the function of inquiring into matters relating to human rights. Under the provisions of the Bill, the Inspector-General is to perform the functions that would otherwise be the responsibility of the Human Rights Commission in relation to possible human rights breaches by the agencies-including privacy, and discrimination on grounds of race, sex and so on. This was not directly addressed by the Royal Commission, but the Government believes it to be an appropriate corollary to inquiry into the propriety of the agencies' activities. We intend to propose similar provisions in respect of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission once it is established. By referring possible violations of human rights by the agencies to the Inspector-General, the Bill seeks to avoid duplication and meet the need for such matters to be examined by an independent authority with unrestricted access to classified information. With the approval of the responsible Minister the Inspector-General will be able to inquire into a matter that occurred outside Australia or before the commencement of the Act. In deciding that ministerial approval will be required to do so, the Government has taken account of the prospective work load of the Inspector-General and the fact that Mr Justice Hope has conducted two major royal commissions over recent years, both of which invited public submissions. It is a fundamental tradition of our system of government that Ministers themselves are, and should remain, accountable to Parliament. Bearing in mind also that the Office of the Inspector-General is being created to assist Ministers in their oversight of the agencies, the Inspector-General is not to inquire into actions taken by Ministers except in relation to the specific ministerial directions to ASIO I have already addressed. The Government also wishes to avoid establishing the Inspector-General as a further avenue of appeal on matters that can already be taken to the Security Appeals Tribunal. The Inspector- General shall therefore not inquire into a matter that can be reviewed by that Tribunal. The clauses of the Bill dealing with complaints are in the main comparable with those in other administrative review legislation. Amongst other things, the Bill enables a complaint to be made orally or in writing; gives the Inspector-General customary discretions not to proceed with inquiries into complaints under specified circumstances; and provides special arrangements for persons in custody. Similarly, the clauses dealing with inquiries also draw on the models provided by other administrative review legislation and I do not intend to elaborate on them. An important stipulation, given the sensitive national interests to be covered in this jurisdiction, is that the Inspector-General shall inform the responsible Minister and agency head before commencing an inquiry. During the course of inquiries the Inspector-General may also discuss relevant matters with the responsible Minister or the Prime Minister. We believe the maintenance of trust and good communications between all parties involved will be essential to the effective operation of the Office of the Inspector-General. The consultative process built into the conduct of inquiries carries over into the preparation of reports. Draft reports are to be provided to the head of an agency and provision is made for relevant comments by the agency head to be included in the final report. Final reports are to be provided to the responsible Minister, to the agency head, and, if commissioned by the Prime Minister, to the Prime Minister. The Inspector-General is required to include in a report the reasons for conclusions and recommendations. In addition, where a report concludes that a person has been adversely affected by action taken by an agency, the Inspector-General may recommend compensation. Whenever an inquiry has been undertaken in response to a complaint, the complaint is to be given a written response by the Inspector-General, subject to agreement with the responsible Minister that the terms of the response will not jeopardise security, defence or international relations. The Inspector-General will be able to monitor action-or inaction-arising from reports. Where an agency head proposes taking action as a result of a report, the Inspector-General is to be given details. If the Inspector-General believes this action to be inadequate, he or she may discuss the matter with the responsible Minister and provide a report to the Prime Minister. Finally, the Bill contains a number of standard miscellaneous and administrative provisions. The Bill provides for the Inspector-General's terms and conditions of appointment, remuneration, leave, resignation, termination of appointment, disclosure of interests and staff. It goes without saying that heavy emphasis is also placed on the need for the Inspector-General and staff to safeguard appropriately and maintain the secrets entrusted to them. Madam Speaker, the creation of an Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is a key recommendation of Mr Justice Hope and constitutes a vital component of the Government's reform package developed for the intelligence and security area. The Government embraced the concept and, having now translated it into draft legislation, is more than ever convinced that the creation of the Office is a highly beneficial addition to the machinery of government. We believe that the legislation establishes an Office which will, to paraphrase the Royal Commissioner, provide an independent oversight of the agencies' activities, give the public a greater assurance that those activities are proper ones, and clear the agencies, or bring them to task, as the case may be, if allegations of improper conduct are made against them. Following the tabling of the Royal Commission reports last year the Opposition indicated its broad support for the establishment of an Inspector-General. I am confident that when it has had a chance to consider the legislation it will reaffirm its support. Madam Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill, and the related Inspector-General and Intelligence and Security (Consequential Amendments) Bills, stem from the Government's consideration of the report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. It is designed to clarify and define the role and powers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and to strengthen the arrangements for its control and accountability. In particular, the Bill provides, very much along the lines recommended by Mr Justice Hope, for significant changes to clarify ASIO's jurisdiction, and an additional function in regard to the obtaining of foreign intelligence in Australia; a strengthening of ministerial control over ASIO; and changes in the provisions concerning the Security Appeals Tribunal. As foreshadowed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his statement on 22 May 1985 on the tabling of the report of the Royal Commission, provision is also made for the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee to oversight certain of ASIO's activities. The opportunity has been taken to deal with a number of other matters that have come to light as a result of experience in the operation of the ASIO Act. I turn now to the details of the Bill. ASIO Jurisdiction and Powers The Government has given close consideration, in the light of the report of the Royal Commission, to the statutory definition of ASIO's role and powers. It is of great importance, to ASIO itself as well as to those charged with oversighting its activities and to the community at large, that ASIO's statutory charter should be defined appropriately and as clearly as possible. The Bill provides for a number of changes to the ASIO Act which are designed to clarify ASIO's jurisdiction, and to define more closely and precisely matters of legitimate security interest. Clause 3 proposes the following significant changes to the key definition of `security' in section 4 of the Act: The term `subversion' is deleted from the definition of `security' and relevant activities are more tightly defined and comprehended within the concept of `politically motivated violence'. Without detracting from ASIO's effectiveness, the definition will concentrate ASIO's attention more clearly on those violent activities, going beyond the scope of lawful advocacy and dissent, directed at undermining Australia's system of government. The new definition of politically motivated violence also covers terrorism and related activities, of the kind covered by the present definition of `terrorism', and makes it clear that threats of or acts causing unlawful harm to achieve a political end, are included. The term `active measures of foreign intervention' is deleted from the definition of `security' and replaced by a more tightly constructed definition of `act of foreign interference' along the lines suggested by Mr Justice Hope. The new definition spells out more clearly the kind of activity which, because it is of foreign origin, is a legitimate matter of security concern. Clause 9 provides for the inclusion in the legislation of a new provision-section 17A-which declares that the ASIO Act shall not limit the right of persons to engage in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, and that the exercise of that right shall not, by itself, be regarded as prejudicial to security. The functions of ASIO are to be construed accordingly. The Government regards this as an important statement of principle to guide ASIO in the often difficult exercise of its discretions under the Act. Another change flows from the acceptance by the Government of Mr Justice Hope's recommendation that ASIO should be empowered to collect foreign intelligence in Australia; that is, intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of foreign powers. Mr Justice Hope noted that there was no provision in Australian legislation providing for the collection of such intelligence, which it is in the national interest for Australia to acquire, and recommended that the legal authority to do so be given to ASIO. Such intelligence will only be obtained, pursuant to the new function which clause 8 will add to the statement of ASIO's functions in section 17, under the written warrant of the Attorney- General, following a request by the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister for Defence. Specific provision is made to prevent the use of the relevant powers for the purpose of collecting information concerning an Australian citizen, permanent resident or company. Strict controls will be placed on the communication of foreign intelligence under the new powers and provision is made for conditions minimising the obtaining and retention of information not publicly available concerning Australian citizens or permanent residents. Clause 9 also proposes amendment of section 17 to put beyond doubt ASIO's power to provide advice on matters of protective security, that is, on administrative or physical measures for the protection of people, information or property. Mention should also be made in this context of the proposed provision, to which I shall refer again, empowering the Minister to lay down guidelines to be observed by ASIO. There will be clear scope for such guidelines to be given in regard to the exercise of its functions under aspects of the definition of `security' which necessarily are expressed in fairly broad terms. In regard to one aspect of security, that of `politically motivated violence', the Bill goes further and requires such guidelines to be laid down by the Minister. Ministerial Control Ministerial control is a fundamental element of the arrangements for the control and accountability of ASIO. The Organisation is accountable through the Director-General of Security to the Attorney-General and through him to the Parliament. Mr Justice Hope noted in his report the importance, for the oversight of ASIO's activities in the public interest and ASIO's accountability through the Parliament to the public, of the effectiveness of its ministerial control. He also noted the need for an appropriate balance to be struck between the ability of a government to exercise control over ASIO and the highly important principle that ASIO should be politically impartial. The Bill contains in clause 5 provisions, along the lines proposed by Mr Justice Hope, which are designed to strengthen ministerial control over ASIO and to achieve this necessary balance. An amendment to section 8 makes it clear that, in the performance of his functions under the Act, the Director-General is subject to the directions of the Minister. Any such direction shall, if requested, be put in writing. The amendment ensures that the Minister's authority over the organisation is ultimately paramount. As stated by Mr Justice Hope, the Minister, as the elected office-holder accountable for ASIO and its activities to Parliament and the public, is placed in a position where he or she is able in the end to determine, and assume responsibility for, activities pertaining to the security of Australia. There are two necessary qualifications to this provision. The first is that the Minister is not empowered to override the opinion of the Director-General concerning the nature of the advice which should be given by the Organisation. The second is that the Minister is not empowered to override the opinion of the Director-General as to whether the collection or communication of intelligence concerning a particular individual is or is not justified, except by a written direction to the Director-General setting out his reasons. This extends the area of ministerial control but, in order to guard against the possibility of misuse for political purposes, there are appropriate safeguards. The Minister is required in such a case to give a copy of his direction, including his reasons, to both the Prime Minister and the Inspector-General. The Inspector-General is to be required by his legislation to address the appropriateness of any such direction in his report. As already mentioned, the Act will also be amended to insert a new provision authorising the Minister to give written guidelines to the Director-General in respect of the performance by ASIO of any of its statutory functions and powers. The Minister will thus be able to play a positive role in regulating ASIO's conduct. In particular, in areas of the legislation involving broad discretion and judgment the Minister will be able to set appropriate standards. As the Prime Minister observed when tabling Mr Justice Hope's report, the areas to be covered by guidelines will include intelligence collection, targeting, review of file holdings and the extent to which ASIO should, from time to time, be involved in investigating activities relating to the hindering of Defence Force functions. The Bill provides that the Minister is to table guidelines in Parliament, subject to the deletion of sensitive material. Where appropriate, guidelines not tabled in Parliament will be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee. A copy of the guidelines, without deletion, will be made available to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). Security Appeals Tribunal The Security Appeals Tribunal plays an important role in the oversight of ASIO, by reviewing security assessments made by ASIO about individuals. Clauses 18 to 31 of the Bill propose a number of changes to the provisions concerning the review of adverse or qualified ASIO security assessments. Principally, they support and strengthen the present position that ASIO security assessments are advisory only, and should form only part of the information on which a security related decision is based. The amendments also include more precise definitions of adverse and qualified security assessments and a discretion in the Tribunal to make an order against the Commonwealth for costs reasonably incurred by an applicant who is successful, or substantially successful, in his application for review. The Intelligence and Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill also provides for an extension of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in respect of security assessments for deportation purposes. Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO The Government believes that existing oversight and accountability measures for ASIO will be improved by involving the Parliament to a greater extent in those measures. The Bill therefore proposes the establishment of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO. Because the Committee will be required to deal on a regular basis with various kinds of sensitive information, and because of the special considerations which must apply whenever information of that sort is made available, the Government believes it appropriate for the Committee to be set up by legislation and for that legislation to specifically delineate the powers, functions and obligations of the Committee. The Committee will comprise seven members, and will have a majority of Government members and a majority of members from the House of Representatives. To achieve this result, the Bill provides that Committee members will be appointed as follows: For the House of Representatives, four members will be appointed by resolution of the House on the nomination of the Prime Minister. For the Senate, three members will be appointed by resolution of the Senate on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Before nominations are made, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the Senate are required to consult with the leader of each recognised political party represented in the House or the Senate, and they are required in making nominations to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that the composition of the Committee takes into account the representation of recognised political parties in the Parliament. Ministers are not eligible for appointment. Broadly speaking, the functions of the Committee are to review aspects of the activities of ASIO that are referred to it either by the Minister or by either House of the Parliament, and to report to Parliament thereon. The Bill also enables the Committee to ask the Minister to refer a particular matter to it. It is not the function of the Committee to operate as a grievance mechanism. That is the function of the Inspector-General whose annual report will, however, be available to the Parliament. Nor will it be a function of the Committee to review operationally sensitive matters, or certain other matters set out in the Bill. The Bill makes provision for the protection of intelligence and security information. The Bill also makes provision empowering the Committee to obtain information and documents, including information and documents from ASIO. The Government believes that the provisions provide a proper balance between greater parliamentary involvement in the oversight of ASIO and the limits of the Executive's ability, having in mind its responsibilities in regard to security matters, to make sensitive information more widely accessible. The Government believes that the creation of the proposed Parliamentary Joint Committee, independent as it is of the Executive Government, will, in conjunction with the other measures outlined, provide an effective and appropriate scheme of public accountability for ASIO. Other Matters The Bill also makes provision for extension of the offence in section 92, of making public the identity of an ASIO officer to cover, subject to appropriate exceptions, disclosure of the identity of former officers. It provides for changes to the provisions governing employment of staff by ASIO. Terms and conditions of employment will be put on a statutory basis, instead of the present unsatisfactory contractual arrangements. The Bill provides for a statutory requirement for the tabling in Parliament of an annual report. The Government has adopted the practice of making a report to Parliament each year on ASIO's activities. That practice will now be given a legislative base. The Director-General is to be given the power to delegate his powers relating to staff or financial management, placing him in a similar position to secretaries of Commonwealth departments, and assisting in the management of the organisation. Financial Impact Statement The creation of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO will have a minor impact on expenditure in providing a small staff, and secure premises, for the Committee. Giving the Security Appeals Tribunal a discretion to make an order against the Commonwealth for costs reasonably incurred by a successful applicant will have a minimal impact on expenditure. This may, however, be offset by savings which will result from requiring an applicant to indicate what matters are in dispute. This is likely to result in shorter hearings. Conclusion This Bill results from a thorough review by the Government of ASIO's role and powers. The Government has been greatly assisted in this review by the relevant findings and recommendations of Mr Justice Hope in the report of the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. The Government believes that its legislative proposals, by clarifying and stating ASIO's functions in appropriate terms, any by providing for more effective control and oversight, will facilitate the effective discharge by ASIO of its functions and will provide significant assurance to the community as to the way in which ASIO carries out its functions. The new review mechanisms do not in any way detract from the responsibilities of the Director-General of Security and the Minister for ensuring that ASIO is well managed and in its activities preserves a proper balance between the security of the nation and the individual rights of its citizens. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Lionel Bowen, and read a first time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.35) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill provides for an amendment to the Crimes Act 1914, and for the amendment of other Acts as a consequence of the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Bill. Principal features of the Bill are as follows: The Audit Act 1901 is to be amended to provide for the addition of further details to the certificate supplied by the Minister each year to the Auditor-General dealing with the Organisation's exempt account. That certificate will be required to state that the exempt accounts have been subject to internal inspection and examination, and whether any irregularity has been disclosed, and resolved or rectified; Amendment of the offence of sedition in the Crimes Act 1914 to remove anachronistic provisions and to provide that the writing et cetera of seditious words is not an offence unless done with an intent to create violence or public disturbance or disorder. This implements a recommendation by Mr Justice Hope; The exemption of documents in the possession of, or received from, the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982; Amendment of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 to provide that a complaint about an act or practice of a security or intelligence agency is to be investigated by the Inspector-General instead of the Commission; Amendment of the Migration Act 1958 to provide that the Minister can only order the deportation of a person from Australia on security grounds when he has been furnished with an adverse security assessment from ASIO. Where, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the person has been informed of the adverse assessment, the security assessment will be reviewable by the Security Appeals Tribunal. Where the Tribunal does not confirm the adverse assessment the Minister will not be able to order deportation. This amendment will enable the security grounds on which a deportation decision is based to be fully reviewed by an independent tribunal; and Finally there are a number of amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979, corresponding to changes made to the special powers provisions of the ASIO Act, to take account of the new ASIO function of collecting foreign intelligence in Australia. Financial Impact Statement The addition to the jurisdiction of the Security Appeals Tribunal may lead to a slight increase in the cost of that Tribunal. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.39) —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of working accommodation and warehousing for 51st Supply Battalion, Guildford. The proposed works are for the construction of a replacement working and storage facility for the 51st Supply Battalion. This Battalion provides supply service support to army units in Western Australia and is currently dispersed at six separate localities. The proposal enables the Battalion to be concentrated at Guildford and requires the existing inadequate facilities, some of which were constructed in 1916, to be replaced and expanded. The works proposed under this submission comprise a bulk storage warehouse, associated stores buildings and workshops, a single storey headquarters facility, an amenities building, a control post and associated engineering services and site works. The estimated cost of the proposal is $8.2m at April 1986 prices. It is intended that construction will commence early in 1987 and it is anticipated that the project will have a construction period of 12 months. I table plans of the proposed work and commend the motion to the House. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.41) —I thank the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) for making available to me information on the motion that he has just moved. The Opposition does not oppose this motion, but a few remarks on budgetary procedures might seem appropriate. Under normal circumstances, the defence budget would be prepared by the Department of Defence and would be approved by the Parliament as part of the Budget. The Minister, in this case the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), would then have the authority of Parliament to authorise any capital works or expenditures that were approved in the Budget. Presumably, the Minister would in turn delegate to his Department and to the Defence Services the authority to spend the funds. The amounts of money spent would depend on the responsibilities and seniority of the personnel involved. These personnel would then have responsibility for spending the funds up to the amounts and within the authorities delegated to them. They would not need to defer to their superiors unless there was an overrun on the relevant expenditure. In the case of the working accommodation and warehouse for the 51st Battalion at Guildford, responsibility for carrying out this capital work would presumably rest with a regional officer or local base commander. The person responsible could then arrange for the calling of tenders, make the decision on who should carry out the works and supervise their completion without the need for referring the matter either to his superiors or, in this case, all the way back to the Parliament. An objection might be raised that if the delegation process were carried too far, it would result in some kind of deterioration of standards, but there is no reason why the local person responsible should not need to be required to carry out the work to standards that are established by the Department of Defence. It is, after all, that Department that will use the facilities. This is a perfect example of bureaucratic waste. Here we have the Parliament, the Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of Defence all involved in a project worth $8.2m. Presumably, a number of bureaucrats will be required to spend time and money making sure that the final approval for this work meets all the rules and regulations that have been established when there is absolutely no reason why the local base commander could not take full responsibility for doing the job. Having said all that, I would ask the Minister to ensure that he requests the parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works to ensure that in its deliberations on this matter it makes certain that in the design and construction activities the role of the private sector is maximised. As I said earlier, the Opposition does not oppose this motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 21 May. The Bill. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Young)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 1 May, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Young) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 1 May, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Young) read a third time. Debate resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I understand it is the intention of the House to debate this order of the day concurrently with orders of the day Nos 6 and 7. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that the course to be followed. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(10.48) —These three Bills-the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill-authorise retrospective cost supplementation of grants made annually to the education sector by the Commonwealth Government. As such, the Opposition will not oppose them. They are routine insofar as cost supplementation Bills of this sort are brought down by the Government-any government-every year. However, they are symbolic in a very important sense of this Government's entire approach to education policy, an approach which is marginal, incremental, with a bit tacked on to the edge of the system here and there and with little regard for or understanding of the state of the health of the education system in Australia. This Government has a depressing lack of vision for the education sector and the people-students, teachers, academics and administrators-within it. It is completely void of any view as to how the system might better fulfil the needs of the consumers of its services, how it might become a more dynamic force in our society and economy, and how individual Australians and Australia as a whole could be more greatly enriched by its operation. This Government is incapable of meeting the challenges so patently evident, not only within the education system, but between that system, its user groups and the wider community. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) spends more time denying that there are problems in our schools and tertiary institutions than she spends on any other aspect of her ministerial duties. This is becoming less and less tenable as each month goes by. In each and every individual part of the education system, parents students and educators are facing difficulties of a chronic nature. As I have said, the Bills under consideration today provide retrospective cost supplementation for schools and tertiary institutions. I intend to take this opportunity to outline some of the factors preventing those sectors from developing their potential more fully. The principal factor in education is, of course, the regressive, restrictive and vindictive education policy stance adopted by this Government, expressed in a number of instances with extremely adverse consequences for the hundreds of thousands of students and the thousands of educators involved in Australia's education effort. It is in the Government's schools policy that the most covert and vicious aspects of its education agenda are to be seen. The so-called truce attained through that sham of all shams, `the historic settlement', to use the Minister's words, between the Government and non-government school sectors, is coming under increasing strain as the Minister's thinly concealed goals become clear. What are her goals? I would like to impart them to the Minister and to honourable members opposite and to impart a brutally plain understanding of her intentions and the methods by which she seeks to attain them. To do so I would like to use a very simple analogy. The Minister for Education has adopted and quietly implemented over the past year a pincer approach to squeeze the non-government school sector in a way which will really hurt the quality of Australian education in future years. She has put the clamps on the non-government school sector in a way which covertly, bureaucratically and underhandedly will deliver her goal, which has been with her for many years. The twin arms of this pincer with which she is squeezing the non-government school community are directed firstly to staunching the flow of school students from the government to the non-government school sector; and, secondly, to drawing the non-government sector even deeper into the Government's bureaucratic web of control over schooling in Australia, This pincer mechanism, designed to put the lid on the growth of non-government schooling, inevitably will lead to lower standards in our education system in both the government and non-government sectors. It is abhorrent not just in the way it restricts the right of parents to choose the sort of schooling they want for their children, and not just in the way it seeks to homogenise Australian schooling into the one grey mass of mediocrity; it is abhorrent as well to all of us who care about our children's future and who care about Australia's future. It is appalling to those of us who want to ensure that everybody within the education system has the opportunity to acquire a decent school education, to get a strong grounding in the basic skills, and to maximise their further knowledge and training on that firm base. How will the Minister's attempt to put the lid on the growth of the non-government school sector lower school standards? Let me spell it out. Her desire to limit family choice in education, to frustrate the expansion of non-government schooling to meet the demand that exists for it in the community and to homogenise the school system under one set of rigid bureaucratic rules and regulations, will wipe out the positive diversity which exists within the system. It will kill the remaining remnants of healthy competition within the system, competition which produces an impetus for achievement and for excellence by the students and teachers in it. If the Minister's attempts to level down the system, to force every school in the system into the same dull grey mould, continue to be embodied in public policy for much longer, the system will be dragged down to new performance lows. The Minister has two principal policy tools for the pursuit of her goals-her policy on new non-government schools and the new accountability provisions which she is presently inflicting on all non-government schools. As I have stated in this House on other occasions, the Government's new non-government school policy marks a significant historical break with the school funding policies of both the Fraser and Whitlam governments. As a result of the Government's policy on new non-government schools all government schools receive a base level of Commonwealth support in respect of each pupil but all non-government schools do not. This fundamentally punitive, unjust stance on the Government's part is not designed to deny funding assistance to well-resourced established independent schools which continue to receive a basic grant in respect of each student from the Commonwealth. Rather, it is designed to discourage the establishment of new non-government schools, to make it as difficult as possible for new institutions to be built and developed to meet the growing community demand for non-government schooling which exists in every Australian suburb. By these means the Government is trying to fence into the government school system students whose families for a whole range of reasons would prefer and would be willing to make the material sacrifices necessary to pay for non-government schooling for their children. The Minister has become more sophisticated in her techniques but she is no less determined to achieve her regressive and conformist ends. While she was unable to starve existing non-government schools of funds, because of mass community outrage at her blatantly hostile attack on them and the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) settled in to pour oil on troubled waters, she has not relinquished her program of forcing parents to educate their children in government schools rather than in the non-government school sector. This time, instead of starving existing schools of Commonwealth funding support, she has embarked on a course designed to prevent as many new non-government schools as possible from opening their doors to students flowing from the government to the non-government school sector. Queues and waiting lists of families waiting for their children to be admitted to non-government schools grow longer month after month. Government policy on new non-government schools is designed to make the queues and the time spent on waiting lists longer and longer. It is designed with the sole intention of denying families real educational choice, of frustrating the fulfilment of their legitimate right to gain access to the sort of education they believe is best for their children. It is a contemptible, pathetic policy. Instead of allowing positive and vigorous competition, both within and between the government and non-government school sectors, which encourages optimal levels of educational achievement throughout the system and free choice for parents within it, the Government is attempting to erect around the non-government school sector a wall which prevents families from exercising their right to choose a non-government school for their children if that is their parental wish. Parents throughout Australia who have been stuck on waiting lists for months, in some cases years, should know that it is the Government which is to blame for their plight, that it is Government policy which is currently preventing them from exercising their legitimate right to educational choice. On top of the denial of choice, the Government has embarked on a campaign to bring non-government schools which are established and which are receiving Commonwealth funding support more closely under the control of the Commonwealth Government. The accountability provisions which have been foisted upon non-government schools are a classic case of the thin end of the wedge. The Government, through the grilling on accountability grounds of non-government schools which are supposed to be independent and free from the levelling down mentality which emanates from the educational bureaucracy over which the Minister presides, is slowly but surely trying to force non-government schools under the same umbrella of control under which government schools have been labouring for years. If the Minister succeeds in this campaign, if she does manage to bring the dead hand of bureaucratic control over the non-government school community through the Government's accountability policy, it will mean the end of all the things which are the very strength of the non-government school sector-diversity, excellence and competitive vigour. The same restrictive, regressive, tunnel-visioned approach is evident in the Government's tertiary education policies. One of the scandals of this Government's administration of Australia's education system is that there is an alarming and growing gap between the number of young people academically eligible for entry to higher education institutions, intellectually capable of completing higher education studies, and the number of higher education places annually open to them. In 1985 the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee estimated that almost 30,000 young Australians were denied the opportunity to undertake tertiary study despite their competence to benefit from it. How can this Government and this Minister maintain any credibility at all while this Government foams at the mouth in its Priority One self-promotion campaign and, at the same time, presides over a policy which is locking thousands of willing and intellectually able young people out of the tertiary system? I understand that the 1986 figures, on knockbacks from higher education institutions, will be of the same order-30,000 young people will be locked out of the system and thrown on to the labour market at a time of still rising youth unemployment. What does the Government offer? Thin and tatty labour market programs, like the Australian traineeship system, which it cannot even get off the ground successfully. We, on this side of the House, are vitally concerned to see that the Government, as long as it remains in office, gets behind a massive renewal of Australia's education system. We regard the restoration of real choice within the school system as absolutely vital, and until governments provide genuine assistance to families to help them exercise that choice, the words of politicians who speak in this place about a commitment to higher educational standards will be very hollow indeed. The coalition intends to provide that assistance. We regard the resolution of the crisis of capacity presently racking our tertiary education system as essential, not just to ensure the fullest opportunity for life fulfilment in individual Australians but to ensure the optimal development of the nation as a whole. It is vital that the gap between those who wish to pursue higher education and the number of places available be reduced. This Government cannot deliver the goods when it comes to ensuring real choice in the school system. It presides over a chronically worsening shortage of higher education places for all those who deserve them. It shows a complete contempt for those people concerned to lift educational standards throughout the system, in non-government and government schools. On the matter of education, at both the school and higher education level, this Government has not, cannot, and will not deliver. The Liberal and National parties can and will, and over the next couple of months I look forward to the opportunity to outline details of our plans to revitalise Australia's education system. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(11.05) —The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) sailed into the education debate on the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill with his ancient and tattered rhetorical flags flying above the sinking ship of privatisation. I think it is really rather interesting that, in all the discussion, there was not one single idea that was new, not one single idea that was creative and, in fact, not one single idea. We had the abuse of the Public Service as a supporting argument for the benefits of privatisation. There is neither logic nor even good manners in that sort of an argument. I think we need to have a look at just what is going on. These Bills, which amend the States grants Acts providing funds to the States for educational purposes, are funding supplementations. They will be providing $93.43m for tertiary education assistance this year. Of that $66.5m is for 1986 and $31.5m is for 1987 as supplementation for unanticipated rising costs. The supplementation applies to a very wide range of institutions and institutional purposes. The size of the range indicates the enormous flexibility and variety in the tertiary sector, which is funded and encouraged by this Government. If one looks at the schedules one finds universities, colleges of advanced education, technical and further education colleges, building supplementation, resources supplementation and assistance to new courses. We find all sorts of things in the schedules that really put the lie to this argument about grey people being the same, and so on. It sounds exactly like a lot of school uniforms of my acquaintance. In the context of this legislation, which deals with the funding of tertiary institutions, I would like to have a look at and perhaps comment on an alternative method of funding which has been put up at a Young Liberals meeting by the honourable member for Tangney and I assume it represents something of the Opposition's policy on funding. What we have in this policy about funding tertiary institutions is vouchers. Twenty years ago Milton Friedman thought, amongst other things, that the voucher system in schools in the United States of America would lead to racial tolerance and all kinds of things. In fact, nobody has been really terribly interested in it since then. It has had a few minor trials and has been found to be fairly disastrous. To propose this as a method for funding our universities and tertiary institutions in this country is really rather strange. Not only is it threadbare and ancient, but also it is certainly proposed without any consideration at all of the analysis of that funding proposal over the last 20 years. I think we need to have another look at it. If it is going to raise its dear old grey and curly head again let us find out what would happen to our universities if we abandoned the system of triennium funding with cost supplementation-the cost supplementation that these Bills are about. The Opposition, not untypically I think, has brushed off this nice, ancient piece of monetarist baggage to present as the centrepiece of its new education policy. I think we have to understand that all the policies the Opposition will be producing will have something to do with the notion that, if the Government does not own it, it will be better run. So far, nobody has provided any evidence for that peculiar and ideologically far-out proposition. What is the terrific idea anyway? Away with State grants, away with recurrent per capita funding, equal opportunities funding, funding for Aboriginal programs and funding for research centres. Away with the system by which students nominate for preferred courses in institutions and receive offers, depending on their results, and the entrance standards required by the institution, and in come vouchers which, for this purpose, can be called scholarships or any piece of paper that we like-even tram tickets. What do students do with the voucher? They take it to their preferred institution to request enrolment for their preferred courses. The difference is that the student runs around without being able, through the offer system, to be notified of which courses at which institutions the student's results will provide entry to. `Students', tootles the Opposition spokesman on education, `will be able to study where they like. Queensland students will be able to study in Western Australia'. That may be of enormous benefit to Queenslanders; I am not aware of the differing standards there. That is great stuff except for the fact that students can already apply to the institutions of their choice and, if their results are acceptable, receive offers from all of them. A student of my fairly close acquaintance who applied for a course of her choice at two New South Wales universities, two Victorian universities and one South Australian university received offers from all of them. She did not need a voucher; she did not need to shop around. She simply had to have acceptable results for the faculties to which she applied. If a student's results are not acceptable and if there is not a place for that student, no amount of vouchers or so-called scholarships will improve the results or increase the number of places. The problems associated with providing enough places of the right kind in our tertiary institutions are a matter of finance, an awareness of the needs of the nation and the appropriate school programs. Although this Government has financed an extra 28,000 places in tertiary institutions to be filled between 1983 and 1987-a contrast, I might say, to the previous Government's record of a real cut of 4.9 per cent in tertiary funding-there is a long way to go to achieve an optimum level of tertiary education within the community. This cannot be achieved without rational planning, without considerations of efficiency and without taking into account community needs and labour force requirements. The present system of funding takes these things into account as well as student demand. Funding is predictable and supplemented regularly through the mechanisms of these Bills for cost increases. What kind of shambles would we have if the Opposition policy were to be implemented? Institutions would be thrown into chaos, having to meet fluctuating student demand, based quite often on the fashion of the moment. Demand, rather than proper forward planning would control courses. In order to make the voucher system work, entrance to all institutions would have to be on a fee-paying basis. Institutions with a high student demand for one reason or another would charge fees above the nominal voucher allowance and student performance would become less important than student pockets. These fees would then be claimed as a tax rebate, adding yet another means of tax evasion to those protected by the previous Government. This policy is all of a piece-ancient, tatty and protecting tax evaders. Where would the cost supplementation end up? Would students be given another voucher to top up course costs? Would we have a major voucher and a few minor vouchers? Would students have a book of vouchers that they tore off if they remembered to keep the book and it went with them, if nobody stole it? What kind of bureaucracy would that involve? I suggest that it would involve about 17,000 times more paper than it does now. Campuses, say the Opposition, will be able to take in anyone they desire. The result of that is clear. There would be a proliferation of high fee, mickey mouse campuses for kids with full pockets and empty heads. We have seen that so many times overseas. We know that that is the result of that kind of operation. Who eventually pays the price for that kind of nonsense? It is the nation as a whole and every individual taxpayer. Our higher education institutions have a deservedly high reputation. Student merit, tested by mechanisms which are quite properly a matter of continuing debate, is the sole criterion for entry for the majority of students. Some places are provided for students who have not, for many reasons, been able to demonstrate their potential through the standard mechanisms. Mature-age students can gain places based on their experience and potential. Can we provide cost-supplemented, appropriate colours of vouchers for varying kinds of students? Where does this kind of madness end? This is the most amazing paper chase of a policy that has ever been put up under the guise of a plan for improving education and educational access. Where the standards come in this argument, heaven only knows. It may be instructive for us to look at the flexibility of course design and offering that already exists in the system. We find in Schedule 20 grants and supplements for electrical studies, food science, fashion courses, computing, small business courses, art and design, rural studies and child care courses. That is a small and random sample of the courses which are supported by this Government in technical and further education colleges only. Schedule 20 deals with TAFE and not with universities or colleges of advanced education. Let us consider what we want our higher education institutions to be doing. What we do not want them to be doing is proliferating easy courses for people with doubtful results but the ability to pay for their courses. We do not want the whole system to run totally out of control on some kind of a false market basis where by a person who can pay gets some kind of a tertiary education and a person who cannot pay might get a voucher system which may or may not assist with the costs of his or her course for the length of that course. When one thinks about six-year courses, for example, and the difference in course costs from year 1 to year 6, one begins to see how difficult this whole proposition is. If we believe that the present three-layer system of tertiary education does not have sufficient flexibility, that the multi-campuses all over this nation-in the cities, the provincial cities and the country-do not provide sufficient geographic flexibility, we are looking at a system that I do not believe the nation could possibly support. To try to put the final halt on the voucher system nonsense, I wish to read a criticism of the voucher system as it was proposed in England by Peter Newsam in the Times `Educational Supplement' of 2 May 1986. He comments that, some time in the 15th century, William of Ockham delivered a philosophical statement to which we all need to pay attention-that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity and unnecessary bits should be removed by the process known now as Ockham's razor. He says: Vouchers are not ends in themselves. They are a means of achieving something . . . . better education for those who believe in education ones . . . . Education vouchers, the faithful argue, would do three things in particular: they would cause proper financial discipline to be applied to schools- or in this case, tertiary institutions- they would increase the power of parents to choose the education they want for their children; and they would improve standards . . . . With the sound of William stropping away in the background, let us consider each of these important claims in turn. Vouchers can be in real money or pretend money. Before education vouchers can be real money, the schools- or institutions- to which they relate must charge fees. There are certain political difficulties, as we all know, in making all schools or institutions fee paying, which is probably why the voucher system keeps coming up every now and again but sinking. To discuss real money vouchers without first explaining that they are needed to pay real fees is like introducing people to safety nets before mentioning that one is proposing to throw them off a cliff. I think this Opposition policy, which pretends to add flexibility and choice to the funding of tertiary institutions, is quite genuinely an attempt to throw people off a cliff. Would a real money voucher system enforce financial discipline? It would do so only if the vouchers were to be the sole source of funding. Then what would happen to cost supplementation? The point is made very clearly by Peter Newsam that, if an institution is full and has no places to offer, there is no need for vouchers. If it is not full we will not need vouchers because there will be plenty of applicants for the positions. If it is full no applicants will be accepted, so the voucher system is a nonsense. Let us consider the proposition that we might even improve standards of education by the use of this privatisation mechanism. I believe that not one piece of evidence has ever been shown to support the proposition that an enormous change in the funding system of our higher education institutions would add anything that is not already there. It is possible for students to go to the institution of their choice. If they are able to support themselves away from home they have that choice already, and they have always had it. It is possible for them to find a course that suits their own particular needs and the needs of the part of the labour market in which they want to get involved. A huge range of those courses exists throughout tertiary institutions in this country. The grey hand of bureaucracy-if such a thing exists-will hardly be lifted by a system that includes masses of individuals running around waving bits of paper at the system. As for campuses being able to take in anyone they desire, as I have said before that clearly leads to a mickey-mousing of the system such as we find in other countries where it is possible for students who are unable, on academic merit, to enter tertiary institutions of a more reputable kind after six months, a year or two years of so-called study to wave pieces of paper that say Bachelor of Guppy Raising. This country does not need any bachelor's degrees in guppy raising or in any similar field. We need to retain the reputation of our higher education institutions; we need to retain the predictability of funding for those institutions and we do not need to get into the nonsense of believing that if the Government does it, it is bad, and if the private enterprise system does it, it is good. We have far too much evidence to suggest that that is simply an untrue statement. Mr MILES(Braddon)(11.22) —The House has before it today three Bills-the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986, the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1986 and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986. As we are aware, all of these Bills are routine and provide retrospective cost supplementation of the grants made by the Commonwealth to assist schools and tertiary institutions, but they do give us an opportunity to speak fairly generally and broadly about education in Australia. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) spent most of her time talking about higher education. I want to focus on secondary education and in particular look at participation and equity-that appendage given to educational institutions over the last three years. The States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1986 involves a program launched in 1983, described by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as ambitious and by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) as one of the cornerstones of the Labor Government's education policy. It was aimed at speeding up the trend of students remaining at secondary school, particularly years 11 and 12, and also enhancing the participation of students in technical and further education colleges. In particular, it was aimed at helping children from low income families, Aborigines, migrants whose English is inadequate for reasonable progress to be made, the disabled and the handicapped. I make it crystal clear that the coalition fully appreciates the difficulties faced by these groups and certainly on return to Government it will, as it has in the past, give high priority to meeting their needs. The Liberal and National parties question whether the implementation of such schemes as PEP is effective in enhancing students' education. To overcome the difficulties faced by the abovementioned groups we need not a special set of programs but rather a thorough restructuring and rethinking of the practices of Australia's present school system. Let me illustrate what actually happens when, for reasons best known to themselves, political parties-I include both sides of the House-far removed from the classroom scene, from time to time try to tack on a program to meet perceived needs; needs which are often ideologically rather than objectively perceived and analysed. I remind the Australian people of exactly what happens when these types of programs are handed to the schools for implementation. The first approach which can be adopted is one which can generally be described as the content approach. In many cases teachers, often with little reference to others inside or outside of their particular school, frame new or more suitable courses or subjects for those who have not previously stayed at school. Such an approach raises numerous questions. For example, does the creation of the new course incorporate a total review of the existing curriculum and the place of the new course in it? We already have in our schools a curriculum which is supposed to be meeting current needs, but then governments come along and make an extra allocation of money and say that they want a special program which will be targeted at particular groups, and it has to be fitted into the school program. Quite often teachers are asked one week to prepare for two weeks time a program which will assist these young people. How does it fit into the curriculum? Will it be worth while? Are the courses part of the mainstream offering, or are they really alternatives stuck on for a special few people? Do the new courses have equal status with existing ones? Are they as well resourced? Where do schools get their resources from, over a very short period, to teach these types of courses? Do the students and their teachers have equal status with others in the school if they take those subjects? These are the crunch issues which teachers and students are faced with when they make their choices. Are the new courses to rely indefinitely on special project funds? Do they affirm or challenge existing priorities in the school; that is, the status of technical as against academic courses, those with general as against those with vocational emphasis? Will a single system of assessment be used for these types of courses, and is that appropriate for the ideals of the program-in this case, in particular, the participation and equity program? There is justifiable student and public suspicion of second rate courses, for second rate students, often taught by second rate teachers, that lead nowhere, and of so-called vocational preparation in schools without the critical and analytical skills necessary to understand the labour market. The teachers are involved with these courses usually at the same time as they are carrying out their other teaching duties. So they have to try to implement these courses which, as I said before, are really tack-on courses in our schools. The situation teachers are faced with in many schools is very different from that faced by many professionals in our society. Teachers' clients go to them because they are legally required to do so. Most teachers in Australia are dedicated and competent, but they are often given a task which is impossible. Programs such as the PEP look nice and politically might be advantageous to the particular government that introduces them, but the real effect at the classroom level is absolutely nil because so much money is wasted. So much of the time of teachers is spent trying to rearrange their program for courses which really achieve very little. A second approach which can often be adopted by a school is for it to say that it will not change the courses for these children, but that because it has this money to try to get children to go on and participate more fully in education it will improve the personal relationships between teachers and children, which will give students a much more positive feel for education so they will want to continue. However, this approach has largely a cosmetic effect when adopted. How do we know that there are improved relationships after the money has been spent? Is there any evaluation of that? It certainly is a way in which schools often tackle the problem. They rearrange their program slightly and perhaps introduce more teacher contact time outside academic subject time and try to improve the relationships between teachers and students. That is fundamental to improving education. There are many other methods schools can adopt when these programs are handed to them. I believe that Australia must take a serious look at how it approaches education generally. Australia is presently faced with two enormous challenges, both of which are fundamental to the future prosperity of this nation. Firstly, we must endeavour to strengthen the kinship family as the fundamental social unit. The problem with education is that many children who arrive at the doorstep of the school to be taught have not had a proper education in their own families. Because of the social breakdowns occurring in our society such children have negative attitudes and teachers face a battlefield as soon as the children arrive. The first place in which to restructure Australia is the home. That must start by mum and dad getting themselves organised, staying together and working through difficult times so that their children can have a secure home background. That is where education starts. In so doing we will dramatically reduce welfare costs to government and the demand on government housing, and poverty among women and children will be substantially reduced if families can learn to stick together. Time wasting and emotionally draining court cases will be avoided and the scares and hurts of children left in uncaring situations will be removed. Once this cancerous disease is overcome, then the energies, ideas and creativity that are required to address the second challenge will be found. It will not be found until that is achieved. The second challenge is that of productivity. It is not just about money, efficiency and employment. It is also about the quality of our most important resource-people, and in particular young people. As Senator Sir John Carrick has stated: There was a time-indeed, for much of Australia's history-when parents could plan the educational programs of their children with a reasonable certainty that at the end of the education journey there would be adequate choice of jobs and skills. There was no need for patch-up schemes such as the PEP and the community employment program, which have used up well over one billion dollars in three years with little to show. How much better it would have been if that billion dollars had been added to the education budget and had been properly structured and planned. This Government tries to paint a rosy picture for parents and students about the state of the economy, yet many of the basic facts indicate that all is not well. I remind the House that Australia has the highest real interest rates in 50 years, we have a huge overseas debt, and in the last few days the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been saying that we are heading towards a banana republic. We also have 600,000 people unemployed. The summary of the Economic Planning Advisory Council paper on Human Capital and Productivity Growth stated that one of the more important factors affecting productivity was `the entrepreneurial and skill capabilities of people'. It went on: By most common measures Australia's labour force lacks the education intensive skill base of many developed countries such as Japan, West Germany and the United States of America. The level of skill helped by CEP and PEP is virtually nil. They have not added to the skill base of Australia, yet $1 billion has been spent in that area. Our skill base is reflected in poor retention rates, school promotion procedures, certification processes, and poor post-school education performance. To illustrate the blinkered and unthinking approach that some Australians have adopted, Mr Simon Marginson, a research officer with the Australian Teachers Federation, stated about the EPAC report: . . . it is highly polemical, politically destructive and careless of the consequence of some of its proposals on the non-economic benefits of education. The simple facts are that we have not yet got our education act together. We must do so, and quickly. PEP will not achieve it. The meeting of that challenge must begin in the home and be built on by our education system. If the flimsy, unthinking and muddled indicates the extent of the problem that exists within our schools, major surgery is required to our educational system. I think that Mr Simon Marginson needs to take that into account. It is time for a set of national educational goals to be developed that will address the challenge of higher productivity. To sidestep such a task is consciously to allow an intolerable malaise to take over-a malaise that would plunge this nation's living standards into the worst decline for over a century. There must be greater accountability and competition in our education systems. Parents must be given the opportunity to be able economically to send their children to the schools of their choice. If that occurs there will be an increase in the standards in our schools because parents will choose to send their children to those schools that produce the best results. Teachers must be freed from the restrictive and debilitating policies of many of the leaders of the teachers unions around Australia. When this is achieved, our education system will be more responsive, flexible and creative in equipping young Australians. Governments will not be required to intervene in a distorted manner such as in providing a PEP effort. The natural forces will be able to operate effectively in challenging redundant and wasteful activities in schools and colleges as they arise. We do not need programs such as PEP in our schools. We need a total rethink of the way in which we approach education. Mr PRICE(Chifley)(11.38) —I am very disappointed that attacks have been made by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles), and also by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), on the participation and equity program. They have not argued for greater equality and equity in our education system but have sought merely to entrench the privileges that come from private school education. The honourable member for Tangney has not advanced a case for the poor diocesan schools that exist in this country but for even greater privilege and inequity in the other non-government schools. On the subject of PEP, I point out to all the parents and citizens associations and the parents and friends in my electorate, whose schools in 1984 received $210,000 and up to 6 June 1985 received $298,000, that if the honourable member for Braddon had his way those funds would not be available. I seek leave to table a list of the amounts of money these schools have received in the time period to which I have referred. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! Is the honourable member seeking permission to table a document or to incorporate it? Mr PRICE —I am seeking leave to incorporate it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Subject to the ruling of Madam Speaker in relation to suitability for inclusion, leave is granted. Leave granted. The table read as follows: 1984 To 6 June 1985 Bidwill High School... $14 976 grant not yet allocated Colyton High School... $25 478 $50 000 Dunheved High School... $25 000 $48 996 Evans High School... $20 776 $30 490 Mt Druitt High School... $16 500 $39 863 Plumpton High School... $25 500 $28 000 Rooty Hill High School... $25 000 $25 345 Shalvey High School... $25 500 $19 000 Whalan High School... $25 500 $32 100 St Agnes' High School, Rooty Hill... $6 000 $24 700 Mr PRICE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the question of families sticking together, no one can take any pride or satisfaction in the fact that some families are breaking up. In this day and age, all families, whether they involve single parents, spouses who do not have custody of children, or families that are strong and surviving, expect their children to be given the best possible education and a good start in life. I can relate to that attitude, and I think education policy should address that area. I want to comment specifically on the campaign for a western Sydney university. Mr Deputy Speaker, with your presence and the presence of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), who is at the table, and of the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free), we have perhaps a western suburbs mafia in the House! I was very pleased to attend at Macquarie Street approximately a month ago a discussion with the Federal Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), the Premier, the State Minister for Education and State Ministers and members. That meeting agreed to set up an advisory committee to determine the form of the university and the timetable. I think it was an historic meeting. I must say, though, that it is a matter of disappointment to me that my Federal colleagues have yet to be officially briefed on the outcome of that meeting. I certainly hope that that will occur shortly. I have to say frankly to my State colleagues that, whilst I do not doubt their commitment or their determination to see the western suburbs university reach fruition, I believe for it to happen will require a commitment on their part of a financial contribution towards the university. I think it is unreal to expect, in our tight economic situation and restraint on public expenditure, that the Federal Government can advance the priorities of this institution without some reciprocity from the State Government. I hope that reciprocity will occur. I have another concern which I think I should lay before the House; that is, it is rumoured that the Doonside Overseas Telecommunications Commission site, a magnificent site comprising some 165 hectares and 25 hectares of State Government land, has been nominated as one of two sites for either the fourth main campus or a college. I have in my possession a letter from the Blacktown City Council which advises me that the State Government has appointed some consultants. Craig and Rhodes Consultants Pty Ltd are project managers for the Department of Housing and are doing an evaluation to turn this land into broad acres residential sub-division. I know the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), a staunch supporter of a western suburbs university, will refrain from any negotiations with the State Government which would prematurely exclude this site from consideration. I find this development very confusing, particularly as I happen to know that the Premier of New South Wales has indeed written to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) seeking an undertaking from him that this land be considered and be held available, as it is, for the site of a university. The person identified as perhaps the leading opponent of the western suburbs university is-I do not think I am being original in saying this-Mr Hudson, the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. I want to take issue with Mr Hudson on some of his comments in response to the Parry report, the report of the Ministerial Committee to Review the Structure of Higher Education in Western Sydney. I want to make it quite clear that I am neither advocating what was suggested in the Parry report, nor am I particularly advocating what the Minister, Susan Ryan, has laid on the table; that is, the development of a college which ultimately will become a university. I do not think it is appropriate to try to pick and choose between those. In the response he suggests that the real need for higher education in the west is for institute of technology-type facilities. I am not saying that we would not benefit from that, nor is it without the realms of possibility that an institute of technology-type facility be developed at one of the fine colleges of advanced education at Nepean, Hawkesbury and Macarthur, which would have an appropriate focus and leaning. However, I do reject the inference that people of the west should not have within their region access to a university. Mr Hudson also claims that the Parry Committee's terms of reference exclude Sydney's south-west. I think this is one of the most mischievous things he has attempted to do. He has attempted to drive a wedge between various Federal members and various State members on a west versus south-west basis-it is exceptionally mischievous. As the Premier pointed out at the meeting with Susan Ryan, we all know the area we are talking about-that is, the greater western suburbs of Sydney. Irrespective of whether the institution goes to the south-west or west, I am not going to get up here and say it has been a colossal defeat. I think all members are looking for a university in the greater western suburbs of Sydney, and this attempt to divide us has failed so far in the past and will continue to fail in the future. Mr John Brown —Parramatta. Mr PRICE —As everyone knows, the Minister has a particular penchant for Parramatta. We already have a fine stadium there and we are going to get some Commonwealth offices there. Indeed, Parramatta might be one of the choices. The Parry report said the fourth main campus should be either at Parramatta or at Blacktown. I want to say this to Mr Hudson: If he thinks he is going to pick off State or Federal members on the basis of location, he has been wrong to date and I believe he will be wrong in the future. The other thing Mr Hudson highlights in his report-I think it was equally mischievous-is a differentiation between a university and a college of advanced education. He points out that the main difference is that a university undertakes research. What he misrepresents is what was said in discussions with western suburbs members, and Mr Hudson, that we said our priority was to get a university. If he feels that, because of the high cost of research, this should be deferred for a period, certainly we will go along with that. We will try to be reasonable; we will try to facilitate getting a university in the western suburbs of Sydney. If that is what he wants to do, fair enough, we will compromise on that. In his response he bashes us over the head with what I thought was a reasonable position, a reasonable compromise. He also states: The Commission has stated on a number of occasions that higher education in the west and south-west of Sydney must be related to the future industrial and technological needs of the area as well as to social/personal needs of the population. It is an area with a rapidly growing young population with expanding manufacturing, construction and commercial sectors. I do not essentially disagree with that, but I do say that people from the western suburbs should have the same freedom of choice as others have about subjects and should not be classified or limited in what they undertake. In making his comments about the expanding manufacturing, construction and commercial sectors I think he overlooks the fact that, notwithstanding that those things are happening, the western suburbs are vast dormitory suburbs of Sydney. In fact, one of the real problems is-I have been involved in local technical and further education and the local hospital-that when we are trying to construct things that have a regional flavour about them or meet a regional need we just do not have the industry to do that. Essentially we are training young people in the western suburbs for jobs outside the western suburbs. No one more than I would like to see that situation reversed. I would be misleading the House if I suggested it has been reversed-it has not. I hope that Mr Hudson, having expressed these views, will write to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and suggest to him that we have a regional industry plan. I would go along with that. The problem is that we have not had a car manufacturing establishment collapse or a steel plant collapse; we just have not had enough industry. I agree that an industry plan would be great for the area and that all institutions should try as much as possible to reflect regional needs, be they industry, social or whatever nature. The other comment in the report that I would like to address is that the move for a university will inevitably dampen any effort that can be made to open up access to higher education for those who succeed in TAFE. Hugh Hudson has made the point quite validly that there is a very strong TAFE presence in the western suburbs of Sydney. At the risk of repeating his figures that do not include the south-western region, there are something like 30,000 TAFE students. I believe that one of the excellent features of the Parry report, which in fact supports Hugh Hudson's view, is the recommendation that we ought to open up colleges of advanced education and universities so that students who have succeeded at TAFE, rather than their having to start back at year 1 at a CAE or at a university, may be given recognition at these institutions of higher learning to the work done and the success achieved at TAFE. I certainly do not see this and the provision of a university as mutually exclusive nor should this initiative be lost. I believe it is one of the most exciting proposals that we have had for a long time, and I am determined to support it to the hilt. Of course, it is a matter of some notoriety that Hugh Hudson, in his response, made a great deal of low participation rates in years 11 and 12 at the high schools in the western suburbs of Sydney. I have already placed a question on notice asking when he first became concerned about the matter and what action he has taken in relation to it. Personally, I think if one is a supporter of public education, as I am, from time to time one has to make constructive criticism of the system and one has to observe the reality of the facts. Generally speaking, over the last decade in Australia, we have moved from a participation rate of something like 33 per cent to 45 per cent. That is very good. Unfortunately, New South Wales has one of the lowest rates. Mr Hudson, in his report, suggested that in western Sydney the participation rate was something like 15 per cent to 20 per cent, which was denied by the State Minister for Education, who suggested that it was 30 per cent. An argument about correct percentages is irrelevant. What is important is that we ought to do better. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table a table of retention rates to year 12 for 1984. Mr Tuckey —Does the honourable member want to table it or have it incorporated? Mr PRICE —I am sorry; I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is granted for that purpose, but it is subject to the usual ruling. The table read as follows- RETENTION RATES TO YEAR 12 1984 New South Wales... 41.3 Victoria... 43.3 Queensland... 53.1 Western Australia... 45.5 South Australia... 50.1 Tasmania... 27.6 Northern Territory... 24.4 Australian Capital Territory... 79.8 Australia... 45.0 Mr PRICE —I thank the shadow Minister and I thank the House. Of the mainland States, this table shows that Queensland is doing best, with a retention rate of 53 per cent. I cannot help but note that the Australian Capital Territory has a rate of 79 per cent. In this debate about education we have to come to terms with what we ought to be aiming for. Should we be aiming for 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 per cent? I believe, being committed to the concept of people having an equality of opportunity, and because jobs still largely depend on one's success at school, that we should be aiming for higher retention levels. There is a distortion in the participation rates for state and non-government schools. The rate for government schools in Australia is 38.4 per cent. For non-government schools it is 65.3 per cent. The relevant figures in New South Wales are 36.1 per cent for government schools and 58.5 per cent for non-government schools. If we break down those figures for New South Wales, on the non-government side, Anglican schools have a 92 per cent participation rate, the Catholic schools have 54.6 per cent and the others 93.3 per cent. It is a matter of regret that the school one goes to largely determines the outcome in relation to one's participation in years 11 and 12. I believe that there is a real need to lift those participation rates. Let us not talk about matching Queensland, which has 53 per cent, or of matching the non-government schools, which have a rate of 58.5 per cent; let us settle on the Australian Capital Territory figure of 79 per cent. Why can we not have an objective of 79 or 80 per cent? I certainly believe that we should. I am running a little out of time. As honourable members know, I have spoken a number of times about the need for a senior high school. The Australian Capital Territory, of course, has a senior high school set-up which has worked particularly well. I believe that one of the solutions towards lifting the participation rate is to provide a university for the western suburbs of Sydney so that it could be both inspirational and aspirational. I also believe that senior high schools should be developed. I was pleased to read in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald and in the Daily Telegraph that the Acting Premier of New South Wales, Mr Ron Mulock, has picked up the campaign that has been waged by the State member for Riverstone, Richard Amery, to get a senior high school in the western suburbs of Sydney. I know that Tweed Heads is one of the leading candidates for a senior high school. I am pleased about that. I do not believe that Tweed Heads should be denied that school. But it would be a mockery to ignore one of the largest regions in Sydney-a region with one of the largest populations, whichever one's definition; it could be one million people or one and a half million people-and not set about establishing those senior high schools. I am confident that the campaign for a senior high school will succeed. I am confident that in my area in western Sydney, with the commitment of my Federal and State colleagues, not only will we get a university but also we will have increasing participation rates, and the real talents and the abilities of the people of the western suburbs will be recognised and developed. Before I close, I want very much on my own behalf to issue a personal invitation to the Minister for Education to come out to my electorate to see the high schools, to have a look at what impact a senior high school might make and at how the TAFE colleges are going and see what a tremendous impact a university would have in my electorate. I know that my colleagues would join me in that invitation. I hope that we hear a public response to it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before calling the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) I would like the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) to clarify the question of an item for which he sought leave for incorporation in Hansard. I indicated earlier that these matters are the subject of a ruling by Madam Speaker relating to the suitability of material for inclusion in the Hansard record. There was a page of notes headed `State Grants Amendment Bill'. I assume that the honourable member was not seeking that the notes be incorporated and that he was seeking merely to have incorporated part of an answer to a question on notice which includes a table showing 1984-85 comparisons with various schools. Is that the table that the honourable member was seeking leave to incorporate? Mr Price —It is, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank you for your assistance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave has been granted. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(11.58) —The purpose of the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill and cognate Bills is to provide retrospective cost supplementation to grants made by the Commonwealth to assist the school and tertiary education sector. I would like to raise a number of matters in the House today, but time is short. I know that other members of the coalition have a great deal of important matters that they would like to raise so I will shorten my speech. I would like to speak about non-government schools. I would like to speak about tertiary education but, unfortunately, time does not provide for that. One of the greatest assets that a nation has is its education system. Honourable members who have read anything about Germany and Japan, particularly after the Second World War, will be aware of the course those nations took in educating their populations. We know where those nations stand on the world stage today. If we look at the education results-I will talk particularly about New South Wales-many of the names of those students on the list of candidates who scored the highest aggregate marks in that State are names that are not normally associated with the basic Anglo-Saxon names in our country. We see that those people who come from other nations realise the great importance of education to their children. Although some of them may come from low socioeconomic groups, we find that their major priority lies in educating their children. They may go without a motor car, they may go without a new suit every six months, but one thing they will not go without is education for their children. I believe that the education system in Australia, certainly in New South Wales, is second to none in the world. The majority of teachers in New South Wales are absolutely dedicated. One of the good things about the education system is that it strives for equality. No matter what one's socio-economic background or geographic location, the aim is to provide equality of education. In the main the teachers are dedicated-in the schools I visit, in any case. The parents, in the main, are dedicated. Of course, a good education system needs the dedication of the students also. We find today that teachers are under extreme pressure because of the breakdown of the family unit and the problem of alcohol and drugs. All of these things are impinging on the education system and making the job of teachers extremely difficult. For example, I visited a school where the principal said to me that he had had a phone call from the mother of one of the boys in his school complaining about the language that that young student was using at home. I can imagine what I would have said to that parent if I were the teacher. Many parents, of course, are abrogating their responsibilities and putting them on to the teachers in the school, making it very difficult not only for the teachers but also for everyone associated with the school. We also have the lowering of the standard of living in this country, particularly in the case of larger families. Many such families are living just beyond the poverty line. We notice that family allowances have declined in value by around 50 per cent since 1976. This makes it extremely difficult for families. By December 1987 the dependant spouse rebate will have declined in value by about 27 per cent since November 1982. Further financial pressure has been placed on large families by the abolition of the general concessionary rebate in 1984-85 and by the Government's decision last year to abolish family allowances for 18-year-olds. I think we have to remember that today many families have 18-year-old children still attending school. We see that millions of dollars are being spent in the family law area helping to split up families, whereas very little is being spent on keeping families together. All of this is putting great pressure on our education system-the school system in particular and on families. We see the interference of politicians. Some politicians, believing that there are minority groups from which they may gain a few votes, try to influence the education system in favour of teaching subjects which, when I had a phone around before I came in to make this speech, I discovered many teachers refer to as absolute garbage. The Australian Teachers Federation does not help. It was designed in part to provide a form of constructive criticism of the education system and to do what it could in that area. What has happened, unfortunately, is that we have a lot of destructive criticism and actions by the Teachers Federation. I note that there does not seem to be as much agitation today as there used to be in a number of these areas-agitation which was destructive of our education system. As I said, in many schools teachers are forced to teach subjects which they really do not want to teach. What they want to do is get on with the job of teaching the children so that those children can adapt to an ever-changing world. However, we have subjects such as sex education which, I believe, really should be taught in the home. I suppose teachers are forced to teach them because parents will not take on the job. Subjects such as sexism, peace studies, multiculturalism, equal opportunities and human rights are taught. On the subject of the Human Rights Commission, I refer to a booklet, a little beauty, entitled `Teaching for Human Rights', by Ralph Pettman. This booklet was referred to on many occasions during the debate on the Bill of Rights legislation. While we are teaching all these types of things in schools we cannot get on with teaching the children those things that will adapt them and prepare them for their lives in the future. Of course, the Human Rights Commission is becoming notorious. There is an advertisement in one of its latest magazines for a seminar on how people can stick up for their rights and protest peacefully. I would like to see the Human Rights Commission, for a change, having a seminar on people's responsibilities, not their rights. I think we have taken this thing a bit too far. I think it is about time we accepted that there are responsibilities. One of the agenda items relates to how to picket premises and so on. I think it is about time, in view of the present economic climate, that we stopped wasting money and spent some money on doing something a little more constructive. In summary, I am sure that, if teachers were allowed to get on with the job of educating their pupils for the future and developing the children by evolution rather than revolution, we would get a lot further. A tendency seems to be developing in the nation to try to socially engineer everyone. I am sure that the parents, in the home, are the people who have the greatest responsibility for educating their children. I am sure that they impart to their children the values and rights that they want to impart. It is not up to teachers to try to socially engineer their students. I am sure that 99.9 per cent of teachers do not want that role. However, we are spending millions of dollars on bringing all this garbage, as I call it, into schools to try to socially engineer the children. Let us look at some of the more parochial problems facing schools today. As most honourable members would know, I represent a fairly isolated rural electorate. We always have problems trying to get teachers into the west, particularly the west of New South Wales. I think that something drastic has to be done about that. I think that for the sake of the teachers we have to have accelerated promotion and priority of choice. In other words, once teachers have been posted to an isolated area-I do not mean the north coast of New South Wales or an inner city area-they should have some priority of choice when they leave those areas. I think that the Government should be responsible for paying those teachers' moving expenses when they do move. A teacher I know has been transferred to an isolated area. Apparently, if he leaves that area before the three years are up he will have to pay his own removal costs back to the coast or wherever he came from. I do not think that is fair. We have to try to support these teachers. It is bad enough that they have to leave their homes to go into isolated areas, although I must admit that, in some cases, once they get there they are very reluctant to go back to where they came from. However, getting them there initially is a problem. I believe that in New South Wales last year 45 teaching places in high schools could not be filled. I think that is a little unfair on the students who are trying to be educated. It is unfair to the schools, to the system and, of course, to the parents who are paying their taxes to have their children attend school. In the west we have a particular problem with school counselling facilities. As I said before, one of the problems facing us today, for many reasons, is the fact that there is a great deal of family breakdown. I believe that governments can do something about that. They can contribute towards keeping families together by supporting the family unit. They can provide some means, through taxation or other measures, to keep families together. We have a bipartisan immigration policy, which I fully support. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) said recently that Australia needs a greater population, that its population is aging. I am sure the population of Australia could be increased if there were some way in which governments could give support to the family unit. As the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) said, the family unit is the basic unit of our society. We must keep that family unit together and try to ensure that our nation grows stronger as a result. To return to the subject of education, in the west of New South Wales we are short of school counsellors to deal with the many problems we face, such as family breakdowns and so on. I bring that matter to the attention of honourable members. Something needs to be done about that very serious problem. Another problem that was brought to my attention concerns the fact that if students in rural areas want to learn something about, say, the steelworks at Whyalla or jobs in Sydney, it is very difficult for them to go to those places to get work experience. Unfortunately, job opportunities in the bush are very limited. It is unfortunate that young students do not get that opportunity simply because there is a lack of funding for them to do so. Of course, there is also a lack of funding to enable those people who are promoting certain occupations to come into the country to show the students what is available. That is something else that government could look at. We find also when a child eventually goes for a job interview that there are problems with this as well. There are a lot of disabilities for people in rural areas. They are something to be looked at. In the past, particularly in primary schools and high schools, there have been problems with supplying teachers' aides. One of the major developments that have come about-I think it is a good development-is that ancillary staff are provided in schools to assist teachers. With the many pressures on teachers now when so much has to be learned and so much has to be imparted to the children, those aides play a major role in schools. The New South Wales Government is talking about cutting back on the numbers of aides and staff in schools. That means that teachers will have to return to the bad old days-they will have to do all the work around the place instead of doing what they should be doing and that is teaching children. Teachers need more in-course training in subjects such as how they should respond to certain ethnic groups in their schools. They should be given training on how to respond, for example, if they have a large Aboriginal population in the school. All these things need in-service training. The honourable member for Braddon spoke earlier about the participation and equity program. I have spoken to many teachers about this program and they think that it is a failure. Certainly it brings money into the school but if we want children to stay on at school in years 11 and 12 in order to further their education, we must start encouraging them to do so earlier. Once they get to year 11 it is too late. We must encourage children to know where they are going and what they intend to do in their earlier years. We must get them into that mode of staying at school. The money that is being expended through PEP should be spent on children in years 8, 9 and 10 and there should be some interrelation between high schools and local technical and further education colleges, if there are such colleges in the area. Finally, I have been a member of the coalition committee for education and we have formulated a policy. Whether it is announced by the Government or by the coalition does not really matter-it is a good policy and the coalition can be proud of it. It is innovative and I wish to congratulate members of that committee for the great work that they have done. I believe that the Government is on the wrong track in many areas of education. I refer particularly to some of the subjects that are taught in schools. I was in Wilcannia the other day and I read in a newspaper that there would be special courses there to teach Aboriginal people Aboriginal dialects. I do not know how many people in New South Wales can speak any dialect of any particular Aboriginal tribe, but I do not think that there are too many. That appears to be a bit of a waste. I am one of those people who believes in promoting our heritage and I think we should keep it. If people have some spare time, perhaps they should learn Aboriginal dialects, but that is their choice. While I was in Wilcannia I spoke to an Aboriginal gentleman who was sitting next to me. He had a particular problem. I told him that if he gave me his name and address I would send him some information relating to his problem. He said: `I am sorry, Mister, I cannot read or write'. This gentleman was 30 years old. There is something wrong with our priorities when we spend thousands and thousands of dollars on way-out weird schemes yet we have people in our community who cannot read or write and take their rightful place in society. That Aboriginal gentleman was very embarrassed about the fact that he could not read or write. I told him that there was nothing to be embarrassed about, that the problem was with the system and that something had to be done about it. While we are teaching all this other unnecessary rubbish, we still have people in our community who cannot read and write, and there is something drastically wrong with that. I will leave my remarks there but will just repeat my congratulations to the coalition committee on the formulation of its education policies, which, I hope, will be announced by the coalition. However, if the Government announces them, it can be proud of those policies also. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(12.14) —Like my colleague the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) who spoke earlier in this debate on the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill, I wish to address some remarks to the matter of progress towards the establishment of a university in western Sydney and to express some pleasure on the progress that has been made so far. There have been four major developments to date this year. The first was the release of the report of the New South Wales ministerial working party in February. Honourable members will recall that that report recommended the establishment of an autonomous, multicampus university in the western Sydney region. That was followed by the release of the response by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission on 14 April of which we have heard something this morning. Two days later this was followed by a Press conference conducted by the Federal Minister for Education, Senator Susan Ryan. This Press conference was a major development in the whole exercise, and because it was so important I wish to quote a little from the Press brief which covered it. It said: The western suburbs of Sydney would have their own university by the 1991 triennium, Federal Education Minister, Senator Susan Ryan said today- that is, on 16 April. The brief continued: It would probably be in the form of a university college and branch of the University of New South Wales . . . The Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission has recommended the development of the university college in the triennium 1991, Senator Ryan said. The Federal Government agreed with this proposal but if the NSW Government wanted a university or university college before that time it would need to provide extra funding. The University of Wollongong and the University of Newcastle both began as university colleges of the UNSW. Senator Ryan said that the Government had held discussions with the chancellors of Sydney's three universities, the University of New South Wales, Sydney University and Macquarie University. Further discussions between the Federal and State Governments would establish just how much funding was needed and whether the project for a fourth university in Sydney would go ahead earlier. However, if the retention rates at secondary schools in the western and south western suburbs did not improve, the chances of establishing a university in the area would be lower. Retention rates at western suburbs secondary schools are currently far lower than elsewhere in New South Wales. That is the end of the Press brief. After the Press conference there was a meeting on 23 April between Senator Ryan, the New South Wales Premier and the New South Wales Education Minister. As a result of that meeting a joint statement was issued which contained five very important elements. The meeting acknowledged the very serious educational disadvantage of students in the western suburbs of Sydney and recognised the need to support increased opportunities for all levels of education throughout the region, including a university. Secondly, the meeting supported the strategy of extending the scope and quality of places in colleges of advanced education in the region. Thirdly, the meeting accepted as a matter of urgency the need to plan for the establishment of a university presence in the western area. Fourthly, it was agreed that the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments, through CTEC and the New South Wales Higher Education Board, should co-operate with existing CAE's and universities and the proposed University of Western Sydney Advisory Council to investigate the most appropriate model for the university campus development, to determine the resource implications and to prepare a timetable for the fulfilment of that agreed purpose. Finally, the meeting agreed to keep a watching brief on the work of both the advisory committee and the various agencies of government. Both governments will receive reports arising from the deliberation of those bodies. I stress the three very important tasks that the advisory council has. It must determine the most appropriate model for university development in the region. It has been asked to report on the resource implications of the preferred model and it must prepare a timetable for implementation. Interest throughout the western Sydney region has been very strong. There has been a lively debate in the local media and the proposals have attracted enthusiastic support from community groups, educationalists and members of the general public. It has attracted some interest from the private sector and strong support from local elected members of the State Parliament, particularly my colleagues Ron Mulock, Peter Anderson and the member for Riverstone, Richard Amery. It has also had support from Labor senators and western Sydney members of the House of Representatives, particularly my colleague the honourable member for Chifley whose interest-as we have heard this morning-is enthusiastic and unflagging. I also wish to pay particular tribute to the work of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils and its chairman, Alderman David March. These people have been most persistent on this issue and have pursued it for a long time. I also wish to welcome support from Liberal members in the area. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there are very few Liberal members in western Sydney, they are not terribly thick on the ground. However, I welcome the bipartisan support for this proposal particularly from the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) and the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster). Earlier in this debate the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks) talked about the virtues of bipartisanship in a different respect. I certainly welcome bipartisan support in this regard. In doing so I deliver a gentle rebuke to my friend the honourable member for Macquarie because his support, while welcome, has not been entirely uncritical. I refer to a Press release from the honourable member for Macquarie which appeared in the 30 April issue of the Mountain Gazette. The honourable member in that Press statement welcomed developments towards the establishment of a university. That is fine; I welcome that, too. However, in the statement he also made two criticisms of the Government which I believe are quite unfair. The first criticism concerns the timing of the whole matter. He referred to the `belated recognition of the urgency of the problem of educational disadvantage in the west'. The statement continued: . . . he was concerned at the ambiguity of the Government's statement concerning a `university presence', stating that nothing less than a new University for the West, even if by building on current CAE facilities, would be acceptable. I make some comments on the two criticisms the honourable member made. I refer first to the question of a belated recognition of the problems we face. I agree that this move is certainly overdue, but I point out to the honourable member that he should ask himself a number of questions. He should ask himself who was in power federally for 31 of the last 37 years. The answer is his own Party, the Liberal Party. He should ask himself who was in power in New South Wales between 1965 and 1976-those years when western Sydney's population was expanding so dramatically. The answer, again, is his own Party, the Liberal Party. He should ask himself who was responsible for the siting of Macquarie University. Again, the answer is his own Party. It is true that the Liberals when in government consistently served the interests of their supporters on the North Shore. It is a matter of history that under the Liberals, western Sydney did not just run second, it was never in the race. It is idle for the honourable member for Macquarie to blame the Labor Government for the failings of his own Party over the many years it enjoyed in office. In an editorial on 7 May headed `Going West by degrees', the Sydney Morning Herald made exactly that point: A crucial decision affecting the present proposal for a University of Western Sydney-or Miles Franklin University as some people want to call it-was unfortunately taken two decades ago when Macquarie University was established. Demographic logic demanded that the university be sited in the western suburbs where an accelerating urban sprawl was taking place. This is even more true now, of course. But the decision finally turned on political considerations. The Menzies Government held the purse-strings, and it was determined to ensure that political benefits would accrue to itself from the decision; hence the foundation of Macquarie University at Ryde, an area set among a cluster of then federal Liberal seats. If the honourable member wants a clearer illustration of Liberal attitudes to expansion of higher education opportunities in the west-an illustration a little closer to home-let me refer him to the words of his Liberal predecessor in the seat of Macquarie. I refer him to the then member's speech of 20 October 1977 at page 2276 of Hansard. The then member criticised developments in western Sydney on two grounds. He said that expansion had been too rapid and he actually suggested the closure of some colleges of advanced education. The then member, Mr Gillard, stated: For many years, in fact well before I became a member of this House, I felt that universities and colleges of advanced education were advancing too quickly. The whole attitude of these institutions was expansion with no apparent regard to costs. . . . When we arrive at a stage when the chairman of a college of advanced education suggests that perhaps it is time for some colleges to close then it is time for this Government and the new Tertiary Education Commission to look closely at what is happening in the tertiary field. The honourable member was remarkably coy about nominating colleges that he would like to close, but he did have two major complaints. He said that there were some courses that had enrolments that were far too small, and he complained about the proliferation of business courses. As I say, he was careful not to nominate the particular colleges, but if one reads his speech, one will find listed the courses that had small enrolments. The course with the smallest enrolment in New South Wales at that stage was a home science teachers course at Hawkesbury CAE-a college of advanced education in the west-which had 29 enrolments. He complained about the growth of business courses. The business course with the second smallest enrolment in the State at the time was at Nepean CAE-in the west. As one can imagine, this speech horrified the local community and educationalists across the State. It attracted a full page article in the National Times, which was distributed pretty widely locally. In general, I think it helped rid the locality of that member. I remind the present member for Macquarie-he should reflect on this-that if his Liberal predecessor in the seat had had his way, there would be no Hawkesbury College of Advanced Education in his electorate, there would be no Nepean College of Advanced Education in my electorate, and there would be no higher education places in the west. Another comment the honourable member made in his Press statement was that nothing less than a full university would be acceptable. I take his use of the word `full' to mean an autonomous university that would operate from day one. I suggest that immediate autonomy may not be the most desirable model. In fact, it may not be in the best interests of the region to have an autonomous institution from day one. Indeed, many of the most enthusiastic supporters of the university concept-some of them perhaps not as well briefed as they might be-have become hung up on the Commonwealth's use of the term `university presence', a term which clearly suggests that the new institution should start as an affiliate or a college of an established university. I ask the honourable member to consider the advantages that affiliation might bring to the new university in its early years of development. I believe there are five very significant advantages that ought to be considered. They concern status, enhanced transfer arrangements, costs, staffing and, finally, the historical success of the affiliation model. Turning first to status, I think we all recognise that new institutions in the tertiary field always encounter problems of status. When the University of New South Wales was established it certainly suffered because of the status gap between it and the other university in Sydney at the time, the long established Sydney University. Indeed, I remember something that an overseas student told me during my years at the University of New South Wales. It is a very telling illustration of how much status can matter. The overseas student told me that in his country a `BA fail' from Oxford or Cambridge was more highly regarded than a degree from an Australian university. I suggest that the idea of a new autonomous institution granting its own degrees would face at least two handicaps: First, the status gap which afflicts all new institutions; and secondly, an additional status gap which might well arise because of the establishment of a university to meet the needs of a particular disadvantaged region. I recognise that the latter problem cannot really be avoided, but the former certainly can. By affiliation in the early years, by granting degrees in the early years through the parent institution, the graduates of the western Sydney campus would hold qualifications which would be seen to be equal to the best. That to me is a very desirable outcome. A number of advantages could flow from affiliation in terms of transfer arrangements. I believe that these are important. It has been agreed that some courses are unlikely ever to be offered on the western Sydney campus. Both reports agree that such courses would include at least medicine, dentistry and veterinary science. Under the autonomy proposal, students from the western region wishing to enrol in these courses would have to enrol at the established universities to the east, but if the new campus were linked to an established university at least the first year of these courses could be studied locally. There are, of course, advantages in cost savings as well if the affiliated model is adopted. We recognise that university places are more expensive than colleges of advanced education places, mainly because of the extra costs involved in the provision of research facilities. We also recognise that the need in the region is for undergraduate places. If this need is to be met by establishing a university without a research capacity, two problems could arise. There is the definitional problem that was raised by the Chairman of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission in his response. I believe it is a real problem. If research capacity is the feature that distinguishes between universities and CAEs, and a university is established without a research capacity, clearly, as Mr Hudson said in his response, we will have a university in name only and we compound the status problem. Problems also arise in respect of staffing. Without canvassing the question of whether the best researchers necessarily make the best university teachers, I would accept the argument that a research capacity is still essential if one is to attract high calibre staff. Offering, as it would, the use of existing research capacities, affiliation seems to me to offer the best prospect of avoiding problems that would arise with costs, definition and attracting staff of high calibre. Finally, I point to the historical success of development through the affiliation model. As the Minister for Education pointed out in her Press conference, the universities of Newcastle and Wollongong both developed as colleges of the University of New South Wales. The University of New England at Armidale started off as a college of Sydney University. The Australian National University in Canberra also began as a university college. I believe that, given the proper timetable, there is every reason to expect that affiliation would be equally successful in this case. There are, of course, a variety of models for development, not just the Parry full, immediate autonomy model or the college approach which has been outlined. There is also the possibility of a two-tier model. The new institution could be developed with an undergraduate division and a research and higher degree division, each having its own timetable for autonomy. I trust that the advisory council will give proper consideration to all the possibilities in its deliberations. I agree that there will be problems. These are inevitable, but they should not be self-inflicted as a result of poor initial planning. CTEC and the Minister have both pointed out that participation in the region is a problem. CTEC has very correctly said that the region has the lowest secondary retention rates in Australia. However, I point out that some improvements have been made and I look forward to those improvements continuing under this Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(12.34) —I am grateful to the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) for reminding me early in his speech of who was in power when certain things happened in the education sphere. He reminded me that the great expansion of education at all levels federally has been under Liberal governments. For example, the great expansion in the tertiary area was largely thanks to the late Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, who was a great promoter of tertiary education at a time when it was scarce in Australia. He foresaw the needs of the future and moved very decisively-with a not altogether co-operative Cabinet-to expand mightily tertiary education in the universities and colleges, back in the 1950s and 1960s. I am also reminded, of course, that a former Labor Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, is credited with great advances in education. I place on record that some advances in education were the result of the Whitlam Government. However, on the election of the Fraser Government, rationalisation had to take place in the organisation of those educational changes. Typically of Whitlam Government policies, the changes in the education area were pell mell and we inherited a great mish mash, a mess, a mindless growth in certain areas, to which the honourable member for Lindsay also referred when he put forward the views of a former member of this place. The real progress in education in Australia, federally anyway, has been made under Liberal governments. In this debate today we are debating the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill 1986, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986. Such a debate occurs only twice a year and it is rare for any other occasion to arise when the House of Representatives can debate the subject of education. This is a great pity because, in my opinion, the growth, development and future direction of education is critical to the future of this country. We are embarking on a cognate debate which enables us to talk about any area covered by those Bills and gives us the opportunity to put forward some ideas. It is a matter of great disappointment to me, as the seventh speaker after the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) in this debate, that so little has been contributed from the Government side to what one would call an education debate, as distinct from a strictly parochial debate. I congratulate the shadow Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), for his contribution. He has made a substantial contribution to the education debate in Australia, both in this chamber when the rare occasion has arisen, and outside. He has seen it, as does the Opposition generally, as a major part of the Opposition's role to stimulate debate on education policy-a debate which, if left to the Government, would have become an increasingly sterile one. It is important that we, here in the Parliament and outside the Parliament, contribute to a vigorous education debate because of the significance of the decisions that are made now about education for the future of this country. We are now in what is called the age of technology, when learning skills-the refinement of skills and the development of new skills-we are told, are to be the norm throughout life. It should, therefore, be a time for great expansion of educational opportunity and for the raising of educational levels in Australia. For a variety of reasons, some of which are cultural-partly Australian culture and partly the culture of other countries-Australia has for some time been notorious for the low level of its education compared with those of similar countries. For some little time now I believe Australians have been aware of the great need to extend maximum opportunity to our young people. Maximum opportunity means not only maximum participation opportunities but also maximum opportunity to have access to the best that our educators can possibly offer. We need to face the challenge of maximum education for the maximum number, of re-educating many people throughout life, and of higher and higher educational skills. Gone are the days when a bachelors degree, for example, was a golden meal ticket for life. Those who are familiar with the education system now realise that a bachelors degree is but a start. Those who are ambitious and wish to progress in their working and professional lives inevitably will have to return again and again to the education system, seeking not just further bachelors degrees but very specialised education and, commonly, as occurs in a number of comparable countries, higher degree training. Australian educational establishments have responded to this challenge and in the 1970s the development of post-graduate degree courses-particularly the masters degree area-in their variety, scope and new form, was very exciting indeed. But there is not much value in educational institutions channelling their resources into meeting that challenge of the community and modern life if those who would partake of them are denied access. At the moment Australia's education system, particularly in the tertiary area, is extremely inflexible, and to the measure it is inflexible it is irrelevant to the needs of citizens of this country. The effect of a Labor government has been to dampen down tertiary education-to put a dead hand on it as someone said earlier in the debate. Tertiary education has effectively plateaued in this country. This has happened far too prematurely because its base, as I explained earlier, was low for traditional reasons. The Hawke Labor Government has also moved to strait-jacket schools education. It has attempted to confine the expansion of the private sector where much innovation and exciting educational development has traditionally taken place in Australia. That is not to say, I hasten to add, that exciting developments and innovation have not taken place in the public sector. They have. However, the approach, the starting point and the opportunities that present themselves in the private sector are different from those that present themselves in the public sector. If it should happen, for example, that one had a State government which was not very sympathetic to the challenge of developments in schools we have always had the safeguard of a strong and vigorous private sector to provide an alternative for parents of children in that State. I well remember my primary and high school education in Queensland which `enjoyed' for some 30 years a State Labor government. I attended public schools for my primary schooling but when I faced my secondary education in the city of Brisbane, then a city with a population of half a million, I found that in the public sector I had an effective choice of three State high schools all of which were grossly overcrowded and under-supported by the State Labor Government. For those who wanted an effective secondary education in Brisbane in those days there was no choice but to go to a private school. Private schools were then extremely expensive because there was no government subsidy. They also suffered from overcrowding and lack of facilities because they attempted to keep their fees as low as humanly possible since they realised the pressures that were on the community for demand for places in secondary schools. That is an extreme position but it is one that could arise again. Without the safeguard of the private school sector, it would be all too easy for a State government to economise in the schools area. The private school system has made a major contribution to opportunities for and to the advancement of education in Australia. To now attempt to confine it, as the Government moves to confine it, in the development of new schools, the relocation of schools, or changes in the nature of existing schools in the private sector, shows that the motivation of this Government on the subject of its private schools policy is not a motivation geared to expansion but to the imposition of an artificial philosophy. In the couple of minutes left to me before the House has to adjourn this debate, I want to make just this comment about the Hawke Labor Government's tertiary policy: It is expensive and it is exclusive. It is expensive because we cannot afford the loss of opportunity that young people, or indeed anyone, facing tertiary education these days meet with the limited number of places in our tertiary sector. There is no prospect of real expansion. Further, it is expensive because we cannot afford free education for all. It is exclusive because in limiting the number of places provided in tertiary education institutions, it limits the opportunity of having a tertiary education to only a percentage of those who meet entry qualifications. It represents a cavalier denial of opportunity. I will say a final word on this subject of the coalition's schools policy as secretary of the coalition's policy committee on education and youth affairs. I am very intrigued by this policy that the Government apparently has in its possession. I am not aware that the coalition has yet reached the stage of having an official schools policy as such. I am only aware that certain drafts are around. However, I am also aware that it would not be very difficult to guess quite a few things about the Liberal and National parties' schools policy. I hasten to assure all those who have an interest in it that they can be confident, whatever the final proposals, that it will promote excellence and the maximum expansion of educational opportunity in this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — 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 honourable member for Moncrieff will have leave to continue her speech when the debate is resumed. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr MILES(Braddon)(12.45) —I would like to spend the next 10 minutes having a look at the victims of crime and what we should do with this problem that we face as a nation. During this week the Parliament has focused much of its attention on the ever-worsening economic future of this great nation-and well it should. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) himself has likened our situation to that of a banana republic, and that underscores the seriousness of our overseas debt, our high interest rates, our high relative inflation rate and our large Budget deficits. But I put it to the Parliament and to the Australian people that a far more serious problem that Australia faces is the problem of authority, respect and orderliness in our society. It is just over a year ago now that an article in the Australian caught my attention. It was headed `A million victims of urban violence in 1983'. Nobody in Australia can see such headlines and go home at night and forget about them without having serious thought as to where this nation is really headed. Economics-wise, yes, we spend a lot of time in this Parliament concerned about the economy. But what about people, the people in their homes? This year is the International Year of Peace, but what people are really worried about is not a nuclear bomb; what they worry about when they go to bed is whether they are going to be robbed or whether their children, when they go out for an evening to some entertainment, will be mugged. They are the things which people go home to and are worried about in our society. Mr Goodluck —It is the trendies who get all the headlines. Mr MILES —As the honourable member for Franklin says, every day one can look in the Australian papers and find violence and crime around this nation. That article went on to say: Urban violence labelled by police as senseless, meaningless or at best petty is reaching alarming proportions. The new crime wave is marring lives with tragedy and striking fear into people already vulnerable, such as the elderly, children, new migrants and women travelling alone on public transport. In the past week there was a wanton slaughter of 64 animals in the Adelaide zoo- that was last March, in 1985- . . . a serious attack on an 86-year-old man and his wife in their Sydney home unit. It went on: These are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg in a society psychologists say is getting colder. Mr Goodluck —What about our beautiful State of Tasmania? What happened down there? Mr MILES —That is certainly the case, as the honourable member for Franklin says, because at the beginning of this year there were eight horrific murders in Tasmania in a space of only eight weeks. That is something quite unknown previously in Tasmania. But all these problems raise the issue of authority, respect and order in our society. Just confirming these paper headlines, the statistics of crime for the period 1972-1982 show the dramatic rise in crime. There is no way in which we can rationalise it away by saying: `Our police are now much more effective. It is because there is a greater proportion of young people in our society, and it is the 18 to 25-year-olds who create most of the crime'. There is no way in which we can rationalise this by assuming that these dramatic increases are caused by those circumstances. Homicide increased by 22 per cent in those 10 years; robbery increased by 63 per cent. Mr Webster —That is only the reported cases. Mr MILES —Serious assaults increased by 64 per cent. As the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) says, that is only the reported cases. Motor vehicle theft increased by 88 per cent; fraud, forgery and false pretences by 94 per cent; breaking and entering by 90 per cent; and, last of all, rape by 116 per cent. But the increase in Australia's population was 14 per cent over that period. We are faced with this major problem as a society, but we seem too scared to address it. Just to bring into focus what is going on in our society, only on Monday night I was talking with a young mother who said: `I am very concerned when I hear about boys in my neighbourhood who had watched a program on TV, on the video, a few weeks before, so when Mum and Dad were out and mice could play, they got the kittens, they dug a hole, they put them in the ground, and then they ran the motor-mower over them to cut their heads off. And why did they do it? They did it, they said, because that is what they had seen on one of the videos and they thought that it would be thrilling and exciting'. Mr Goodluck —Horrifying! Mr MILES —As the honourable member says, it is absolutely horrifying. Yet we turn a blind eye to these types of behaviour patterns, which many psychologists, many teachers and many parents know are developing in our society largely because of the ideas which are coming from videos and TV portraying some of these horrendous activities. Mr Webster —What is the Government doing about it? Mr MILES —As a society-it is not just the Government's problem-we must address this type of problem. People say that we have to let adults watch whatever they wish to watch, and largely I go along with that; but the problem that we are faced with in this society is that much of this horrific material is being watched by young people and now it is being expressed in their behaviour patterns. The way in which people model their lives in society is not by reading textbooks; it is by watching leaders in our society to see what they allow to happen and to see what they accept as being reasonable. The leaders of the Australian society since 1970 have said that it is acceptable for us to watch this type of material, and now we are seeing it come to fruition in the young people who have grown up under its influence. As I said earlier, people do not go to bed and worry about whether they are going to be bombed with a nuclear bomb, but they do go to bed worrying about violence in our society and whether they will be intruded on that night. They worry about young women being raped, and even older women are not exempt from being raped. A 116 per cent increase in rape in 10 years is absolutely horrendous. What we have to do is to turn our society around from being a society which is materialistic and self-centred, and, as leaders in this place and as leaders in local government and State leaders, along with teachers and parents, refocus the attention of our society on to an approach which I would call `relational'. In other words, people would be given a high prominence, and relationships between people would be regarded as more important than buying flash cars, or building beautiful new homes, or going for overseas trips. That is not the essence of life. The essence of life is about the relationships which we have with each other, and, sadly, in our society these relationships are being degraded. It is about respect for authority, and we in this place, as people on which the younger generations will model their lives, have to show a keen sense of authority, when it needs to be used, and we must know when to back off. In regard to pornography and the violence that appears on some TV programs, we have to take a much firmer stand and take action in this way. We have also got to take much more positive action in regard to crime, which is rampant in our society. I believe in the use of phone tapping, and there should be greater access to this. I know that civil libertarians will say it is not on, but I think we have to tackle this problem head on, rather than continually backing off and seeing our society slide into a quagmire. I also believe that in our schools there should be a greater back-up by parents of the teachers towards an orderly approach in the classroom. It is becoming a jungle in many of our schools, and many of those teachers who are thoughtful, caring and sensitive, are saying `It is too much', and they are getting out, and we are leaving the classroom situation to only those people who are very strong, who have a physical carriage sufficient to carry the day in the classroom. That is very sad, because we are losing many of those people who are good models for young people out of the classroom-and they need good models. Another aspect which arises in this area, and which has been raised from time to time, is capital punishment. I support the view of the honourable member for Franklin, who has called for the return of capital punishment. I think it is part of the solution. Just because other societies do not have it, that does not mean that the cultural background of Australia will support a situation where capital punishment is redundant. I believe it is part of our psyche. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(12.55) —The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) referred to the victims of crime. In this grievance debate I, too, want to grieve for some victims-the victims of international terrorism. On 15 April, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) issued a statement following the American military action against Libya. There were three important elements in that statement that relate to the threat that international terrorism poses to the world community today. The first was the statement of the Australian belief that force is not the appropriate means to resolve international differences. Secondly, the statement demonstrated our understanding of the American predicament, a belief that the Americans were driven by Libyan action to that military response. Thirdly, there was an expression by our Government of a readiness to work with other governments to deal with international terrorism. I believe that this response of the Australian Government was a correct and balanced one. I am pleased to observe that there are signs already that parts of the international community are increasingly prepared to look at ways of dealing in a concerted way with the problems of international terrorism. This concern is certainly overdue. There is ample evidence to show that the scale and, therefore, the costs of terrorism have grown alarmingly in recent times. Last year, in 800 major attacks over 2,000 people were left dead or wounded. There were three major incidents at the end of 1985 which gained world attention. There was the hijack of the Italian cruise ship the Achille Lauro and the subsequent murder of an elderly American passenger in October. There was the hijack of Egyptair flight 648 in November, in which 56 people were killed, including one Australian. There were the attacks on the El Al counters at Rome and Vienna airports in December, which left 18 people dead and l21 wounded. Then, this year, there was the bombing of a Berlin night-club, which, of course, led to the American action against Libya. On 17 April, there was an attempt to plant a bomb on an El Al airliner at Heathrow airport, the so-called `girlfriend affair'. The execution of four hostages occurred in Lebanon. There was the attempted bombing of the American club in Turkey. There was the bombing of the American Express and Control Data premises in Lyon on 26 April, which followed the murder the day before of Black and Decker's principal executive in France. These are just some of a number of atrocities which form a pattern of behaviour the total cost of which is incalculable, not just in terms of the lives lost and the human misery inflicted, not just in terms of the material costs of destroyed and damaged buildings and aircraft and so on, and in the provision of increased protection, but in the damage that has been caused to the established pattern of peaceful international relations. Andrew Selth, in an article entitled `Terrorism-No-one is ``innocent'', no-one is ``neutral'' in the latest Current Affairs Bulletin, makes that point when he writes: Some terrorist groups have no doubt attracted to their ranks followers who are mentally unstable or who act out of purely criminal motives. The majority, however, appear to be individuals (or representatives of states) who see terrorist tactics as legitimate means of pursuing political objectives. It is this weakening of international order, the existence of two sets of rules or, rather, one group of nations following the rules and another group acting outside those rules, that poses the most serious challenge to us all. An examination of the characteristics of modern terrorism demonstrates some of the difficulties of dealing with it. Because of the essentially symbolic nature of both the target and the act, the modern terrorist operates in an extended battleground, making the location of preventive resources very difficult indeed, and because in terrorist acts restraint is increasingly cast aside, the location of appropriate levels of protection is also very difficult. The escalation of the scale of these attacks can be linked, at least in part, with the growth of state sponsorship of terrorism. As Selth says: Not only are states providing greater support for terrorist groups around the world, but also to an increasing extent they are becoming directly involved in particular terrorist operations. Given that the major focus of terrorism, particularly state sponsored terrorism, lies in its links with the Middle East, it follows that solutions must also lie in solving the complex problems of that region. As Selth and other writers have pointed out, these problems are political and socio-economic in nature, and they will ultimately only be solved by greater co-operation between states, continued quiet diplomacy and more imaginative approaches. One such approach has been offered by Israel's Prime Minister, Shimon Peres. It was offered by Mr Peres to the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 22 April last. It was my privilege to be present in the Hemicycle of the Council of Europe on that day to hear his speech, which essentially was an appeal for a co-operative approach on two levels-on the level of prevention and on the level of economic aid. I would like to quote some of that speech. It was, in all, an excellent speech. I would love to quote the lot of it, but I shall quote some of the more significant passages. Mr Peres said: History has known bursts of religious and political extremism manifested in open warfare as well as terrorism. Their duration was determined largely by the apathy of onlookers. Combating international terrorism should be immediate, comprehensive, constant, and consistent in its application. It must be co-operatively executed. Terrorism is uncompromising in its actions, thus confronting it must be of an uncompromising nature. A firm commitment to such a policy by the free world-the main theatre for their action-and surely by the European countries, can tame the patrons of terrorism and contain the problem. Coupled with all those difficulties, the Middle East is now faced with the added dramatic threat of economic deterioration. Falling oil prices caused the loss of billions of dollars to the countries in the Middle East. In addition to that direct loss, others, whose economic stability depends on the prosperity of the oil producers, are affected by the consequences. Revenues in remittances by nationals working in the oil countries are falling; direct assistance has been sharply reduced; import capacities have been significantly lowered; and, recently, tourism has declined as a result of terrorism. All these serve to aggravate economic hardships. The overriding immediate challenge in the Middle East is therefore the alleviation of this looming economic crisis. Its tremors can already be felt under the surface. What should be done under those dire circumstances? Lost income to oil producers is a net gain to consumers. Hence, the industrialised countries are expected to save an estimated $70 billion this year alone. If even a small proportion of this expected saving were channelled to an economic rehabilitation program for the region, it could make a substantial contribution to peace and stability in the Middle East. The countries affected are faced with a high birth rate and have limited natural resources. They face a difficult choice: to submit to uncontrolled bitter forces or to mobilise external support to meet their urgent needs. There is no hope for a stable peace in the Middle East without a stable economy in the most important countries there. Moreover, involvement in economic development may grow into support for a positive political process. This distinguished Assembly- he was referring to the Council of Europe-- can assume a leadership position in the launching of an imaginative 10-year economic program, thus promoting stability and peace in the region. The Peres plan has already attracted support from a number of people-from Helmut Kohl of West Germany, from Bettino Craxi of Italy, and from Prime Minister Nakasone of Japan. Responses from other major industrialised nations have also been encouraging. They might well lead to a political and economic breakthrough. I close by expressing the hope that these constructive developments continue and that we can move towards a more ordered and peaceful world community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(1.05) —I rise to express my grievance for my constituents who reside in the suburb of Kurnell and who have been getting a very raw deal indeed from the various authorities which have, or which are thought to have, the power to affect their environment, their lifestyles and, literally, their actual lives over many years. These threats are on again. I refer to the growing industrialisation of the region, which has been enthusiastically stimulated over the past three decades by a series of Labor policy decisions based on careless indifference and a total lack of concern for the citizens who live in the birthplace of the nation. The rot started when the Cahill Labor Government decided to establish oil refineries nearly 30 years ago. This was compounded in 1962 when Labor Minister Pat Hills advocated the establishment of Sydney's second major airport at Towra Point, a proposal which received the total support of Labor councillor, now Senator, A. T. Gietzelt at that time. It should be recorded that having been a staunch supporter of Towra Point as a major jet airport, Shire President Gietzelt then reversed his attitude and there were some very quaint about-faces after I had won the seat of Hughes from the Australian Labor Party in 1966. I was proud to have played a significant part in stopping the likelihood of any such development at Towra Point by any Federal Liberal-National Party government. Time restraints in this debate stop me from developing this point, which I shall talk on at another time. The current threat I refer to is the lodging of development applications by three major companies for industrial sites at Kurnell. The chemical giant Bayer is seeking approval to build a formulation plant for crop protection and veterinary products, a $12m investment. AGL wants to produce and store gas. Materials Technology Limited wants to produce a lightweight concrete product, and there is considerable speculation that at least two other companies are interested in sites at Kurnell. One of these is said to be W. R. Grace, which is believed to have purchased land for future development. All of these applications must contain an element of risk for the Kurnell and Cronulla residents. The zoning of Kurnell has been a running sore for decades and the source of great dispute between the Sutherland Shire Council and the corresponding departments of various State governments. In all this time the residents of Kurnell have been treated like the proverbial mushrooms-kept in the dark and fed on manure. The present dispute revolves around land which is zoned 4 (C) 4, industrial special, and was originally proposed by the New South Wales Department of Environment and Planning as an exclusive petro-chemical zone. Following submissions from Sutherland Shire Council and other interested parties, it was zoned to accommodate a more general spectrum of industries. To my understanding, the Department has won out because the zone still permits petro-chemical industries, and herein lies the problem. Section 101 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 declares that any authorisation for development must come from the State Minister. The local government authority, in this case the Sutherland Shire Council, cannot approve or reject a development application for the site, but it can express an opinion to the Minister on any development application. Of the three development applications and associated environmental impact studies so far received by Sutherland Shire Council, one has progressed to the stage where the Minister must make a decision. Council refrained from supporting this application, citing a number of unresolved issues relating to transport and safety. The MTL application is currently being considered by Council, and the third application by Bayer has been submitted with an EIS. Council submitted this EIS to the University of New South Wales for an independent evaluation, and I have reason to believe that this evaluation may not be favourable to Bayer, citing unresolved issues and, in particular, that Bayer had not, or could not, justify the proposed relocation from its present site at Botany to Kurnell. I believe that the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Carr, deserves the strongest condemnation for his handling of this entire issue. He has been evasive and non-committal. Everything he has said and done simply lends credence to the public perception that he will approve these applications no matter what advice he receives from the Sutherland Shire Council. On top of all this, on 4 February this year, he used his powers to strip the Sutherland Shire Council of its planning powers. He said that his decision was `primarily to underline the Government's concern with the protection of urban bushland as well as at other council activities dredging creeks and estuaries'. While most of these planning powers were subsequently restored to Council, it is interesting to note that an article in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader of 11 February said: Late last year (1985) several hectares of bushland in Sir Joseph Banks Drive (at Kurnell) owned by the Industries were bulldozed with the permission of the Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Carr. I am not aware of any ministerial denial. Come, Mr Carr; as an old bushwalker, who needed to control whom on this occasion? While the Minister has publicly said Kurnell will not become a dumping ground for noxious industries, his Department has released the revised draft of the Sydney regional environment plan which says, in part, that it `shall permit potential hazardous facilities to be established only on land at Kurnell and Botany'. So we have the Australian Labor Party Minister saying that it is a nonsense to suggest Kurnell will become an industrial dumping ground, while, at the same time, his Department is saying that Kurnell is one of only two areas in southern Sydney suitable for hazardous industries. Come on, Mr Carr, you must be able to work this one out, too. I would like to congratulate the people who have led the fight to ward off these industries. They are the Kurnell Action Group, who have maintained a peaceful, strong and effective campaign. If Mr Carr thought he was taking on a bunch of ill-organised locals, he now knows otherwise. Residents of Kurnell fear, with justification, that in the event of a major chemical explosion or fire, they would be cut off and emergency services would not have adequate access to reach them. Quite seriously, they could be faced with a Dunkirk-style operation to get them off the peninsula and away from the noxious gases. This is an absolutely ludicrous situation in metropolitan Sydney. Mr Frank Bryce, Secretary of the New South Wales Firemen's Union, has been reported as saying that, in the event of a fire or accident, residents would be at risk because of the inadequate access road and the fact that Kurnell is not part of the New South Wales Fire Brigade's operational area. The community, I might add, is served by a dedicated volunteer bushfire brigade whom I congratulate on all their dangerous and selfless work on behalf of not only the Kurnell people but local industry as well. Mr Carr's Department is said to be conducting a total risk assessment study for the Kurnell area, but this will not be completed until June at the very earliest. I would be interested to know whether this is correct, and, if so, why it is that the public inquiry in the AGL development application has been held before this risk assessment is completed. The Kurnell Action Group also opposes development of noxious industries in the area on the grounds of ecological damage. The peninsula is unsuitable for this type of development because of its quick water run-off and closeness to nature reserves and oyster farms. The nearby environs host oyster leases which are labour-intensive and represent a significant financial investment. The Towra Point region is now a designated nature reserve, and the Australian and Japanese governments have signed a treaty to preserve this habitat of rare bird life, most notably the Japanese snipe. Surely any noxious development nearby must pose a threat to this finely balanced ecological system. The State Labor Government has just announced that it proposes an aquatic reserve around Towra Point and into Botany Bay. How on earth can it marry this idea with the development of noxious industries? The main complaints being aired at the moment relate to the Bayer proposal. Bayer claims its atmospheric emissions will be extremely low and conform with clean air regulations. It does admit, however, that some dust containing toxic material will be emitted, albeit only a very small amount. Bayer also says it will not permit contaminated water to discharge to Quibray Bay or any part of Botany Bay. It says that all waste water will be collected and treated and `first flush' rainwater will be similarly processed if necessary. Bayer has included its own risk assessment study in its EIS. Safety studies have been carried out to evaluate the risk to residents from an explosion, fire and exposure to toxic dust. It is interesting to note that a Bayer officer briefed the Botany Bay Sub-Region Community Advisory Committee last November, and under questioning from Committee members, the officer is reported as having conceded, and the Committee remains concerned, that Bayer could not give any definite guarantees with regard to safety. The officer is also reported to have said that Bayer had not considered the cumulative effect of other new industries nearby. For my part, I consider any risk to be too great for the residents of Kurnell. The Kurnell Action Group maintain that there has been a long list of complaints against the Bayer plant at Botany-a charge that the company absolutely denies. In short, the two parties beg to differ on very many points. Let me conclude by saying that along with the 1982 report of the Commission of inquiry into the planning of the Kurnell Peninsula, I agree that because of the vast potential of the peninsula for recreation and for tourist uses, the industrial zone must be visually and operationally compatible with those uses. Permissible uses should not be air-polluting or noxious. As we approach our Bicentennial, it would be a crime to bury our birthplace with noxious gases and the like. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(1.15) —I would like to take up a theme that has already been introduced in this grievance debate by my colleague the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free), and that is the question of international terrorism. But I intend to deal with a number of other aspects and from a slightly different perspective. I was motivated to speak on this subject by the appearance in today's Sydney Morning Herald of an article dealing with the recent South African raids into Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia, in relation to which the Prime Minister of South Africa, P. W. Botha, invokes the precedents of United States action in Libya and Israeli action in the bombing of Tunis by way of justification of these raids. It served to underline a number of long-standing concerns that I have had about the way terrorism is treated in our country and, for that matter, in most other Western countries. It goes without saying that international terrorism is a very major concern of all reasonable people. Nobody wants to be shot or blown up at an airport, and these things represent an undoubted problem and one that has to be addressed. However, I think that if we are to address this problem, it should be dealt with in an even-handed manner and that we should opt for a definition of terrorist actions that corresponds with some sort of reasonable assessment of what the term might mean, and that we are equal in condemning terrorist acts from wherever they emanate. That needs to be the first point. I say that because we in the West tend to associate terrorist actions with swarthy, dubious characters of Middle East origin and do not believe for a minute that terrorist actions could emanate from nice, decent Judaeo-Christian democracies of the West. I think that that is a misconception that needs to be dealt with. I have a number of very serious concerns about the accepted mode of response to terrorist actions. It seems to me-and I will elaborate on this-that we are getting a view that the important thing where terrorism is concerned is that terrorist acts be seen to be responded to in some form, and that retribution is seen to have been delivered. It does not seem to matter that much whether the action concerned is totally out of proportion with the initial terrorist act; it does not seem to matter all that much whether the retaliation is actually effective in bringing about a reduction in the incidence of terrorism. I fear deeply the consequences of the sort of response that we have seen in the United States action against Libya. I will now go on to elaborate on some of these points. I begin by seeking a reasonable definition of the term `terrorism'. For the reason I outlined earlier, I think that is very important. The Parliamentary Library, in a recent Current Issues brief, defines `terrorism' as follows: Political terrorism is the use, or threat of use, of violence by an individual or a group, whether acting for or in opposition to established authority, when such action is designed to create extreme anxiety and/or fear-inducing effects in a target group larger than the immediate victims with the purpose of coercing that group into acceding to the political demands of the perpetrators. That is a definition that is apparently accepted by the leading authority on terrorism in this country. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable definition which, if accepted, brings a whole range of actions not normally considered as terrorism-not in our Western Press, anyway-within the ambit of a discussion. It would include, for example, the actions of death squads in Latin America, often aided and abetted by regimes that actively receive military and other material support from the present United States Administration that professes concern about terrorism. It would certainly embrace the actions of the Nicaraguan Contras, who, according to the former leaders who have given evidence before United States select committees, have engaged in such actions as assassination of Sandinista officials, kidnapping and torturing and killing of Sandinista civilian officials, violent attacks on economic infrastructure in Nicaragua, and, of course, mining of a Nicaraguan port-many of these actions carried out in accordance with directives set out in a manual prepared in the first instance by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. So if one starts to adopt a proper definition of the term, a few additional categories of actions have to be taken into consideration. It is my contention that the protestations of concern about terrorism by the present United States Administration certainly leave something to be desired in terms of moral consistency with its own actions. To return to the case of South Africa, where the South African incursions are justified in terms of terrorist actions which are supposed to have been committed by the African National Congress, what about the bloody repression perpetrated by the South African authorities-the shooting of unarmed demonstrators, the killing of prisoners in captivity, and so on? These matters, of course, also ought properly to be considered in any discussion of terrorism. One could take an example rather closer to home-the Rainbow Warrior bombing in New Zealand. There we had the blowing up of a ship and the killing of one person by the agents of a state. In this case it happened to be a friendly Western democracy, so we do not take the action quite as seriously as we would regard the same action had it been committed by a Libyan. The United States State Department, when questioned about its attitude to that action, was distinctly tardy and muted in its response. Again, it just serves to outline my point, that if we are going to be concerned about terrorism, as I believe we should be, we ought to be concerned about all acts of terrorism, properly defined, whether carried out by groups, individuals or the armed forces of a state. I emphasise the latter because in the Middle East situation the Palestinian rocket attacks on northern Israel are unambiguously categorised as terrorist, yet, on the other hand, the flattening of half of the city of Beirut, with thousands of casualties from phosphorus bombs and fragmentation bombs, of course, is not considered to be terrorist at all, because in this case it happens to be perpetrated by the armed forces of a state, rather than a group of individuals acting on behalf of a dispossessed group. That is the first broad range of points I make. I now discuss briefly the specific matter of the Libyan incursion. I think it should be fairly clear to anybody following the way this matter unfolded that the primary consideration of the United States Administration is not with reducing the incidence of international terrorism but, rather, with serving and playing to a domestic political gallery. There is not the slightest doubt about that. When one considers the retaliation that has been carried out, it is interesting that there is really nothing by way of a substantive argument put forward to the effect that that bombing will reduce the future incidence of terrorism. What we seem to have seen is already an orchestrated build-up of events. I stress that I am not an apologist for the Libyan regime. It is a dreadful regime and I am sure that Gaddafi has been responsible for supporting violent actions against Libyan dissidents overseas and others. However, looking at the circumstances surrounding this case, firstly, the raid is justified in terms of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which provides for the right of self-defence in the case of an armed attack. The question of the legality of that has been dealt with quite extensively in an article quoting Chalice Professor of International Law at Sydney University, Professor James Crawford, who makes the point that in order for that to provide a legitimate justification under international law there would have to exist conclusive proof. In this case, we have not seen the evidence that is alleged to exist, but the fact of the matter is that the United States has a track record of putting out distorted accounts of this sort of thing. Furthermore, I refer to an article in the Australian of 22 April this year in relation to the bomb attack on a West Berlin club and the United States raid on Libya. It spoke of the West German counter-espionage agency BND having a distinctly different interpretation of the telecommunications intercepts. So, I believe it is dubious under international law-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(1.25) —I am pleased to speak in this grievance debate today, and, following the uncharacteristically frank admissions last week of the Treasurer (Mr Keating), I suppose that the main grievance of an increasingly large number of Australians is that the Hawke Labor Government still clings to office after three years of leading us down the slippery path of economic ruin. We were once considered to be the lucky country, but undoubtedly we now are in deep trouble. The situation calls for statesmanship by all people. It calls for an approach to try to solve the very real problems confronting this country. I often wonder, from talking to you from time to time, Mr Deputy Speaker, just where this country is going to be in the next 10 or 15 years. What sort of inheritance are we going to give the children of this nation? I know that you yourself often consider this matter and are deeply concerned by it. We should look at the situation of Australia and look at the situation of Argentina. I believe that it is strongly arguable that we are indeed heading down the same road as that unfortunate South American country. Over the past 15 years this nation has not had very much long term planning at all. We have had elections every 18 to 20 months in some cases, and government policy seems to lurch from election to election. Decisions are made, it seems, on the run; they are ad hoc decisions and not decisions taken for the long term benefit of Australia. It seems that there have been far too many easy options accepted by governments on both sides of politics. Unfortunately, I was one of those 19 Opposition and Government members who were ruthlessly chopped from the debate yesterday on the Supply Bills, and I think that the Government should be condemned for the way that it constantly rams legislation through this House and prevents back-bench members from having the opportunity to properly debate it. We are fortunate that yesterday the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), mentioned that the Government must face up to seven very serious questions, and I am certain that the people listening would be interested to have these seven very important questions repeated. These are the questions that we asked the Government, and the people of Australia will no doubt join us in demanding firm, forthright and honest answers to them. When will the Government do something about the balance of payments problem? What will it do about our massive overseas public debt, which is currently $70 billion and well on the way to $100 billion? How can it reduce the level of inflation from over 9 per cent to the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of 2.9 per cent or less? How can the Government prevent our high inflation rates flowing on to wages and thereby further eroding our international competitiveness? When will it be able to reduce unemployment below the current level of about 8 per cent, and when will it be able to reduce youth employment below its current level of 22 per cent? My own electorate suffers from an extremely high unemployment figure as a result of Labor's economic policies. What hope does the Government hold out for taxpayers, 50 per cent of whom will be paying a top marginal rate of 40c in the dollar or higher by 1987-88 when the full effects of last year's tax package are in place? The seventh question is: What will the Government do about business investment? These matters, which were raised by the honourable member for Mackellar, are pertinent. They are matters which the Government should consider, and the Treasurer should stop giving his flippant, one-line answers and should sit down and appreciate that Australia is in deep trouble. The Treasurer, last week-I mentioned before that he was uncharacteristically frank-made some very illuminating statements. He said: `We must let Australians know truthfully, honestly, earnestly, just what sort of an international hole Australia is in'. What an admission! He said bluntly that the terms of trade which Australia was now experiencing were the worst since the Great Depression. The terms of trade covers the prices we receive for exports and the cost of imports. He warned that if the Government could not deal with the balance of payments problem successfully, then Australia is basically done for; we will just end up being a third-rate economy. Later he referred to the possibility of our becoming a banana republic. A columnist for the Australian, a very well regarded newspaper in this country said: Let us send the world a signal that we mean business. We must cut public expenditure mercilessly and show that we can take the consequent pain. We must have a wage freeze and put off for at least a year the productivity superannuation deal. We must summon the courage to do one thing that will really show we are serious about our future and pull our union movement into line. If we are fair dinkum, we will never again hold up an export shipment or ruin an overseas tourist's holiday. We in the Opposition are 100 per cent opposed to the Government's under-the-table deal with the union movement as far as the productivity superannuation situation is concerned. Australia cannot afford that. We would like to see that scrapped completely. But we must take note of what the Australian is saying. We must consider that the resources of this nation are finite. One of the major problems confronting Australia is ballooning government expenditure on social security. I seek leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, to incorporate in Hansard a table setting out expenditure under the Social Security Act. Leave granted. The table read as follows- EXPENDITURE UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT Particulars for year ended 30 June ($m) 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Age Pensions... 3508.8 3935.8 4506.9 4867.6 5313.7 5638.9 Invalid Pensions... 796.4 880.8 977.1 1068.4 1252.7 1469.8 Widows Pensions... 561.4 641.8 717.4 758.1 829.5 889.4 Supporting Parents Benefits... 259.6 412.4 605.9 727.7 889.6 1066.2 Sheltered Employment Allowance... 22.8 27.5 34.0 40.7 45.9 51.4 Unemployment Benefits... 925.2 995.7 1224.3 2249.0 2912.3 2983.6 Sickness Benefits... 126.6 174.5 225.1 270.8 335.9 364.6 Special Benefits... 52.9 70.0 74.1 89.2 92.8 100.3 Family Allowance... 1035.4 950.4 1041.8 1373.7 1506.3 1505.0 Maternity Allowance Handicapped Child's Allowance... 19.1 19.1 22.3 25.7 27.7 28.5 Double Orphans Pension... 2.1 2.1 2.9 3.7 4.2 4.0 Family Income Supplement... . . . . . . 2.2 36.1 40.9 Funeral Benefits... 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 Rehab. Allowance... . . . . . . . . 20.2 25.6 Mobility Allowance... . . . . . . .3 4.5 5.6 Mr SLIPPER —I thank the House. The situation is that with respect to unemployment benefits we are now outlaying in the year 1985 almost $3,000m; $2,983.6m to be precise. This has created in many Australians' minds a hand-out mentality. We must consider the unemployment benefit and what we must do to try to improve the situation. No enlightened person would today suggest that we should not have the dole to assist those people who are genuinely out of work. The situation has now arisen, however, where I believe it is right and proper for people to work for the dole, rather than receive it for nothing. Those opposite will no doubt construe what I say as an attack on the unemployed and those genuinely in need of government help, but nothing could be further from the truth. What I am advocating is that fit and healthy persons who are able to work should receive their unemployment benefit through working for it, rather than receiving it for nothing as at the moment. Over the past few months I have spoken to various groups throughout my electorate of Fisher and I have yet to find anybody who does not believe in work value for the dole. I wish to stress that only that those people who are fit and healthy would be required to provide work value. Recipients who, for medical reasons, are not able to work, would not be required to do so. There could be certain other exceptions, such as those undergoing training through the community youth support scheme or other programs. I am constantly amazed to see how Australian Labor Party members infer that there is some sort of bottomless pit of money or an inexhaustible supply of funds to meet every real or imagined need in the social welfare field. Nothing, of course, can be as soul destroying as not to have a job and not to be able to find one. Many people who are on unemployment benefits without work for a considerable period lose their self-esteem, self-regard and self-respect. By working for the dole people would feel that they were contributing something to the community in exchange for the community's help to them in time of need. The policy of work value for the dole would ensure a return to the nation on its welfare payout. No one knows for certain what proportion of people on the dole are members of that group which has previously been called dole bludgers, but under this Government's disastrous policies more and more people have been forced on to Labor's dole queues. If work value were implemented as an essential prerequisite to obtaining the dole, it is likely that only those who were genuinely unemployed would then be on the dole. Australia must look at the direction in which it is heading. We are in deep trouble. The Treasurer has admitted it. We have known it. The people of Australia understand that firm steps must be taken. They must be taken now. There must be a complete about-face in the Government's approach. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(1.35) —Overseas coverage by Australian media over the past few days has, not surprisingly I suppose, been concerned with South Africa's illegal and totally unjustified attack on three neighbouring states. But the past few days have seen a further stepping up of the genocide being committed by the Shengeleu Government of President Jayawardene in Sri Lanka against the Tamil minority, as the Government of Sri Lanka attempts a military solution to a communal problem in Sri Lanka. Like many Australians I am distressed and disturbed that Sri Lankan armed forces have commenced large scale military operations in the Jaffna Peninsula, including indiscriminate aerial bombing and strafing of Jaffna City itself, resulting in a large number of civilians being killed and hundreds wounded. Two wards of the Jaffna hospital were hit and I expect casualties there to be very high. As late as last night the coastal town of Valvettithurai was subject to naval and aerial bombardment. Again, I expect casualties will be high. I am awaiting further details on that. Such continued military operations will inevitably lead to a loss of still larger numbers of innocent civilian lives and only prolong the agony suffering of the people of Sri Lanka. How can this massive use of force by the Government of Sri Lanka be justified, especially at a time when Sri Lankan leaders have repeatedly professed their commitment to seeking a peaceful, political solution to the ethnic issue? It is particularly deplorable that such operations should have been undertaken at a time when the governments of India and Sri Lanka were engaged in discussions to find a peaceful, political solution to the problem. Such operations frustrate the process of negotiations. The sequence of events leading up to this abortive offensive must be critically examined. Firstly, the peace talks with the Indian delegation and the new proposals without substance had an ominous similarity to the ill-fated Timpu talks in Bhutan, when hundreds of Tamils were murdered by the forces. Secondly, the bombing of the Air Lanka jet, which resulted in the tragic loss of lives of innocent tourists, took place during the Tokyo summit on terrorism and the accusation was made-even before the dust settled-that the Tamil militants were responsible. Their vehement denial of any involvement in this cowardly attack of pure terrorism was ignored. The Sri Lanka Government put out transparently false evidence to incriminate them. Now, it is reported that Government employees were involved in the bombing, but most observers have not ruled out the Government's involvement in the attack. The insurers of the aircraft will doubtless investigate the disaster fully before paying out $US25m for an aircraft purchased in 1982 for $14m. Thirdly, the bombing of the central telegraph office in Colombo was likewise linked with the Tamil militants, although the Government now acknowledges that it sees the hand of an outlawed Sinhalese movement which staged a mass insurrection in 1971 behind the attack. As can be seen, the Sinhalese Government has been setting the scene for this attack, especially with the recent bombing at Colombo airport. I was concerned on Tuesday of this week when the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) who represents the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Button, in reply to a question in this chamber, repeated a claim made by the Sri Lankan Government that these outrages were committed by the Tamils. The same claim is made in Australia's media this week. As I have said, there is absolutely no evidence of Tamil involvement in this outrage. I have a strong suspicion that these outrages can be seen as part of the scene setting by the present Government of Sri Lanka. We have seen reports about military action recently that was claimed as a response to terrorism, and I suggest that by saying that it was attacking terrorism the Sri Lankan Government was hoping to get international support for its action. It really follows a pattern of hints over the past months from the President that a military solution would be sought. He is attempting to gain world sympathy for his disastrous policies by blaming these bombing outrages on the Tamils and thus justifying this latest exercise by the Sri Lankan Government. The statements by the President have been more and more extreme and emotive. While threatening military solutions, he talks about the Tamils' attempts to install communist dictatorship-again in an attempt to gain international sympathy, especially, I suspect, United States sympathy. The President and his Government have refused to listen to wise counsel, especially from India, which has been attempting to mediate between the Government and the Tamils and find some lasting solution. But the present Government appears not to want a solution and especially not a peaceful solution. Attacks on Tamils have been a daily occurrence for many years but these have intensified since the July-August 1983 genocidal attacks. There is daily harassment by the Sinhalese security forces and thugs-rape, murder, arson and killings are a daily occurrence. Over 10,000 innocent Tamils have been killed by the armed forces-forces that were often out of control. Over 200,000 refugees have fled the country. Tamils are now living in countries throughout the world. We must never lose sight of what President Jayawardene meant when he declared that there will only be a military solution to the problems of Sri Lanka. What he means is a complete annihilation of the Tamil people on the island of Sri Lanka. The facts are well documented by such bodies as Amnesty International, Law Asia, the International Commission of Jurists, and many others. What, I asked in this chamber, can we do? I suggest that time is long past when pious statements can be accepted as enough; and we cannot just wring our hands about it. I appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to raise the genocide of the Tamils at the United Nations Security Council. We should be asking the United Nations to send an international fact finding mission to Sri Lanka to establish the facts. The Australian Government must be putting pressure on Sri Lanka to stop the genocide. We must support the valiant efforts of India to bring a lasting peace to this troubled land. I remind members of this House that as we sit here in Australia now, the Sri Lankan regime is conducting an intensive bombing campaign on the Jaffna Peninsula, reminiscent of that United States bombing campaign against Vietnam. We cannot leave India alone to do the negotiations for a peaceful solution. We must express our solidarity with the Indian efforts, express our concern and disgust to the Jayawardence Government, and raise the matter in the United Nations. At this stage it should be of concern to Australians that the only thanks India has received for a valiant attempt at negotiations are unwarranted and baseless statements of the Sri Lankan leadership appearing in the Press critical of the Prime Minister of India. It is my view, and also the view of most informed observers, that there can be no military solution to the ethnic issue in Sri Lanka. The current military operations undertaken by the Sri Lankan armed forces will only lead to further worsening of the situation and add to the suffering of the people of Sri Lanka. It is my earnest hope that, rather than take recourse to the use of force and bloodshed against a significant section of its own people, the Government of Sri Lanka would do well to seek a resolution of the ethnic issue through a process of dialogue and meaningful pragmatic measures to meet the situation and resolve the problem. Since my last speech on the Tamil issue, I have been approached by the Sri Lankan High Commissioner, I have received a number of abusive telephone calls-which I always get; I will probably get more this afternoon-and now a telegram campaign is being directed against me. Many of the letters and telegrams come anonymously. They are claiming that I am supporting Marxist terrorists. People who know me here in this chamber will appreciate that this is absolute rubbish. What I am opposed to are the disastrous actions of the present Sri Lankan Government. I am opposed to the impact that they will have on the Tamil minority. What I am working for, as are many other members in this chamber, is a peaceful solution-not a military solution but a political solution to this problem, so that the island of Sri Lanka can return to its normal happy state and so that-as is everyone's right-the Tamils there can live in dignity and peace in their homeland. I will continue to pursue that cause in this Parliament and I will continue to speak out for the Tamil cause. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(1.45) —John L. O'Sullivan, the noted nineteenth century American writer and editor, once observed that `The best government is that which governs least'. I believe his observation was, and still is, demonstrably correct. I also believe that my agreement with his views is shared by the vast majority of those who are governed. Unfortunately, it appears to be largely ignored by the vast majority of those who currently have the responsibility of providing government. It is, therefore, perhaps understandable why many of those who find themselves in the latter `governors' division are held in such questionable esteem by those who, for better or for worse-and at the moment it is mainly for the worse-come within the `governees' category. It is very obvious that sometimes members of parliament forget that they have been elected to serve, although I suppose it could be argued, if one favours the use of colloquialisms, that the Hawke Government is certainly giving the people of Australia a serve at the moment. We are becoming increasingly overwhelmed by, and subjected to, a plethora of unnecessary and unjustifiable government legislation, regulation and intervention. We are being force-fed an overdose of J-curves, trilogies, accords, summits, and concepts of so-called consensus, which really means capitulation to powerful pressure groups which are far from representative of the Australian community in general. This socialist inspired, government promoted prescription is for a brand of medicine we do not want, do not need, and which is not providing any identifiable, positive, curative effect on the ills which are currently causing a rapid and potentially terminal degeneration on the economic, social and moral health of this great nation. Many of the problems now threatening the welfare and well-being of Australia and Australians are the direct and inexcusable result of over-government. Challenges which were once regarded as legitimate and necessary testing procedures, which could be easily overcome with a little determination and initiative, are fast developing into insurmountable obstacles around or over which there appears to be no possible way. Instead of concentrating on ensuring easier, better and less restricted opportunities for people to develop themselves and enhance their contribution for the common good of the community-either individually or collectively-this Federal Labor Government and its State and even local government counterparts are devoting their energies to implementing more complicated, less efficient and totally ineffective methods of dampening the inherent Australian characteristic of `having a go'. In other words, increasing interference by all levels of government in matters which are and should be of no real concern to them, because they have no positive contribution to make, are stifling the inventiveness, creativity, intelligence and adventurous spirit of a naturally enterprising people. Australians need and deserve to be encouraged to develop their potential and the potential of their nation. They cannot do so if they are continually hampered by the intervention of governments who appear to believe their own existence can be justified only by the imposition of restrictive and unnecessary legislative measures which serve only to limit and complicate the pursuit of the objectives and ideals of others. Ask anyone involved in small business what is the greatest stumbling block to his success. Almost without exception, his response will be: Government red tape, over-regulation, and the enforcement of pettifogging bureaucratic requirements which are of no practical benefit in assisting or enhancing their business prospects, profits or the development of greater employment opportunities. It is a fact that this country relies heavily on small business for its current and future economic growth and stability, but our increasingly desperate Treasurer (Mr Keating), in calling together his advisers for yet another summit meeting, has chosen to deliberately ignore not only the importance of small business but also the rural sector. Both are major and vital contributors to our economy. Both are currently suffering major problems and setbacks, mostly the result of actions of this Government, which will have enormous and potentially disastrous ramifications for all Australians if left unsolved. But the Treasurer neglects to act on the facts and continues to punt on the improbabilities. There is little point in consulting with only some of the people some of the time. If one persists in adopting this method, one invariably ends up with only some of the answers to some of the problems. Another aspect of the dangers inherent in the current approach of these harbingers of socialist theory is that they are actively encouraging people to depend not on themselves and their own initiative but on the benevolence of government. Unfortunately, the Government-being, as it is, a non-productive entity-can only continue to be benevolent so long as it can obtain sufficient funds from outside sources. These outside sources are, in the main, the long-suffering Australian taxpayers. On the one hand, we have a government which implements and promotes measures designed to effectively limit the growth and profitability of the private sector-and therefore effectively limit the creation of additional tax revenue through reasonable means-whilst at the same time it undertakes massive spending sprees on all sorts of ineffective measures which have no relevance or bearing on the real needs of the community as a whole. The Treasurer now looks at the results of his handiwork and informs us that we are rapidly approaching banana republic status. He tells us that some belt tightening is needed. At the same time, we read of millions of dollars being frittered away on useless schemes which are meant to be solving the problems of the nation but are in reality only helping to create them. Australians have a right to expect more from their Government than this litany of disaster, which is the record of the Hawke-Keating-Crean administration. The people have a right to expect decency, honesty, compassion, morality, understanding, encouragement and a fair deal for all. They should not have to tolerate a system which rewards hard work, initiative and enthusiasm with diminishing rewards, whilst at the same time giving increased protection and encouragement to the non-contributors in our community. They have a right to expect a government which takes credit for its own achievements, rather than depending for publicity on the rather shallow boast that it is the receiver of goods obtained through treacherous and immoral means. I do not believe that the Australian farming community will derive much pleasure from seeing a smiling Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) whose delight is caused not by any upturn in the rural sector but because he has managed to obtain a copy of an Opposition policy document. If the Government thinks it will obtain mileage with the Press or the electorate as it continues on its merry way of leaking already-leaked documents, then it will find that the vast majority of people are not very impressed with its involvement in such below-the-belt and undesirable activities. I have no doubts whatsoever that in the final analysis, the contents of the leaked coalition policies will reflect very creditably on the Opposition plans for getting Australia back on the right track. But it will never reflect creditably on the Hawke Government that it was forced to stoop to such sneaky and malicious depths in its efforts to get its own appalling performance off the front pages of the newspapers. All that it has achieved, and could hope to achieve, will be to highlight to the public that there are always people who can be bought, and there are always people prepared to buy them. It is time this Government got back to the business of governing-not through the implementation of further restrictive legislative measures; not through the introduction of more taxes or other imposts on certain-often very vulnerable-sections of the community; not through threats or promises that cannot and will not be kept; but through the re-establishment of some much needed dignity and decency in the manner in which it carries out its duties and responsibilities. Yesterday in this House the Treasurer suggested that the Opposition had sunk to incredibly low depths. I would like to suggest that if we have, then we are most assuredly sharing the available space with the Government. The difference is, as it is sinking even deeper, we are looking to the stars. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(1.54) —I thought today that in the few minutes remaining before the grievance debate terminates, I would talk about poverty, as we find it as members of Parliament, because we all have to interview constituents who are out of work. I was a member of this House in 1982 and I remember the collapse of the economy after the 1982 Budget, when a million Australians were put out of work, and how sad it is to meet people who want a job, people who have a family or those who might be single, men or women, who want to work and have no opportunity to find employment. I say that today because the greatest boast that this Government can make, and the hallmark of this Government in years to come, will be that it did create, not half a million jobs, which it had promised to create in the 1983 election policy, but 600,000 jobs. It is a great credit to the Ministry, to the parliamentary Leader, Mr Hawke, and to the entire Government, that these 600,000 jobs have been created, and they are substantially in the private sector. Only the private sector can employ Australians. We cannot put people who are out of work into the Public Service ad infinitum; we have to stimulate the private sector, and that is what the Government has done. Being in Opposition here, I remember how reluctant the National-Liberal Party coalition was to launch any sort of job creation scheme. The only job creation, of course, was in the tax avoidance industry, which was a growth industry under the Liberals. Even with the Commonwealth Employment Service, which was the only token they had to help the unemployed, there were moves, under the razor gang, to cut back the activities of the CES. The present Government is to be congratulated because it has stimulated the labour market; we have got 600,000 Australians into jobs, and they are essentially not with the big employers, such as Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, with 50,000 employees, but in the small firms. Three-quarters of the work force in our nation in the private sector are employed by small business. Job creation has been a major success, a major part in getting this turnaround in employment. In its first Budget in 1983-84, the Government contributed nearly $600m to job creation schemes. This has tapered off, so that in the 1985-86 Estimates we see $446m for job creation schemes. The notion of the deserving poor, that we should not pay unemployment benefits and to people who are out of work, is something that I find appalling. I was sorry to hear the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) talking about the unemployed having to work for the dole. It is all very well for the honourable member for Fisher to say these things; they are heady notions, perhaps, to Liberal Party and National Party branches. But in my electorate the long term unemployed are essentially middle-aged males, men in their late fifties or sixties, who are non-English speaking and often on light duties-they have had an accident at work, they have been retrenched, they are put off. These people cannot work for their dole, they cannot do heavy work. They want to work. They come to see me, as they see us all. They would dearly love a job. This notion that we give the dole only to the deserving poor is so much nonsense and rubbish. It shows a lack of understanding as to who is out of work. The other group out of work, in all of our electorates, is young girls-15, 16 and 17-year-olds. They want to work, but the CES cannot send them away fruit picking. Who is going to supervise them? It is just farcical nonsense for the honourable member for Fisher to talk about getting the unemployed to work for their dole. One has to have people to supervise. The Government is spending $446m on job creation schemes. I pay credit to local governments for getting involved in these schemes; but they say to me: `You must have people to supervise. You have to have people to train the unemployed. You have to have people to keep records.' It is a very expensive exercise to create jobs, and the Government is easing out of that as the economy picks up and as the private sector employs more and more people it sops up the unemployed. To be poor is a sad state. Most of the poverty in our nation, as we all know as members who see the poor and meet them in our offices every day when we are there, comes from sickness or from unemployment. It is a terrible situation, in any country, for any family to be touched by poverty. When we came into government there were a million Australians out of work, a million families stricken with poverty-and we hear all this nonsense that the unemployed should work for the dole. That is an absolute insult. All honourable members here know who is unemployed in their areas. They see people in their offices who want a reference for a job, who want some direction, or just some encouragement, some reassurance that they might get work. In this grievance debate it is important that we touch on this issue of poverty. The Government is in the process of reducing taxes, of helping the unemployed and of creating jobs, and I think it is to its credit and I think it will go down in history as the Government that got Australians working and Australians back into jobs. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HOWARD —Will the Treasurer give a firm guarantee to Australian taxpayers that tax cuts, as promised, will be delivered on 1 September? If not, why does the final draft of the Australian Labor Party's new 1986 platform, to be debated in Hobart in July, state that Labor is committed to income tax cuts in two stages from 1 September 1986 and 1 July 1987? As the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer and the Treasurer's own staff helped write the new platform which has just gone to the printer, has the Treasurer made any last minute attempt to have that commitment withdrawn? Mr KEATING —I might say that we throw these draft platforms around like confetti, so if the Leader of the Opposition thinks he has discovered anything there, to use an expression of a former Labor Treasurer, it is as though it might be something that could have been left on a tram. These are draft documents; they have to go to the conference, and, of course, they reflect the position which obtains. I made it clear yesterday that tax cuts will proceed this calendar year. There is no question of that. We will not be doing as the former Treasurer did-promise them at an election and snatch them back entirely the following May. I make it quite clear that we are unequivocal about that. While I have said that this matter was discussed at the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes meeting a week ago and will be discussed at the future meeting, the Government, at this stage, has made no decision to alter the timing. Madam SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Eddison Zvobgo, Minister for Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs in the Government of Zimbabwe and Mrs Zvobgo, a member of the Parliament of Zimbabwe. On behalf of the House I extend to them a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr LANGMORE —Is the Minister for Health aware of a number of Australian children with growth retardation recently proven to be due to pituitary growth hormone deficiency are not being given access to biosynthetic human growth hormone, even though it is readily available and despite their having been formally approved for treatment on medical grounds by the Human Hormone Sub-committee? Is it proposed to allocate funds so that new patients can be accepted without delay into the trial of biosynthetic human growth hormone? If so, when? Dr BLEWETT —As the House is aware, because of problems with the pituitary growth hormone, the program was ended in the middle of last year. We immediately sought to get into this country a biosynthetic substitute which we were able to get by the end of the year. All the children being treated under that original program were then treated under the current clinical trial of this biosynthetic human growth hormone. We have now decided that, in addition to those already on the program, all new approved candidates will be accepted for treatment during this clinical trial process. I can assure the honourable member for Fraser that we have now approved the inclusion in the current clinical trial of the biosynthetic human growth hormone of additional patients not previously approved for treatment who meet the criteria of the Human Pituitary Advisory Committee for growth hormone therapy. I understand that involves some 27 new patients who have been approved. Any further applications will be received, considered by that Committee and, if recommended, given access to the clinical trial. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to table the Australian Labor Party's 1986 draft platform on trade, employment, industrial relations, the economy-including taxation-and also, for an additional piece of confetti, the minutes for the last meeting of the Australian Labor Party's national economic policy committee. Leave granted. Mr N.A. Brown —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Does the Government propose, first of all, to give immunity to trade unions and their officials from common law actions concerning illegal industrial disputation; secondly, to force independent contractors to work under union awards; and, thirdly, to repeal all penal provisions directed at unions and union members as is set out and proposed in the Australian Labor Party's draft industrial relations platform-a copy of which has been so thoughtfully provided to the Opposition by a public-minded citizen within this House? Mr WILLIS —These are all matters which will be addressed by the Government in the context of responding to the report of the Hancock Committee of Review into the Australian Industrial Relations Law and System. When we bring forward legislation in respect of that, the House will know the answer to those questions. Ms McHUGH —Does the Minister for Housing and Construction endorse the views of the Executive Director of the Australian Bankers Association, Mr Alan Cullen, that a resurgence in the housing industry is under way and that housing interest rates should trend down? Mr WEST —I am very pleased to hear the optimistic views expressed by the Executive Director of the Australian Bankers Association regarding current lending levels by savings banks and his optimistic predictions about the future levels of housing interest rates. Like Mr Cullen, one appreciates the linkages between the balance of payments, the exchange rate, monetary policies, and budget and tax policies and their impact on future interest rates. I will make just a couple of points in relation to what Mr Cullen said. In the current economic situation one feels that interest rates are, of course, more sensitive to monetary policy than anything else. Secondly, it is obviously important to people who want to borrow for new housing loans, whether it be from savings banks or permanent building societies, that Mr Cullen be proven correct. I think the indications are that there is a good chance that he will be proven correct with regard to interest rates. If honourable members look at the history of 90-day bank bills over the last few months they will see that in December they were at a level of 19.75 per cent and today they are at a level of 14.7 per cent. As for the trading bank prime rate, back in December it was running at 21 per cent and today at least a couple of banks have it at 17 1/2 per cent. I say for the benefit of the Opposition that I understand that at least one major trading bank actually reduced its prime rate after the news of last Tuesday week, which I think is a heartening decision. Also with regard to Mr Cullen's comments on savings bank lending rates, I am also heartened by results since the housing package was introduced. Lending levels have gone up since I reported to the House several weeks ago. Savings banks are now lending at a rate in excess of $600m a month. The Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia is currently lending about $150m a month, the State Savings Bank of Victoria about $125m a month, the National Australia Bank Ltd over $100m a month, Westpac Banking Corporation about $90m a month and the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd about $95m a month. If any member of the Opposition is thinking about drawing attention to the level of bank lending for the month of March, the figures which were released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, I suggest that he or she is way beyond the times and ought to look at the figures to which I have just referred. Opposition members interjecting- Mr WEST —I make the point, if the honourable gentlemen on the dissipated, and disintegrating front bench opposite will listen for a moment, that there is one minor qualification about the future level of lending. Mr Cullen reportedly said that the banks would have no trouble reaching their target of $6,000m lending for 1986-87 providing that the demand was there. On this point I should say that the private savings banks in particular have a current repayment to income ratio of approximately 25 per cent. This makes the future level of low start lending extremely important because the availability of low start loans influences the level of demand. This Government is encouraging all lenders, particularly the savings banks, to educate the public about the benefits of low start loans. A low start loan can mean that even though interest rates are currently 15 1/2 per cent- Opposition members interjecting- Mr WEST —Opposition members are not interested in hearing about the benefits for home borrowers which are emerging from our housing package. I make it clear to them that the Government will be pushing the benefits of low start loans in future. It is extremely important to take pressure off public housing and to make home ownership available to both low and middle income earners. So whilst I am very pleased to hear that the Australian Bankers Association is optimistic about the future level of lending activity and the future level of interest rates, I say to the House and to honourable members opposite that as we conclude our written agreements with the banks we will be seeking firm assurances about the future level of low start lending for the future of home loan borrowers. Mr MACPHEE —My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications. What steps will the Government take to ensure that television licensees seeking immediate aggregation have made an independent judgment on commercial grounds regarding broadcasting and are not acting as stalking-horses for other interests? Mr DUFFY —A certain subtlety in the question may have escaped me; but, insofar as I was able to follow it, I say to the honourable member that if he cares to read the ministerial statement he will find that an indicative plan will be published which will then go out to the industry. That indicative plan will have in it financial projections. If a licensee in an approved market, on the basis, I would have thought, of a normal commercial judgment, decides that he wants to aggregate within that approved market aggregation will take place. If the honourable member is suggesting that in some way the Government looks behind that decision, I am unable to indicate how one would do that. It will be a matter for the judgment of the licensee concerned. I would have thought that, having regard to the fact that licensees of commercial regional stations over a period of 10 years have shown a revenue growth of between 9 per cent and 13 per cent and an average growth of around 11 per cent, they are obviously, to say the least, reasonably astute in a business sense. I would not think they would be electing for aggregation other than on commercial grounds. Mr HUMPHREYS —Has the Special Minister of State received any requests for the assistance of the Australian Federal Police for investigation of the recent leaking of confidential documents? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for his question. Obviously the newspapers today express concern by some members of the Opposition that certain documents that had been circulating among them for discussion, known as policy draft documents, had been leaked. As of the time of coming to the House, I can inform honourable members, I had received no requests for the assistance of the Australian Federal Police but I must say that it would be quite a challenge to the Australian Federal Police and quite a mystifying experience to sort out exactly who is doing the leaking. Apart from the fact that some authors have described the coalition as `the good, the bad, and the uglies'-I think the honourable member for Melbourne described the uglies a couple of weeks ago in the House-it is basically a fight between the wets and the dries. Do the dries leak? That has to be the question. Or is it only the wets who can leak? Or is there a closet wet in the dries? That is another question that must be answered. I was told, when we saw the draft policy on communications and Treasury, that at a meeting of a mixture of dries and wets, when the question of selling off the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and Telecom Australia came up, even a couple of dries wet themselves. So it would be quite a challenge to the police in an intensive inquiry and investigation into the Liberal Party of Australia to find out exactly who was doing it. One will notice that, corresponding with this avalanche of information which has come forward to the Australian public this week, the new opinion polls are out. Andrew has gone up 80 per cent. The honourable member for Denison has gone up 100 per cent-from one to two-which just shows that more than one person in Australia uses vaseline! Now comes the question: What would be the penalty for the person discovered as leaking these documents? There it is this morning, on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald: The Liberal Party is going to bring back the cane. Everyone who gets caught leaking documents is to be flogged. What we are going to do at our Federal Conference in July this year is consider an amendment to the Commonwealth Electoral Act to drop the voting age to five years. Mr McGAURAN —Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to the recent comments of the Deputy Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, Mr Peter Bailey, that it was the Commission's view that severely handicapped new born babies should be given drug overdoses to save resources? I ask the Attorney-General: Does the Government believe that such a view is representative of the community? Does the Attorney-General wish to dissociate himself from the views of the Human Rights Commission? Finally, in light of such views, does the Government remain confident that the Human Rights Commission will enforce the proposed Bill of Rights in line with accepted community attitudes? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not aware of the remarks allegedly made by Mr Bailey. If they were made, he made them in his own right and they do not represent the view of the Government, nor, I would think, the view of many people in Australia. Of course, the proposed Bill of Rights and the proposal for a reconstructed Human Rights Commission are still before the Senate. The Bill has been debated there for 36 hours-an Australian record for debate-and I hope the Senate will soon deal with that measure. We will then have an opportunity to re-form the Human Rights Commission, which will be a very worthwhile body, comprised of people who are well aware of Australia's responsibilities under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and mindful also of the rights of individuals. The honourable member asked me whether I had seen some remarks attributed to a particular person. I have not, but I think I can say that those remarks express that person's individual view but they in no way reflect the view of the Government. Mr BEDDALL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Given the economic difficulties in the rural sector, can the Minister comment on significant aspects of policy proposals being put forward by various organisations? Mr KERIN —The National Farmers Federation has been putting forward its policy proposals, many of which reiterate the demands of its many State-based affiliate organisations. Some of the views being expressed by rural organisations reflect beliefs that are patently untrue-for example, that the Government is running a dirty float. These organisations have the view that if only we ran a clean float, interest rates would drop by 6 or 7 per cent and the farming sector's problems could be settled because the lower value of the currency would solve all the problems. The Government has been intent on showing-it was in our economic and rural policy statement-that there is no dirty float, and that the relationship between interest rates and the floating of the dollar is not the relationship that farmers ascribe to it. All members of this House have to take into account the words of the Treasurer on the terms of trade. Quite frankly, when we have a drop in the value of the dollar of the magnitude of 25 or 30 per cent while in the wool industry, for example, the price of wool has risen by between 1.8 and 4 per cent, that drop in the value of the dollar does nothing but add to inflationary forces, thereby destroying international competitiveness even further in the longer term. The Liberal Party and the National Party have been coming up with various policy proposals over the last few months. The Leader of the Opposition had a five-point plan, and then there was a 14-point plan, an 18-point plan and a nine-point plan. Now, strangely, we have the Opposition's own policy document. The only significance of this is that under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition senior members of the Opposition Executive now leak. So deep is the disloyalty, so venal is the skul-duggery on the other side of the House-- Mr Hodgman —You are a receiver of stolen property. Mr KERIN —The honourable member is helping him, too. I heard him yesterday. He is trying to help the Leader of the Opposition. So venal is the skulduggery that the Opposition now stabs itself in the front. That is what is happening. The first thing I want to make absolutely clear is that the Opposition parties have absolutely no obligation to implement any policy when in government. That is in its platform, in its philosophy. This means that no platform or policy document produced by the Liberal or National parties is ever worth the paper it is written on. Nobody-no voter, no farmer-can ever seriously regard any policy document from the Opposition parties in this House as being anything more than the roughest guide to what they might do when in government. After all, Mr Fraser and the leaders of the two major parties opposite are past masters of doing exactly what they like in government, of breaking every promise, all in the name of expediency but never in the name of long term, sensible and rational policies. There is talk about the coalition splitting. There is always talk about that. It is not just a matter of the wets and the dries in the Liberal Party. We know that the Liberal and National parties fight like cat and dog in every State, except perhaps New South Wales. Mr Ian Cameron —What about the Labor Party and its left wing? Mr KERIN —Let us talk about Queensland. The eccentric Premier of Queensland is worshipped by every National Party member in this House, even the young ones. I find that amazing. Yet he has one electoral ambition in Queensland-to wipe out the Liberal Party. That is the reality. They have all this festering inside-no wonder the Executive leaks. As I have said, I welcome some aspects of the Opposition's policy, because the Opposition has never really taken agricultural policy seriously. I have not had a chance to examine the document closely, but I suspect that those clamouring for lower deficits-that is one line being run by the Opposition-will be horrified. The dry Liberals have never had anything in terms of policy. Look at the Liberal Party's present policy document. There is about five lines. The wet Nationals tell farmers what they want to hear and rely on bullying proposals through coalition Cabinets. That is the way they work. That is why the National Party conspicuously failed to implement sensible, rational, long term policies in the many years it was in office. That is why this Government has had to implement sensible changes for the dairying industry and the sugar industry, for example, statutory marketing reform. I welcome this document also because it does accept many of the constructive, rational policy initiatives of the Hawke Government which I spelt out in this place a month ago. The Opposition is actually acknowledging that we can do what it could not. I would like to ask what is the status of this latest document? What is the status of the former National Party 14-point plan? That would have cost between $3 billion and $6 billion. Will we have an Opposition policy on agriculture for the first time-which I may welcome-or will we have the National Party running a separate policy near election time? We really do not know because the parties opposite have never taken agricultural policy seriously. The significance of this document lies in its public appearance. It shows the splits, perhaps chasms. I am sure the Opposition Leader now knows how Caesar felt. I understand he wants to know the number on this document. I will do a deal with him. We will hand it out about three weeks before the next election. Mr Hunt —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Would the Minister care to table the document from which he was reading? Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Riverina-Darling. The Minister has refused. He did not take advantage of the offer. Mr Donald Cameron —I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister cannot refuse to table a document that is not classified as confidential. There is nothing confidential in that document, and I ask for your ruling. He has to table it. Mr Kerin —If they did not hear it and want to read it, that is fine. Mr HICKS —My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Following the Government's decision to drop the Bathurst-Orange area as a site for an Army training college and in the light of information that has been received by the Senate committee of inquiry, will the Minister alleviate the worries of landowners in the Cobar area by giving an assurance that the Army manoeuvre impact area will not be established in their region? Mr BEAZLEY —The decision not to proceed with the Army training facilities was not made in the light of any Senate committee discussions; it was made on the basis of advice given to me by the Chief of the General Staff. At the same time as he gave that advice to me, after I sought his advice on whether or not he wanted to proceed with the acquisition of land for a manoeuvre area at Cobar, he also advised me that he still wished to proceed with that. My view is that the environmental impact study ought to be permitted to proceed and then when the result of that study is known the Government will make up its mind on whether or not it wishes to acquire the land. There has been a lot of speculation about whether or not that land is required, given developments in the force structure of the Australian Army. As to the cost of the acquisition of the land that would actually be required, only some 190,000 hectares would be needed, although the Army would be seeking special access to a much larger area than that. The area to be acquired is minimal, in accordance with whatever level of priority might be assigned to particular armoured capabilities that would be exercised within it. Whether or not the force structure of the Army is changed, amended, or whatever, there is still a substantial requirement in place in the armed forces for a manoeuvre area. The issue as to whether that land is acquired is different. As I have said, I expect an environmental impact study would give us some useful advice. A great deal of information has been provided to this point by those who argue against the Cobar facility, which suggests that it would be environmentally damaging were we to proceed with it. I would say to landholders in that area that if that is their belief and if they have that substantial advice, it will be very much in their interests to permit that environmental impact study to proceed to a conclusion. As I understand it, they have not yet arrived at that determination themselves. I believe that in not permitting the study to proceed landholders conceivably are materially damaging their interest. Mr ROBERT BROWN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. The South African Government has stated that its pre-emptive attacks on centres in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana are its response to the need for the Western world to act against international terrorism. Because this is a similar justification to that used by the United States following its pre-emptive attack upon Libya, is it possible that the action of the United States encouraged, or pardons, this action by South Africa? If the Western world condemns South Africa but does not condemn the United States, does this mean that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists? Mr BEAZLEY —To answer the question simply before I deal with it in detail, my answer would be: No, I do not see an equivalence in the situation that occurred in relation to United States action in regard to Libya and that which occurred in the recent attacks by the South African Government across its borders in neighbouring states. I would say, as was said by the Prime Minister at the time, that this Government is not committed to the view that inter- national issues should be settled by resort to violence. But the situation that occurred in Libya was a product of a chain of political initiatives by the United States to attempt to get a resolution of the problem-to secure support for allies and to engage the Libyan Government in a process of discussion, hopefully to achieve a conclusion of removing Libyan support for terrorist activity. It was a decision taken by the US very much against the background in which a political settlement had been sought. An entirely different situation applies in South Africa. A plethora of possibilities are open to the South African Government to address the real political problems in that area. All those opportunities have been set aside by the South African Government. It is not without significance that it undertook that action at precisely the point of time when the Eminent Persons Group happened to be visiting South Africa. It represents a sincere initiative on the part of the Commonwealth to attempt to find a settlement whereby the South African Government can enter into a process of negotiation with the majority of the people of South Africa to secure a political settlement which will secure both stability and democratic rights in that country, and in so doing substantially advance Western interests. All those opportunities have been set aside by the South African Government, both by its actions in this instance and by its general response to the political situation in which that Government finds itself. The South African Government is resorting to resolving its political problems, both internally and externally, by military means, not by negotiation. It has not put forward any proposition that could be seriously entertained by those who seek majority rule in that area and the South African Government has given every indication that it intends not to proceed on that course. In addition, South Africa attacked the territory of our fellow Commonwealth members. It did not sustain a case that substantial terrorist activity had been undertaken across its borders; it simply asserted it. The political context, as I have said, is totally different in those two situations. To conclude, I would reiterate what Senator Button, as the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, said when the raids took place. He was totally condemnatory of them. I understand that the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs was condemnatory in similar terms. I notice that he is nodding his head in agreement, and that is very welcome indeed. Such actions are insupportable; they are not only damaging to the process of achieving political settlement but-I make this as an ancillary point-they are also damaging to Western interests. We have friendly relations with all the countries that have been attacked. Those friendly relations are important to us, they are important to the Commonwealth. The rogue actions of the South African Government have moved beyond the area of creating a difficult political situation within South Africa; they have moved onto a plane where that Government is directly attacking and threatening Western interests. Mr COLEMAN —Is the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs able to confirm that the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Mr Whitlam, has been responsible for the unauthorised disclosure of confidential Geneva Group documents to the UNESCO Director-General Mr M'Bow? If so, was this disclosure of Geneva Group documents approved by the Minister and, if not approved, what action has been taken to censure the Ambassador? Mr BEAZLEY —I am not aware of the circumstances to which the honourable gentleman alludes. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and he can answer it directly when he returns next week. Mr CLEELAND —Is the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism aware of a recent article by Mr Max Harris in the Australian newspaper which was highly critical of the Australian Tourist Commission's current Asian advertising campaign? Mr JOHN BROWN —I am aware of that article. It strikes me as a pity that somebody of Max Harris's pre-eminence as a writer of the English language should seek to lower himself to this form of intellectual snobbery. The article purports to say that the recent Tourist Commission campaign in Asia is ockerish to say the least and an insult to our Asian neighbours. One must measure it in terms of Max Harris's capacity to be a judge of tourism advertising, because he was one of those who, together with some rather snobbish members of the present Opposition, were critical of my attempts to use Paul Hogan to promote Australia in the United States. Mr Harris fell flat on his face then, as he will in this instance. The campaign is about portraying Australia as a friendly, laid-back, easy-going country, which is something our marketing investigations showed Asians did not support. While Mr Harris might see this advertising campaign as ockerish, in fact it is highly successful. He claims that this would be insulting to our Asian neighbours. I assure Mr Harris that this campaign was put together by Monahan Dayman Adams Ltd, one of the most important advertising agencies in Australia. Mr McGauran —Adams again! Mr JOHN BROWN —Yes, Adams again. In fact, the copy was written by a mixture of Caucasians and Asians. The campaign is funded jointly by the Australian Tourist Commission, Singapore Airlines and several other local tour operators, who I think would have a fairly good idea of what is acceptable to the Asian population. Enough of Max Harris and his article. I note with interest a number of documents that are floating about, having fallen off trucks, about Opposition policies. I hope that the shadow Minister is very quick to release his policy. In some respects mimicry is the highest form of flattery. It is nice to find the Opposition, which has never had a policy on tourism because it did not think tourism worth looking at, now taking the Australian Labor Party policy and embracing it as its own. It is very kind of Opposition members to do that. I do not think the tourist industry will be very happy about their views on taxation. I note with interest that the Liberal candidate for Nerang, which is the State seat in the shadow Minister's own electorate of McPherson, has now come out with the policy that the tourist industry should be taxed. `It is big enough to pull its own weight', says the Liberal candidate. Honourable members might be pleased to know that one of the reasons why we have been able to make tourism a great success in Australia, is that we took off it a couple of the stupid taxes that the Opposition members invoked. First of all, we have pegged the price of tax at $20. It has not moved since we have been in office but Opposition members doubled it in a year; we took the tax off the building of tourist boats; we have increased depreciation by 2 1/2 per cent to 4 1/2 per cent. It is no wonder the tourism industry loves us. It would be very happy to find that Opposition members are thinking about a few new taxes for it. That is a clever way. If those opposite would like us to drop their policy, I am happy to do it, but I think it would be much more proper if they did it themselves. Those opposite had better get these ideas of new taxes out of their policy before they drop it. If they just embrace ours they are on the right track, but if they start putting these in, they are going to be considered an even bigger goose than they are. Mr TIM FISCHER —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs aware that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is currently conducting a political function at the Australian War Memorial associated with a ceremony in relation to the proclamation of the controversial Veterans' Entitlements Act? Is he aware that that function is only taking place because of an absolute ministerial direction and therefore could well have been over the objections of the management and Council of the Australian War Memorial? Will he take this opportunity to apologise to the veterans and to all Australians for this misuse of the Australian War Memorial? Will he assure the House that this will never be done again? Mr HOLDING —I understand that there are certain ceremonies going on at the War Mem- orial. I regret that the shadow Minister's regard for them is political. Mr FITZGIBBON —Is the Minister for Health aware of Opposition claims that the national campaign against drug abuse is funding bureaucrats rather than going to those who are actively engaged in the battle against drug abuse? Can the Minister inform the House as to the true extent of the extra funding going to drug workers, educators and researchers under the national campaign against drug abuse? Dr BLEWETT —I think that he is referring to some of the further nonsense emanating from this so-called coalition drugs task force. About a fortnight ago its task seemed to be to do its best to try to discredit the advertising campaign we were engaged in now. We have had a 91 per cent recognition of the drug offensive pamphlet-that was registered by McNair Anderson Associates Pty Ltd, a professional survey unit-rather than the kind of Liberal gossip which that group had relied on. This week apparently the task force is suggesting that the program is not going to the streets, that somehow it is going to bureaucrats. That is completely deceitful nonsense. The overwhelming bulk of the $100m being spent over the next three years is going to the community level organisations, whether they are private ones such as the Life Education Centre which is getting nearly $1m this year or whether they are schools, health centres, and other government agencies. A total of $78m will be going on education, treatment and rehabilitation; $9m will be going on much needed research and the $13m on the information campaign will be used in many cases by the toll free information telephone system, for educational packs for schools, for parents, for teachers and for health professionals. I think that all of those people should feel insulted to be told that they are not at the coal face in this business. The Opposition has a highly distorted idea of the coal face in this question. For instance, does the Opposition really regard the expenditure of $2m on drugs and prisons as somehow not being directed at the problem even though that is operated by the bureaucrats in the prisons? Again, does the Opposition really think that the $700,000 we are spending on providing a street kids program in Kings Cross, even though that will be run by government agencies in New South Wales, is not a street face answer to the problem? According to the honourable member for Gilmore the $1.7m being spent on programs with teachers in our schools is somehow not a street face program because it is using teachers and bureaucrats. The whole attack by this extraordinary committee is highly manipulative. Some people noticed that in the last four weeks approximately 16 letters had been written by a single individual called D. A. Johnston, nit picking about the national campaign against drug abuse. Last week we found out that D. A. Johnston was, in fact, the Press officer of the honourable member for Gilmore. Poor Mr Johnston protested. He said: `I did it off my own bat out of working hours as a concerned Australian citizen'-out of working hours to 16 newspapers, making the same nit-picking comments. This coalition task force does not realise that it is attacking its own political colleagues. I have got to say that in Queensland and in Tasmania excellent street face programs are being run by the bureaucrats of the Queensland Government and the bureaucrats of the Tasmanian Government. All this task force has done is to produce 16 nitpicking letters by a party-paid hack. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the most constructive thing he could do about the drug campaign would be to get rid of the task force. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Industries Assistance Commission's report on vegetables and vegetable products. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown,Mr Robert Brown,Mr Chynoweth,Mr Connolly,Mr Grace,Mr Maher,Mr Martin,Mr O'Neil,Mr Ruddock,Mr Staples and Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and fulfilling employment, a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Create an Australian Ministry for Peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict 2. Convene a national Summit for Survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and international co-operation; 3. Fully support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of the defence budget to fund peace activities: 4. Actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education, self-help development and environmental repair; 5. Develop National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops; and 6. Implement National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost all presently wasted sewage-sludge and organic garbage into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in rehabilitating impoverished soils; 7. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr Burr,Mr Steele Hall and Ms McHugh. For 1988 to be proclaimed the ``First International Earth Repair Year'' (FIERY) as a vital action to ignite global co-operation for Worldpeace and as an international aspect of the Australian Bicentenary. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That deterioration of the total global environment is continuing at an increasing rate; that important environmental resources vital to human livelihood such as trees; soil and water are decreasing at an alarming rate; that there is a need for educating all people to assume a greater responsibility for the conservation, sustainable use and maintenance of vital resources; that dynamic and active initiatives are needed to conserve and renew the total environment; and that protecting, conserving and repairing the Earth can unite all people and nations in co-operative action for survival. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will: Propose to the United Nations General Assembly at its 41st Session in September 1986 that 1988 be proclaimed the ``First International Earth Repair Year''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Connolly,Mr Ruddock and Mr Sinclair. 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 Drummond and Mr Halverson. 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: 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 House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensuring no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Reviewing 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. 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 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 Ms Jakobsen and Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and 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 Ian Robinson and Mr Webster. 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. And 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. 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 destabilising 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 Coleman. 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. Men have died for this flag to keep it flying. 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 divisions 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 Dr Harry Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That numerous provisions exist in industrial legislation and awards which purport to provide special protection to women workers but which have been shown to be detrimental to their achievement of equality in employment. Noting the relevant provision in Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women to which Australia is a party your petitioners request that urgent action be taken to ensure that these legal barriers to equality be removed. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Ms Fatin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully 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 Halverson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and that the Government issued in December 1985 guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft operational standards for superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the 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 ANC and SWAPO 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 ANC and SWAPO 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 ANC and SWAPO education departments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. The present Australian national flag is not distincitively and uniquely Australian and is confused with other national flags. 2. The people of Australia have never had the opportunity to express their views on an appropriate Australian national flag in a referendum. 3. The present Australian national flag does not properly represent Australia as a sovereign independent nation. 4. The present Australian national flag falsely proclaims Australia as a colony, homeland, protectorate, dominion or government department of Great Britain. 5. The first condition in the flag competition of 1901 required that the design should show Australia's loyalty to the British Empire. The British Empire no longer exists. 6. A public opinion poll held in 1984 using the Gallup Method revealed that 52% of Australians surveyed wanted a competition for a new design for the Australian flag. 7. There is no inherent link between Australia proclaiming a unique and distinctive flag and the political issue of Australia moving to a republican form of government. 8. The adoption of a truly Australian national flag would serve as a focal point for Australia's bicentennial celebrations in 1988. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: (a) Appoint a Committee of the Parliament with representatives from both Houses and all parties to invite and consider proposals for the design of a new Australian national flag, and (b) Require that Committee to make recommendations on the form of a minimum cost referendum at the time of the next general elections, in which the electors will be given the opportunity to vote for a flag from a selection of at least three designs which will include the present Australian national flag and the winner of the Ausflag-Bulletin-2MMM.FM competition of March 1985. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr MacKellar. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. 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 Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners, and in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of citizens of Australia shows that- Approximately 100,000 Australians live on the verge of homelessness, dependent on Government resources to survive, or sleep out of doors or in refuges. Over 700,000 households, or in excess of 2 million Australians are living below the poverty line after paying their rent or mortgage costs. In addition, there are thousands of households with special needs, such as the disabled, who are not well catered for in the private sector but who nevertheless require suitable housing. Waiting lists for public housing have almost doubled in the past five years to 146,000 by June 1985. The list is expected to grow to some 250,000 by 1990. We therefore ask that the Australian Government, as a highest priority: undertake a campaign to bring the issue of poverty and, in particular, housing-related poverty, to the attention of the Australian public, increase expenditure on public housing through the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, by at least 15% annually in real terms, increase rent relief payments for those on low incomes in the private rental market, use its influence with State and Territory governments to encourage them to increase their expenditures on public housing. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a nuclear test moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers, that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would- be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament, impede the development of new nuclear weapons, decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy, inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to- 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express out strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled re-affirm out nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words `Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm out genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-`God save the Queen'. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Webster. 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 stongly 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 John Brown,Mr Grace and Mr Price. 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, not 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 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 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 decisions of the HREOC. 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 Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Tasmania respectfully showeth: 1. That in its present form the Australian Bill of Rights 1985 does represent the reasoned opinions of public opinion. 2. The Bill denies more rights than it upholds. 3. That one day's debate in the House of Representatives was insufficient time for our elected representatives to debate legislation which will control our lives indefinitely. Your petitioners therefore pray: (a) That the Bill lay before the House to allow reasoned debate by the electors of Australia. (b) That our elected representatives be allowed to consider the Bill without haste. (c) That any divisions on the Bill be recorded by a conscience vote by Members and not on Party lines. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Burr. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of N.S.W. respectfully showeth that: The students of MacArthur Institute of Higher Education call upon the Government of Australia to condemn both the terrorist action undertaken by the Libyan Government and the terrorist counter action of the United States of America. We call upon the U.S.A. to use peaceful sanctions through the mechanisms of the United Nations to deter terrorism. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Mountford. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of the North Coast of New South Wales, Australia respectfully sheweth: That the community of Grafton and the Clarence Valley desire the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studios in Grafton for the Second Regional Radio Network and pledge total support of Grafton City Council's submission on the Green Paper entitled ``Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation''. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will sympathetically look at the problems of all these people in northern New South Wales and that the responsible Minister will take the necessary action to ensure the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studio in Grafton and heed the submission of Grafton City Council in response to the Green Paper entitled ``Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation''. 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 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. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The public concern at the Government's mishandling of the economy as most recently shown by its incompetent handling of the National Wage and Productivity cases. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies)(2.54) —This matter of public importance gives the Opposition an opportunity to make three basic, simple points about the economy of this country and the way in which it is being handled by the present Government. Each of these points arises out of the current case before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a national wage increase and a productivity rise. The three basic points that we make are: First of all, the Government has engaged in the grossest deception of the Arbitration Commission as to the real truth about the Australian economy. Secondly, the Government's cover has now been blown and it has been exposed for the deceptive and misleading government that it is. Thirdly, the Government, its cover having been blown, has participated in a complete and absolute shambles of irresponsibility in its handling of the proposed summit and the presentation of its case to the Arbitration Commission. We go further than making those three simple points. We say to the Government that there is no need to have another summit. It is clear what the Government should do. It is clear that, in the first place, it should argue before the Arbitration Commission that the present national wage case should be deferred at least until September of this year. Secondly, it should argue for full discounting for the effects of the devaluation of the Australian dollar. Thirdly, and most importantly, it should argue that the three per cent productivity case should be deferred for at least 12 months, if not abandoned for the foreseeable future. We are not simply drawing the attention of the Australian people to the shortcomings of the Government's presentation; we are being positive and saying that there are clear, obvious, essential matters that the Government should attend to and very clear positions that it should put to the Arbitration Commission if it does not want this country to continue to go down the drain. Let us look in a little more detail at each of those three clear, simple points. The first is that the Government has engaged in the grossest deception of the Arbitration Commission in the presentation of its economic material to the Commission. It has attempted to deceive the Arbitration Commission first on the basis of what it has not put to it and, secondly, on the basis of the sparse material on our external trade that it has put to the Commission. One would think on looking at the Government's submission to the Arbitration Commission-over 1,000 pages of transcript and of duck speak and gobbledegook-that at least one would find some warning about the dangers confronting this country if we continue to trade at a loss as we are now. But one would look in vain for any clue or indication whatsoever that the Government has the slightest understanding of the economic dangers facing this country. At least seven out of the 1,000 or so pages of the submission are devoted to the external sector. One would be excused for thinking that at least in those seven pages one might find some inkling of an understanding and an appreciation by the Government of the very difficult trading situation with which this country is faced. One would also expect to find the Government arguing that this situation would have consequences with regard to the decisions that the Arbitration Commission should make on wages and productivity. But one would look in vain for the slightest indication of understanding by the Government on those matters. The second point we make is that not only did the Government fail to put forward to the Arbitration Commission any evidence or material showing that this country is in a desperate situation with regard to trade and the effects that that trade should have on wage decisions in this country; it has gone further than that and actively misled the Arbitration Commission in its presentation of the economy. Let us look at just a couple of extracts of what the Government has said to the Arbitration Commission. We can say to the Australian people: `This is what your elected government has said when it has gone to the Arbitration Commission in the context of the current wages case'. I ask honourable members to listen to this gem to be found at page 609 of the transcript. It states: The Commonwealth submits that our assessment of economic conditions and prospects and of productivity growth demonstrates that the economy has not only recovered substantially but has the capacity to sustain an increase in national wage beyond CPI adjustments. What the Government was saying to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission-- Mr Howard —How long ago? Mr N.A. Brown —This was when the Government made its submission in the current case. This is not some piece of ancient history. It is the Government's current submission. It is saying to the Arbitration Commission: `We have assessed the economy of this country and what we say you should do is take the inflation rate and not do the sensible and economically responsible thing but add something on top of that'. That is an utterly irresponsible attitude for the Government to take because it means that if that sort of approach is embodied in wage decisions in this country we will continue to have high inflation. Our inflation rate will continue to increase as the inflation rate of the rest of the industrial world continues to go down. That means that there will be horrendous consequences in terms of investment in this country, in terms of economic growth in this country and in terms of the expansion of employment in this country. That is the first piece of misleading and utterly irresponsible information that the Government put to the Arbitration Commission. After analysing the economy and the economic statistics the Government then gave the Commission this gem. The Government stated: Therefore, it seems at the very least, the improved competitiveness of Australian firms- that is absolute nonsense- has resulted in the import competing sector enjoying an improved market share. What absolute nonsense! There is no basis for that whatsoever. It represents an utterly irresponsible economic presentation by the Government. The Government then went on to give a final gem which I suppose sums up the presentation the Government was putting to the Commission. After analysing the parlous statistics the Government put to the Commission it stated that on this basis Australia would substantially retain last year's improvement in competitiveness and that that would be a good outcome. That is the economic presentation that this irresponsible Government is putting to the Arbitration Commission. We say it is actively misleading the Commission in the presentation it is putting to it on the basis of the economy. However, it is not only that the Government is misleading the Arbitration Commission but also it is misleading the Australian people. Believe it or not but as late as 9 May this year the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his speech to the Economic Planning Advisory Council said: . . . some encouraging signs are beginning to emerge in recent balance of payments statistics. He said that this month. He said that it is encouraging that trade is getting better. He must have thought that we could sell a few more shipments of bananas and trade our way out of the problem that way. Furthermore, the Treasurer said that the value of imports was going down. That is good news. Finally he said: . . . the Government is confident that we are also seeing something of the expected volume response to the depreciation, and that we will see more of it in the period ahead. We have not seen more of that in the period ahead. What we have seen is more deterioration of the economy of this country under the economic policies of this irresponsible Government. We say first of all that it is clear beyond any argument at all that the Government has misled the Arbitration Commission both in regard to the economic material it has not put before the Commission and in the way in which it has presented the parlous statistics it has put to the Commission. Our second point is that that attempt to mislead the community and the Arbitration Commission has now been exposed. The Government's cover has been blown. The Government's cover has been blown by two things. Firstly, we must give due credit to it, it has been blown by the presentation of the National Farmers Federation to the Arbitration Commission which exposed all this nonsense and falsity. It is as a result of the National Farmers Federation submission that the Commission is now asking the Government to come back to the Bench and explain and defend itself. Secondly, the Government has had its cover blown by the extraordinary balance of payments figures that came out last week. What do they show? We can dress it all up in economic big words and complicated sentences but what we say to the Australian people is this: You can understand this because it is a simple, clear proposition; the proposition that emerges from these figures is that Australia is pricing itself out of world markets and is pricing its people out of jobs. Unless we take a firm hold on that, unless we understand it and unless we implement very promptly sound economic policies, this country not only is going to become a banana republic but this country will be doomed. We make that perfectly plain. Furthermore, we say that the situation is getting worse. The Government has now produced a current account deficit which, believe it or not, is at an annual rate of $14 1/2 billion. Let us see how the Government thought the deficit was going to work out. At the time of the Budget the Government said that the deficit would be $10.7 billion for the whole year. The Government is now saying that currently the deficit is $14 1/2 billion-an annual rate of loss of trade for this country of $14.5 billion. We are only 10 months through the financial year. Of course, the Government takes great pleasure in denigrating the Fraser Government. Let us look briefly at what happened to trade under the Fraser Government. Of course there were trading problems but the average deficit for those seven Fraser years of government was $4.7 billion. After 10 months of the present financial year all that this Government can do is drive this country into hock to the extent of $14 1/2 billion. We say that this attempt to deceive has not succeeded. We say that the Government's cover has been blown. The third point is simply that this Government, its cover having been blown, has embarked on a policy of complete and utter shambles showing its economic incompetence and showing that the only way it can handle a national crisis is by panic. What was the Government's response? First of all there was the cry of disaster, and the money markets reeled. Secondly, there was the cry: Have another summit. If this Government asks for more summits it will have to install ski lifts up here. Thirdly, of course, when the shambles became apparent the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) got on the telephone and summoned his minions into the office. It was a case of Tiberius on the telephone trying to get some order into his unruly troops. Suddenly, we did not have a summit but we had a mini-meeting of some sort. However, yesterday, the Treasurer elevated it again to the level of a summit. What we say about these summits simply is that the Government should show some responsibility, face up to the real decisions that have to be made before this country goes down the drain and implement those policies. We say that, if those decisions require the Government to go to the Arbitration Commission and make it plain to it what economic decisions must be made for the welfare of this country, it should do so. I said-I must make it plain-that we are not being negative about this matter. We have clear and concrete proposals which obviously must be implemented. What we say to the Government is this: It is clear in the first place that it must renegotiate the prices and incomes accord with the unions; secondly, it must postpone, for at least 12 months, the superannuation productivity deal of 3 per cent; thirdly, it must delay the current national wage case at least until September this year; fourthly, it must abandon its absurd and outrageous taxation changes, which will simply drive business down and make it more difficult for business to employ people and invest; fifthly, it must argue for full discounting for the effects of devaluation; and sixthly, it must provide more flexibility in our industrial relations system. If we continue with the industrial relations system that we have, if the Government tries to implement full wage indexation or, indeed, as we know now from what I have read to the House today, the Government tries to implement a level of indexation above the consumer price index level, we will perpetuate inflation, dry up investment in this country and do very severe damage to the employment prospects of the Australian people. The lasting monument to the Hawke Government is a level of unemployment which is now over 600,000 people. According to the Commonwealth Employment Service statistics there are now 840,000 people unemployed. It is clear what the Government should do. It should take hold of the economic situation, forget about having summits or mini-summits, forget about getting up on to the foothills, and face up to the economic disaster confronting this country. The Government should take the positive decisions that we have outlined and which I have just read out. The Government should do its job and go off to the Arbitration Commission and argue for those policies. What this country needs is responsibility. It needs a sensible industrial relations system. Above all, it needs a new government. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.10) —The speech to which we have just listened was strong on indignation and fulmination and grossly lacking in rationality, common sense and honesty. The accusations made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) simply are not true. There has been no deception of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and no deception of the Australian people. Indeed, I would have thought that what has happened over the past week has been clear evidence of the fact that the Government, rather than deceiving the Australian people, has been putting the position to them very starkly. There is a serious problem brought about by the decline in the terms of trade and this nation must face up to that. This can hardly be said to be deception. If anything, it is brutal honesty about the reality of the situation and the fact that adjustments must be made. I reject completely any suggestion of deception on the part of this Government. The Government is in no way seeking to deceive anyone about the problem relating to the balance of payments current account. However, that problem is not the fault of the Australian people, the trade unions, Australian business or this Government. It is due to the fact that 90 per cent of our exports are basically commodities, the prices of which are set on international markets, not by the sellers of those goods, and the prices of those items have deteriorated significantly on external markets in the past year. They have continued to deteriorate this year. That deterioration is continuing at the same time as we are seeking to redress the balance of payments problem through devaluation. While we are making some gains on the imports side by reducing the level of imports through devaluation-and we are obtaining a greater share of the market for Australian manufacturers-that is being more than counteracted at present by the deterioration in export prices and also the effect that some of that deterioration has had on volumes, particularly in relation to the export of oil. We have a problem on the export side of the terms of trade of our balance of payments which is not in the control of the Government. Nevertheless, we as a nation must face up to that. There has been no attempt by this Government to hide that fact or the necessity for an adjustment in wages policy-or indeed, any other aspect of policy. Let me return to the question of wages policy under this Government. We came to government at a time when the previous Government had so mishandled the state of affairs in this country that there had been an enormous wages blowout in 1981-82. This had led to a great surge in inflation, increased unemployment and the worst recession in 50 years. We instituted a wages policy which was centralised. It was not as centralised as the policy which the previous Government, in its dying moments, had adopted in a panic stricken manner-an absolute wage freeze-but it was a policy of adjustment through indexation and a long term increase in real benefits to wage and salary earners through a productivity case. That is what we argued for in the Arbitration Commission and that was what the Commission awarded in terms of setting up principles. What we have seen since has been a wages system that is fair and reasonable to all wage and salary earners. Basically it has maintained the real level of wages until now and it has held out prospects of some real improvement through a productivity case. As we neared the end of 1985 we saw the need, as a result of problems developing on the external account, for an adjustment to our wages policy. That adjustment was negotiated by the Government with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We wanted the unions to accept that there should be an adjustment to wages policy; we did not want that wages policy adjustment forced on them by substantial increases in unemployment. That would have been the process that the previous Government would have implemented had it still been in office. As an alternative, we negotiated an acceptance by the union movement of a reduction of 2 per cent in the indexation increase. That case is before the Commission at present. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made some absurd statements in this debate, but it must be understood that in the discussions continuing before the Commission the basic underlying factor is that there is an acceptance by the Government and the ACTU that much less than full indexation should apply in this case. It has been accepted that there should be 2 per cent less than the full consumer price index. That is the basis on which the case is proceeding. There is a marginal argument between the Government and the ACTU about whether the percentage is 2.5 or 2.3, but basically there is an acceptance of about a 2 per cent discount. That is the whole basis upon which the case is proceeding. In other words, the case is proceeding on the basis that there will be a reduction in real wages-and that is with the agreement of the trade union movement. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition cannot say that there is some absurd process which will give more than a maintenance of wages through more than full indexation. There is not even full indexation in this case because the Government and the ACTU both say that there must be much less than full indexation. That is the underlying point that must be understood by all those who are listening to this debate. The whole basis on which the Opposition pursued its quarter-hour long rant and rave is false. There is no attempt to have full indexation. A case is being pursued on the basis that there will be a reduction in the level of real wages. It is also true that the outcome of this case will come considerably later than would normally occur. Normally the outcome would be in early April. Obviously there will not be an outcome from this case until some time in June. That means we will have a delay of between two and three months-certainly a couple of months at the minimum. That means that, in effect, there has been a 100 per cent discounting for the last couple of months on top of the fact that there is agreement to a substantial discount whenever any increase is given. This all leads to the fact that wages are increasing at a rate substantially less than prices. That is the reality. I am not saying that it it wrong; I am saying that it is the reality. The adjustment that must be made because of the problems of our external account is being made. That is not to say that that is all that needs to happen. Indeed, the situation is becoming more difficult as a result of continued deterioration in the terms of trade. At present, however, we are seeing a substantial reduction in real wages. In the past 12 months real money wages, award rates, have increased by 3.8 per cent. At the moment there is very little leakage in terms of increases in wages outside the national wage case. Essentially we have had wages increasing in the past year by about 4 per cent. At the same time prices have increased at a rate of 9 per cent. Certainly, with an adjustment in the national wage case, that rate of increase will move up a little and probably the next consumer price index figures will see inflation moving down a little. We expect it to be something like 8 per cent over the 12-month period. But we are still looking at a substantial gap between the level of wage increases, which by then will be up to around 6 per cent, and the level of prices, which are increasing at a rate of about 8 per cent. Thus, there is a significant real reduction in wages occurring at present. Part of that adjustment was that there should be a delay in the outcome of any productivity case. In fact that case has been postponed in its presentation, and it was agreed that there should be a two-year implementation of any outcome. That is the basis upon which the claim is proceeding. The Government is supporting it on the basis that there is a long period of implementation over a couple of years. That is not the basis upon which any increase has ever been awarded by the Commission previously. In that respect, there is a very substantial diminution on the previous claim and there has been a significant adjustment in wages policy following events connected with our external account. That is the sensible reality upon which this debate should be based, rather than the absurd posturings of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. That is not to say that that is all that needs to happen. Indeed, in the Arbitration Commission yesterday counsel for the Government said quite clearly in respect of this matter that there was still a problem on the external account and that further adjustments would have to be made. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been saying that quite clearly and quite starkly for the past week. We do not need the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to tell us that. The principal economic spokesman for the Government has been saying for at least the last week that we have to make a further adjustment if we are to proceed satisfactorily on a basis upon which we can overcome that problem on our external account. Again, I stress that that is not necessarily of the making of anyone in Australia, but it is a problem that we must face. We will make those further adjustments. The question is how those adjustments should be made and where they should fall. Those are difficult decisions but they are not ones from which this Government will shrink. That was the matter which was before us during the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes discussions last week. It was a matter which led to considerable intense discussion and, as everyone knows, to the suggestion which basically stemmed from the employers that there should be more tripartite discussion on the issue, and the offer by us of a further meeting at which these matters could be considered. The situation at present is that the Government recognised last year that there would have to be an adjustment to wages policy. We achieved that significant adjustment to wages policy with the agreement of the ACTU. We achieved that adjustment to wages policy without having to crunch the economy through the floor, which is what the Opposition would have to do because it would not have available to it that kind of negotiated process, which is available only through the accord. It would not be available to the Opposition. In the same situation it could achieve that adjustment only by foisting upon the Australian economy a severe recession, and greatly increasing unemployment, in order to squeeze out of the system the inflation flowing from the devaluation. We are able to avoid that. We have achieved that through the discounting, through the delay in the productivity case outcome. What we are saying now is that it is clear from the latest balance of payments figures that a further adjustment needs to be made. That adjustment can occur in various ways. We are prepared to discuss that with the parties and the parties will willingly accept those discussions. There is nothing irresponsible about that. There is no deception. The Australian people are being told the absolute stark truth about the situation. The Commission is not being deceived; no one is being deceived. In fact, part of the criticism of the Treasurer last week was that he was being too brutal and too frank. At least he was telling it like it is-that there is a problem that needs to be faced. The situation at present is that, through the forthcoming discussions, there is a capacity to try to reach further agreement. Of course, in the end, if agreement cannot be reached, it will rest with the Government to make the appropriate decisions. The Government will make the appropriate decisions when it comes to consider what should be done following the ACPI meeting. In the end, it is a matter for the Government and we will take the appropriate decisions. We have not shrunk from them before and we will not shrink from them in the future. Let me contrast that situation with the position of the Opposition, whose Deputy Leader in this debate said that what we needed was the Opposition's wages policy. If we had its wages policy, we would have no capacity to hold negotiations with the ACTU, as I suggested. We would have no centralised wages system that would be worth anything. Every man and woman would seek wage increases outside the centralised system. There would be nothing to stop that happening. It would be encouraged through voluntary agreements. People would be encouraged to rush out and do what they could for themselves because there would be no centralised system to provide protection. Everyone would have to do what he could to ensure that he stayed ahead of the game. There would be a wages free-for-all which could only be stopped by recessing the economy. The previous Government found in 1982 that the only way in which it could control a wages explosion was to bring about the worst recession we have had for 50 years, to crunch the economy through the floor. That is what would happen again if the Opposition were in office at present. That kind of policy response can be avoided by the kinds of policies and actions being pursued by this Government. The policies we are pursuing are bringing about those adjustments which are necessary. The policies we will pursue after the ACPI meeting will certainly continue in that vein-that is, they will make the appropriate adjustments, and will do so causing the minimum amount of pain to the Australian people. Mr TIM FISCHER(Farrer)(3.25) —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) would have us believe that all is rosy, that the Government is relating to the situation, that it will make a series of adjustments and that it will alter its submission to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. All of this sounds very much like too little, too late. Late last year it became self-evident that the terms of trade were deteriorating as far as Australia was concerned. There was no action from the Minister at that time. There was no statement in fundamental terms from this Minister. There was an intimation, but the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister sailed merrily on until finally, last week in Sydney, the Treasurer let the cat out of the bag and referred to the banana republic syndrome. It was only at that time that the Government came clean and informed the nation that there were fundamental concerns and very real difficulties facing our economy at this time. Of course, again, that is too little, too late. I assure the House that there is massive public concern over the Australian economy, heightened by the banana republic syndrome. I point out to the House that Australians have suffered long enough from the inflexible, highly centralised wage fixing system pursued by this Government. They have suffered long enough from the machinations and manoeuvres of the industrial relations club which exists in varying degrees in this country. They have suffered long enough from outrageous demarcation disputes and industrial lawlessness, aided and abetted from time to time by actions of Ministers of this Government. The Government might like to challenge that. I remind the House that in the Mudginberri dispute the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) failed to act, failed to direct his Commonwealth meat inspectors in a way which could have led to a much earlier solution to that dispute and could have saved a massive loss of export income for Australia. The House should not forget that one of the real culprits in this matter is that man in China, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), since his time as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore), who is present in the House, might like to respond because it was the Prime Minister who was the man most responsible for the abolition of the junior wage award and the consequential damage that this has caused in so many industries and the damage that that has caused to the opportunities of so many young Australians. We have seen the implementation of Priority One: Young Australia programs and the lack of success that they confer on young Australians. But nothing did more harm to the employment prospects of so many young Australians than that action by Bob Hawke when he was President of the ACTU. Strikes in key industries cause an enormous amount of difficulty and concern, notwithstanding the statistics which show an overall downturn in industrial disputation. Of course, those statistics do not pick up disputes which are less than 10 days in duration. They do not take account of the degree of difficulty caused by those strikes-the degree of cost imposed on other industries by those strikes. Let me give the House an example. Just a fortnight ago five foremen in the Grain Handling Authority of New South Wales went on strike. That resulted in a loss of five export days for the Australian wheat industry at a cost of over $2m a day and a sum total in excess of $10m. Yet the Government preaches to us that all is reasonably under control on the industrial relations front and that it is satisfied with the submissions that it is making to the Arbitration Commission at this time. Again, I say that nothing could be further from the truth. The response of this Government is very much a case of too little, too late. I say in respect of the much vaunted prices and incomes accord, and the possibility of accord mark 3 being launched, that the accord has a lot to answer for. Let me give one quite extraordinary example of the impact of the accord. Mr Langmore —There have been great achievements. Mr TIM FISCHER —The honourable member for Fraser came in hook, line and sinker. He should tell that to the 20 veterans a week who are being turned away from the Repatriation General Hospital at Heidelberg in Melbourne and the Repatriation General Hospital at Concord, because the Government cannot straighten out the Federal nursing award, which is over $2,000 less than the State nursing award. As a consequence, 133 of the 504 beds at the Repatriation General Hospital at Heidelberg in Melbourne are closed at this time and veterans are being turned away. Another triumph of the accord! That is not speculation on my part; it is what I saw as shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs when I visited the Repatriation General Hospital at Heidelberg in Melbourne. It is high time that this country, this nation, and this Government, saw a more flexible approach so far as the wage fixing structure of this country is concerned. I want to commend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown) who is the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, and all members of the committee for the production of the industrial relations policy of the Liberal and National parties. I want to commend the two key thrusts of that policy which are very germane to this matter of public importance on the economy. We advocate a greater use of voluntary agreements between employers and employees, commencing with small business employing 50 or fewer employees. The use of voluntary agreements will be extended progressively as circumstances justify it. The second approach of the coalition will be to encourage more flexibility within the awards of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This involves the Commission taking into account as principal criteria the capacity of industry to pay. The effect that its decision will have on employment, inflation and the international competitiveness of the Australian economy will be taken into account. This is the sort of approach that this country needs. The National Farmers Federation played a very key role in trying to lead the Arbitration Commission and the Government to a measure of reality in respect of the current hearing. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out, a series of most excellent questions were forthcoming yesterday. The NFF did its homework and calculated that if we use the Government's methodology we find that in fact there is no cake to distribute consequent upon the deterioration of our terms of trade. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations tried to tell the House that the Government had responded adequately to the queries raised by the NFF. However, again, nothing could be further from the truth. Once again, the response was a case of far too little, far too late. The industrial relations policy of the Liberal and National parties represents a great leap forward and has been widely endorsed by a range of bodies too many to enumerate, representing big business-bodies such as the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Business Council of Australia, which are not at all times necessarily friends of the conservative side of politics. The policy has also been endorsed by bodies such as the Small Business People's Movement and the Australian Small Business Association. The Opposition has the support of a great range of bodies right across Australia. The Business Council of Australia said: In summary, the broad direction of the Opposition's policy is consistent to the long term industrial relations objectives of the Business Council and is welcomed by us. The Australian Tourism Industry Association said: The Coalition policy initiatives are a positive step towards the kinds of employment initiatives members of regional tourism bodies keep saying are essential for them to develop the full potential of their tourism resources. Even the media, which are not necessarily friends of ours indeed-often not-have had something to say on this matter. The editorial in the Sydney Sun of 15 May stated: The Opposition's new industrial relations policy looks better by the day, in fact, Australia's slumping trade figures make it seem positively prophetic in diagnosing this troubled economy . . . The Daily Mirror of 12 May stated: The Federal Opposition is to be commended for attempting to resolve the thorny problem of national interest versus union interest. By offering small business the chance to formulate private employment deals without the rigid impositions of union regulations the word `incentive' could move back into the marketplace. This is the type of direction this country needs if we are to be saved from the highly centralised, highly unionised approach of this Federal Labor Government. Of course the public is concerned. It is concerned about the introduction of the fringe benefits tax; it is concerned about the capital gains tax; and it is concerned about this Government that does so much of its governing from Lygon Street, Carlton, and Sussex Street, Sydney, and the out of touch corridors of the Caucus and Cabinet rooms. What this country needs is leadership. It needs the adoption of genuine, realistic and comprehensive policies to ensure that the forthcoming recession and the banana republic syndrome can be avoided and that the rural sector and the whole economy will survive. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(3.35) —Thank goodness the country has got leadership and that is being demonstrated in the national wage case. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown), said that he wanted to make three basic simple points. These points were simply hollow rhetoric. The Government has frankly presented full details of the economic situation to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It did so both in February and again yesterday. The Deputy Leader's comments are simply untrue. One wonders whether he has really read the Government's submission to the Commission. The honourable member for Menzies was really making a self-interested attempt to whip up emotion where there is no justification for doing so. He made plenty of wild claims but offered few facts and completely neglected analysis. The honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer), who has just spoken, continued that empty rhetoric. The honourable member mentioned some other irrelevancies, some of which are worth debating some time, but not in the context of this discussion of the national wage case. This is really a strange matter of public importance. What does the Opposition mean? It was hard to find any reality in what the previous Opposition speakers said. The Opposition does not seem to be taking exception to the national wage case. Of course, nor should it, for that case is part of a national incomes policy which, despite what the previous speaker said, has delivered a stable industrial relations environment. Industrial conflict has fallen to the lowest level in Australia since the late 1960s. That is profoundly important because it has contributed materially to a faster rate of economic growth and to improvements in employment and living standards during the last three years. The prices and incomes policy has also led to wage predictability and has guaranteed employees that the real value of their after-tax incomes will be maintained. It has also allowed real unit labour costs to fall to levels not seen in Australia for 15 years to the great benefit of employers. So the prices and incomes policy has worked in the interests of the whole community. The Opposition seems to think that there is never an occasion on which wages should be increased and that very self-serving extremism makes its claim implausible. So the strategic framework for the national wage case that is being heard at present is absolutely sound and the Government's submissions also have been entirely responsible. The Government's submission in February took account of the state of the economy, the framework of the prices and incomes policy and the agreement reached between the governments and the unions in September. That agreement is very significant because, as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) said, it involves voluntary wage restraint by unions in a way that previously has not been seen in Australia. It allows for the effects of the devaluation to be absorbed without encouraging inflation. The unions agreed not to claim full wage indexation in this early 1986 case, but to discount for the impact of devaluation on prices in return for cuts in income tax later in the year. The Government's intervention yesterday was essential. This action is conventional towards the end of every national wage case. The Government's advocate intervened because some additional data had become available. (Quorum formed) I hope that the people listening realise that calling a quorum is simply a way of cutting off debate, of stopping the facts being heard. Mr Tim Fischer —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I submit that under standing order 76 all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr LANGMORE —This is just another way of wasting time. I think the Opposition is afraid of the facts. Honourable members opposite in their own speeches could not deliver any facts; they simply spoke empty rhetoric. It is important that the facts be heard. The Government was obviously acting responsibly yesterday in again intervening in the national wage case, because it was essential to update data and to present clear analysis of the state of the economy. The Government emphasised yesterday that its submissions were broadly unchanged and that the strategy recommended to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in February is still the best strategy. The picture of the economy presented in February also has not changed substantially. Quite contrary to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's comments about deceiving people, what the Government said in February and what it said yesterday were very much the same. The fact of the matter is that the state of the economy is relatively healthy, that there has been substantial growth-in fact, very strong growth-in the last year. For example, private final domestic demand rose by 3 1/2 per cent last year. I emphasise that that is private final demand. From the way the Opposition is talking, it would have us believe that there was no private sector growth at all. It is trying to mislead the community. Private investment has also been growing strongly. Employment growth has been extraordinarily fast. It has grown by 4 1/2 per cent in the first 10 months of this financial year. The outlook is for continuing substantial growth and a decline in inflation. It is true that the balance of payments current account deficit was $12 billion in the first 10 months of this financial year but there were a number of reasons for that, which were spelt out in the Government's submission yesterday. It is due in part to increases in imports but most of those increases have concerned investment goods which are used for building up the capacity for growth in the economy. There has been some decline in the value of exports. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has so clearly shown, the terms of trade have deteriorated quite substantially. They have deteriorated by 9 per cent in the last 12 months, and it is not possible for governments to overcome that instantaneously. However, devaluation is starting to work. Endogenous imports, that is, those imports that are directly affected by the level of economic activity, have been falling in the last three months. The depressed state of commodity exports suggests that the current account deficit is likely to remain relatively high next year, but that is why the Government has introduced a large number of important policies. For example, when the Treasurer was overseas he strongly advocated expansionary policies to other Western governments. If their economies grow faster our exports will increase in both price and volume. That will be the most important factor in getting out of the fix that the balance of payments has fallen into because of the decline in export prices. The Government also has an active industry policy which is building up both our exports of manufactured goods and our import replacements. So the devaluation is starting to work; it is starting to improve the balance of payments and that improvement is likely to continue. There is no crisis, despite what the Opposition attempted to argue in its presentation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable gentleman's time has expired. Debate resumed. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(3.45) —Before I get on to some of the matters in the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983 I make it clear once and for all that this Government rejects unequivocally the proposition floated by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) for privatisation of education. On 2 October 1985, as reported in the Australian, he stated: I am convinced that the solution- he was talking about education problems- lies with exposing the system to market forces . . . This Parliament as a whole ought to reject that proposition. The honourable member for Tangney has suggested allowing universities and colleges of advanced education to offer unlimited additional places to any student who is willing to pay full fees. When will he talk about students who cannot pay full fees to CAEs and universities? He has spoken also of providing a loans scheme which such loans to be repaid from the future taxes of the working graduate. This has been tried and has failed in other countries such as the United States of America where it has been found that it is extremely difficult to get loans repaid by people once they have graduated because, naturally, they have many other commitments, such as mortgages. The system has failed. For that reason that proposition was not adopted in the United Kingdom and we can ill afford to adopt it in Australia. The honourable member for Tangney spoke about another proposition whereby vouchers would be made available to people to use as they wished for private or public education. He is reported in the Canberra Times of 30 September 1985 as having said: . . . educational institutions should not be bound to administrative bodies and suggested as an alternative the voucher system whereby parents or, in the case of higher education, students are given an amount of money to `go shopping' for the school of their choice. It is quite significant that Mr Robert Bluer of the Australian Teachers Federation said that the honourable member for Tangney's method of freeing up the education system is to starve it of funds and abuse academics and teachers, the vast majority of whom are dedicated, highly competent and hard working. This sort of proposal can only increase the gap between government and non-government schools. At this time expenditure on non-government schools is less than half the expenditure on government schools. The honourable member's system would make funding more or less equal for both systems. What will happen to schools such as those in the poorer areas of our metropolitan capital cities? What will happen to country primary and secondary schools which will be forced into existing on the same vouchers that the private school parents receive? If that happens, the standard of education in our government schools must drop and students will start to leave school earlier, with the result that there will be fewer skilled people in the work force and unemployment will go up. I remind the coalition that other countries are worried about not producing enough good scientists and good mathematicians from their sources-the people in their schools. This problem will only be exacerbated if the Opposition's policy is followed. I want to dwell for a moment on the participation and equity program which relates to one of the Bills. This program aims to encourage all young people to participate in education or training at schools or at technical and further education institutions until they have completed a full, secondary education. In Eden-Monaro, the participation and equity program has been an important factor in reducing unemployment. I was present at a graduation of PEP students from the Bega TAFE which was held in Eden two years ago. It has been interesting to observe the fortunes of those students, all of whom were unemployed at the time. The courses covered personal presentation as well as skills in art, secretarial duties and the hospitality industry. The graduates were keen to get going when they completed the course, and that is what has happened. Those with whom I have made recent contact all have full time work and one is a motel manager-a person who had lost self-confidence before doing the participation and equity program and who regarded herself as chronically unemployed. So the program has offered all young people, rich or poor, equal opportunities to develop their individual talents and abilities. I think the great thing about the program is that it has recognised that the ability to pay is not and never has been a measure of talents and abilities. It is significant that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) has frequently reminded people in Australia-it is well worth reminding them again-that when he asked leaders in Japan just what they saw as their greatest resource they did not talk about minerals, things in the ground or water, but said that people were their greatest resource. There has been a growing trend in Australia for us to ignore young people-arguably our most valuable asset-who leave school early. This was particularly and very strongly evident of young people from poorer families. It is a measure of the success of this Government that a number of Ministers-the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan), the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is in the House today, the Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs (Mr Dawkins) and a number of other Ministers-- Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Science. Mr SNOW —These Ministers and the Minister for Science have pooled their talents and come together to present programs to government which recognise that people are our most valuable asset. It is a reflection of the unemployment and the declining economy of the late 1970s and early 1980s which hit particularly poorer families in Australia that the Government has turned the tide both in regard to unemployment and the economy through the types of measures that we have taken. I do not want to omit mentioning that many other groups, apart from the poorer people, can be identified as getting less than their share of education. They include ethnic groups, females and those from rural areas. So the system had evolved to the point where only young, Anglo-Saxon, city-based males, who were from average income families, could obtain full secondary training. This was observed as a gross waste of our resources and as a recipe for future failure. The participation and equity program has been part of the Government's wide range of policies in reversing those trends and in offering equality for education. Let us increase our investment in our greatest resource-people. Let us not downgrade it. Through the legislation that we have before us today, let us upgrade the standards of education for our young people and, as a result, upgrade our economic development and employment in Australia. Debate (on motion by Mr Everingham) adjourned. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science)(3.54) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals (No. 4) 1986 and Customs Tariff Proposals (No. 6) 1986. The proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1986) and Customs Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1986) formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff alterations made by notices published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette during the recent recess. The proposals, operative on and from 17 May 1986, provide for additional duty on certain refined petroleum products resulting from the Government's decisions on the pricing of indigenous crude oil and related issues. The decision was announced by my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) in a Press release of 28 April 1986. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1986) increase the excise duty on the relevant petroleum products. Excise duty on motor spirit and diesel is increased by 0.812 cents per litre. The increases for aviation gasoline and aviation kerosene are 0.684 cents per litre and 0.649 cents per litre respectively. For other kerosene, fuel oil and heating oil the increase is 0.168 cents per litre. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 6 (1986) make complementary changes to the Customs Tariff Act in respect of duties applying to equivalent imported refined petroleum products. Summaries of the alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated to honourable members. I also advise honourable members that the rates of diesel fuel rebate increase in conjunction with these duty changes. The new rebate rates for currently eligible use of diesel fuel will be 19.200 cents per litre in respect of primary productions, 16.812 cents per litre for mining operations and 14.620 cents per litre for other prescribed use in residential premises, homes for aged persons, nursing homes, hospitals and other institutions providing medical or nursing care. Honourable members will note that the rebate for eligible primary production is, in fact, a 100 per cent rebate of the excise duty. The new rebate rate for eligible mining operations will also effectively mean no increase in excise duty payable. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Before the debate is resumed on the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(3.58) —We have certainly had an interesting debate on the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill which are before the House today. I have listened to the contributions made by different members who obviously have divergent points of view but who all have a genuine desire to contribute constructively to what I think is one of the most critical areas to the future of our country. Since these Bills deal with additional funding for all levels of education in the States and the Northern Territory, the debate provides the House with an opportunity to consider the whole question of Commonwealth responsibility for and funding of education in Australia today. I want to start by picking up on the words of two people whose experience and expertise within education matters are undoubted. What they have to say should jerk awake the proponents of big government on the other side of the House. I do not suppose it will, though, since it is apparent that this Government is determined to inflict upon Australia the costs, the wet blanket effect, and the interference and intrusion of big central government wherever it can. I understand, of course, the idealistic imperatives that drive socialist governments along this course of ever larger bureaucracy and ever greater supervision. I do not hold with them, but I do understand them. In the area of education-the preparation of Australia's next generation of decision makers-it is vital to ensure minimal barriers to the development of free thought and initiative. Yet in a no doubt benign effort to expand and develop education in Australia and to co-ordinate that effort across the States and the Territories, the system has expanded to fulfil exactly the opposite effect. That should not come as any surprise. Educational institutions in Australia are being suffocated by an ever larger, top heavy hierarchy of bureaucracy. Individual institutions, in the name of co-ordination and centralised control, have been robbed of their independence of thought and action. They are subject to, and beholden to, Commonwealth bodies whose job is not to teach, not even to administer in the schools and colleges of the nation, but merely to supervise, co-ordinate, and generally meddle in the affairs of such institutions. The educators and those undergoing education are, like it or not, able to carry out their work and their studies only beneath the weight of a large and multi-faceted Commonwealth bureaucracy which is suffocating the initiative and freedom of thought that ought to exist in our educational establishments. Having conformed with, or negotiated their way around, the priorities and whims of State co-ordinating bodies, school and college level educators must co-operate with a Commonwealth sectoral bureaucracy, education commissions, the Commonwealth Department of Education, the Australian Education Council and others, including a gamut of education specialists in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. That situation has created increasing protest among those who must work to educate, out in the real world of face to face contact with the young people who are their charges. Last year the Director of the West Australian Institute of Technology, Dr Donald Watts, sounded a note of warning. It would serve well the advocates of central control and big government opposite to note his words. He said that the education bureaucracy was `addicted to the game they play, committed to their own survival, and removed from the task and realities of the delivery of education'. Attacking government for its concentration on `dogma and rhetoric' Dr Watts said: More money is wasted in control of Australian education than will ever be wasted through the errors derived from enthusiasm, freedom and enterprise. It is clear that in Australia today those at the work face of education are being frustrated rather than assisted, hindered rather than helped, by the controlling successive levels of education administration which seek to make the rules from the top, rather than letting national education policy grow from the needs and ambitions of the people beneath its charge. It is equally clear that the first objective of any reorganisation of Australian education must be to hand back power to State governments, which are much more in touch with education priorities and those running and teaching in our institutions, and more accessible and sensitive to their needs. Education control as it is practised today is wasteful and stifling, but the tragedy is that there can be no real chance of reform while the people that cause the waste and impose the controls remain all powerful. I said I wished to pick up on the words of two acknowledged experts in the educational area. My second source is the past Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and well known academic, Professor Dame Leonie Kramer. She points out that the ability of universities both to serve the community and to expand the frontiers of knowledge relies on their independence. But as more and more people depend on the Commonwealth for funding, their criticism of the system is necessarily muted. To use her words: Above all we need to improve the educational standards of young people so that they will be able to contribute in an informed way to tackling our many problems. But the fact is that who pays the piper will call the tune. We all know who pays the piper-since the Federal Government took over the full funding of universities and tertiary institutions in the Whitlam years. At all levels in the education process-from primary to tertiary-the Commonwealth has intruded and imposed the views, ideals and policies of its top heavy bureaucratic elite. As Professor Dame Leonie Kramer has said: There is increasing evidence of government desire to influence the direction of education, even in matters relating to research, teaching, staffing and admissions policies. In short, we have a costly bureaucracy telling other people how to do their jobs. If we look at this education bureaucracy from another angle it may assist honourable members to realise that before the Whitlam Government got its fingers into the education pie in 1972-73, the Commonwealth Budget outlay for education was less than $450m a year. The 1985-86 forward estimate for education outlay is better than ten times that figure. It is estimated at $4,745m. The big cost increases are a result of payments to the Tertiary Education Commission programs, Schools Commission programs, student assistant programs, and such areas as the so-called participation and equity program. This has led to fairly wide agreement among education commentators, of whom I have quoted just two, that we are not getting good value from the education dollar being collected and disbursed by the Commonwealth. The money is going into funding the bureaucracy and its artificially created and imposed programs, which have much more to do with power wielding than with education delivery. I have no doubt that these senior education industry professionals and administrators have good intentions, but their very existence diverts funds and effort from the delivery to the administration and control of education. It may seem strange, having said that, that I should follow up these remarks by seeking the appointment of a representative of the Northern Territory on the Schools Commission. However, as the old adage goes, `If you can't beat them, join them', and I will be approaching the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) requesting such an appointment. It is a fact that every State and the Australian Capital Territory, has representation on the Schools Commission, but the Northern Territory, with its very special problems, in being excluded is suffering real disadvantage. It is an unfortunate fact of life that if one is unable to dismantle top heavy administration one had better try to influence its course. The Territory, being the only region of Australia without representation on the Commission, and having particular, even unique, education service delivery problems to handle, must be represented on the controlling bodies. The Territory's experience of special problems and difficulties in education would be enlightening to the Commission. It might even prevent the responsible Minister from going off half-cocked, and without question, for political rather than sound educational reasons, on matters educational in the Northern Territory. I have in mind the appalling performance by the responsible Minister when she took it into her head to attack the Northern Territory on its Aboriginal education program. I do, however, thank the Minister for her subsequent retraction of those remarks in another place, but the incident demonstrates the dangers of placing perceived political advantage before the necessity for accurate information. The Minister and the Commonwealth authorities would be forced to admit that the Northern Territory has a fine record of achievement in Aboriginal education, particularly in setting the standards for national bilingual teaching, since the Territory took on the education responsibility in 1979. Yet a willing and gullible Minister was led to believe that the Territory was selling Aboriginal students short. There is a huge irony in this chain of events because the facts are that it was the Commonwealth's cutbacks to Territory funding that created the problem. Like all Northern Territory Government areas, the Education Department was forced to reduce costs due to Commonwealth cutbacks, which meant a reduction of some 50 staff-only two of these from Aboriginal education. The Northern Territory is already placed at a considerable disadvantage in educational funding by comparison with other States because of a number of unavoidable additional costs. These are best stated in the Commonwealth's report on the funding priorities in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education, produced jointly by the National Aboriginal Education Committee and the Schools Commission. That report clearly identifies the additional funding needs of the Territory in Aboriginal education. It recommended additional expenditure of $25m nationally to be devoted exclusively to Aboriginal education. But this Government, which has shown itself to be only too ready publicly to chastise any perceived shortcoming in Aboriginal education management in the Territory, has never acted upon its own report. In 1985 the Government deferred the report's recommendations, and this financial year has provided a paltry $1m for the whole country. What hypocrisy for this Government to dare to criticise, on the basis of misinformation, the Territory's performance, while pushing under the carpet the recommendations of its own advisory bodies. That gives the lie to those high-sounding phrases about Aboriginal education which emanate from the Commonwealth Minister's office. It demonstrates the continuing lack of understanding by Commonwealth officers of the special difficulties of the Territory's responsibility in providing education for Aboriginals. That responsibility must be carried out in very special circumstances. For instance, is the Minister aware that 47 per cent of non-English speaking Aboriginals are Territorians? Is the Minister aware that there are 600 homelands or outstations in the Northern Territory, compared with about 25 in South Australia, a handful in Western Australia and none to speak of in other States? Of course it was the Commonwealth which initiated and has encouraged and continues to encourage the outstation or homeland movement. Is the Minister aware that the Territory Government is the only State level government that has the responsibility, and the experience, of providing education to urban, fringe dwelling, rural and traditionally oriented Aboriginal children? If she is, she has a duty not just to correct her totally erroneous past comments but also to provide a special level of funding to allow the Territory Government to meet its responsibility to Aboriginal education. In short, when the Territory attempted to deal with sudden-I might even say vindictive-funding cut backs in all areas as best it could, it found itself under attack from a misinformed Minister claiming that Territory authorities had attempted to rob Aboriginal students of their educational entitlement. It is because of incidents such as this that the Northern Territory must gain representation on the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The Northern Territory Council of Government Schools Organisation has begun the lobbying necessary for Territory representation on the Commission, and I trust the Minister will give the approach a most sympathetic hearing. The Northern Territory's experience-particularly in providing education in isolated and remote communities, in fringe camp communities and among urban Aboriginals-will contribute a great deal to the work of the Commission. It might even prevent the responsible Minister from making sweeping statements for political effect and, in doing so, undermining both the morale and the excellent work record of the many dedicated people who are discharging their responsibility in Northern Territory education matters. Education, together with health, is a vital area for Aboriginal people-much more important, in my opinion, than, say, Aboriginal land rights. Without proper support and funding from the Commonwealth of Australia those Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and elsewhere simply will not have a fair chance. Mr GEAR(Canning)(4.12) —I appreciate the chance to join in the debate on the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill. Of all the portfolios in government education must rank as one of the most important, mainly because of the impact it has on our young people and on the prosperity of our nation. I have listened with great interest today to some of the debate, when I have had the chance. It seems to me that we do not need a copy of the Opposition's policy on education to figure out what it is. I believe that the Opposition, if elected, would just go back to what it did before, certainly in relation to primary and secondary education. It is fair to say that we would be hearing a lot about freedom of choice. Certainly that is not a bad principle but the Opposition should be pointing out to the Australian people that freedom of choice really only means freedom of choice to those who can afford it. Obviously if schools charge fees, that immediately knocks out a lot of people who may wish to attend those schools. Before students get into schools that charge fees their families have to be able to afford it. Of course that does not stop these schools from asking taxpayers to fund them. A basic principle that we in the Australian Labor Party hold is that people should not be able to buy a better education for their children, because if they can pay money and get a better education for their children than somebody else there is something wrong with the system. Education then becomes a vehicle for ingraining inequity. Obviously the people who have more money can afford to send their children to private schools to get the so-called better education, and the results are cumulative and not offsetting. The policy of the former Government can be measured by the amount of money it spent on government and non-government schools. I am talking only about the Commonwealth Government now. I realise that we should also consider State governments, but we are talking now about Federal spending. A comparison of the figures on money spent in the government and non-government sectors in the period of the Fraser Government gives a clear indication of where the Opposition would spend its money. For instance, in 1977 there was a real increase of 2.3 per cent in funding for government schools, compared to an increase of 4.4 per cent for non-government schools. Moving along, the picture does not change a great deal. Possibly 1980 was the worst year: There was a cut in real terms of 10.6 per cent for government schools and an increase of 6.3 per cent for non-government schools. In 1982 there was a real cut of 1.2 per cent for government schools and a real increase of 16.6 per cent for non-government schools. Those figures just go to illustrate where the Opposition's priorities lie. If we look at the previous Government's policy at that time we see the crazy situation of approval for the establishment of non-government schools being given by State governments yet the majority of funding for those schools being provided by the Commonwealth Government. It was a great open cheque for the States to make big fellows of themselves and say that private schools could be constructed, whether they were needed or not, and then just pass on the bill to the Commonwealth. That stopped as soon as we came to power. We recognised that in any planning for education on a government and non-government basis there must be some rationale. We cannot have a glut of schools in one area and an open door policy for new non-government schools to open their doors virtually wherever they want to. I believe the policy we have now, of looking at the applications for non-government schools on the basis of need, particularly in newer suburbs, is the correct one from both a fiscal and an educational point of view because, as I have said before, if we have too many schools in one area we have a lot of small units not operating in an efficient manner. One Opposition member-I cannot remember who-touched on a very important point, with which I agree. A lot of the education that children receive is out of school-that is, it is provided through their parents and peers. Certainly this out of school education is important because it sets the whole tone for the advancement of any kid through school. It goes without saying that kids in higher socio-economic areas do very much better, because of that, than do kids from lower socio-economic areas, and particularly migrants. It is because of this that a report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission entitled `Quality and Equality' stated in recommendation 18: That the Basic Learning in Primary Schools Program- otherwise known as BLIPS- be continued as a specific purpose program until the end of 1987, and that the activities presently proposed by education authorities for this period continue. I know that we are trying in that area to overcome some of the deficiencies that children from those poorer areas, including migrant children, suffer because of where they live. I think that the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) expressed it quite succinctly. He said he could forecast the future advancement of a child not by his intelligence or the like; all he had to do was look at the postcode. It is easy to see that what the Minister for Science was saying is quite true. The policy of the present Government, in ensuring that funds from this Government are targeted in areas where they are needed, is the correct one and I reject totally some of the accusations made by the Opposition that what we are really trying to do is strangle the non-government sector and promote the government sector. We are trying to get some rationality back into the system and not have that crazy system we had before whereby the States approved non-government schools so that they could make the announcement and then passed the bill to the Government. Of particular importance to the education debate is higher education. It is again plain to see where the priorities of the former Government lay. We have heard a lot about proposed voucher systems and proposed ways of getting more people into higher education, and I agree with Opposition spokesmen that we should be getting more people into higher education. It is an absolute tragedy that not enough people are getting into higher education. The present policy we have of fully funding tertiary institutions was adopted and followed by the former Government, under Mr Fraser. A look at the priorities he attached to that policy, by way of the amount of money he spent on higher education, is illuminating. In 1976, his first full year, Mr Fraser cut the amount by 3.5 per cent; in 1977, the lead-up to the election as we all remember, he increased it by 3.1 per cent. In 1978 there was a drop in real terms of 0.6 per cent; in the following year there was again a drop of 1.2 per cent; in 1980 there was yet another drop of 1.2 per cent; in 1981 yet another drop of 1.4 per cent; in 1982, another drop of 0.7 per cent. The figure did not rise again until this Government came to power in 1983, when there was a rise of 0.6 per cent, in 1984 one per cent; in 1985 we have increased the figure by 2.9 per cent; in 1986 by 1.9 per cent; and the prospect for 1987 is a real increase of 1.3 per cent. One can see that the priorities attached by the Fraser Government to higher education were reflected in funding. That Government cut funding at a time when this country needed more people in our higher education system. In talking of higher education, one should not forget that a lot of people never go on to higher education, or on to the technical and further education system or into apprenticeships. They are the people who up until now have been neglected. They are the people who do not come out as tradesmen or technicians but who, by and large, make up the bulk of our unemployed, particularly the young unemployed. It is to those people that this Government has addressed a lot of attention since we were elected. When the Government took office it asked a committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to come out to Australia to review youth policy, to recommend to government ways in which we could enhance the prospects of our young people gaining jobs and meaningful employment. Parallel with that committee, the Government also set up a committee within Australia headed by Mr Peter Kirby, the Director of the Technical and Further Education Division in Victoria. Both reports were presented to government, and as a member of the Caucus education committee I know that we spent a lot of time examining those two reports and compiling many of the recommendations that they contained into what has now become known as the traineeship system under Priority One. It is a very adventurous system of which we shall see the fruits in years to come. Certainly there are obstacles to overcome within the trade union movement, within the TAFE system and other agencies which will deliver the training necessary for these young people in areas where training has not been given before. Once we have overcome those problems, such as the wages and conditions under which our young people will fit into these traineeship systems, I believe that it will be one of the great innovations of the Hawke Government. That stands in stark contrast to what the Opposition is claiming as the answer to youth unemployment-that is, to cut their wages, give them the dole but two days' work to go with it. All those crazy systems have never worked and will never work. I conclude by saying that I believe the education system in this country is one of the most important areas of government expenditure. I have expressed my support for the Government's endeavours in this field, and I know that the Caucus education committee, and also the education committees of the Australian Labor Party, will play a significant role in making sure that we advance education consistent with the policies I outlined earlier. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(4.24) —Because of some woolly thinking that seems to permeate some members of the Government, I wish to place on record my personal philosophical approach to education. Put simply, it is that the parent has the prior responsibility for deciding what type of education his or her child shall or shall not receive, and in return it is not unreasonable for that parent, as a taxpayer and citizen, to expect to receive some government contribution consistent with the amount of money government would be ploughing into the government education system. It is wrong for people to criticise a government for acknowledging the right and responsibility of the parent and standing up for the prior right of the child, rather than the Government usurping that role by contributing to the input through financing the cost of private education. It is wrong that people should be criticising the dual approach to education and trying to create an environment in which the Government will take over and condition the type of education that a child shall or shall not receive. The basis for education is the never ending search for excellence. The acceptance of mediocrity as a safe but stultifying state of existence should be totally rejected. It is from this premise I address the States Grants (Education Assistance -Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill. The pursuit of excellence is a philosophy instilled into each and every one of us from the time we enter the classroom. Our teachers are given the shared responsibility to create the future and give it direction by offering students a set of values with which to assess their newly discovered knowledge. They are called to bring professional competence and a high standard of excellence to teaching. For it is through them that students must come to see and know the richness and joy of life, and formulate a response to the challenging demands of existence. To teach means not only to impart what is known, but also to reveal who we are by living what we believe. It is this latter lesson which tends to last the longest. The value of education can never be underestimated. It is the centrepoint from which we view life, ourselves and others. Without education, life is made more difficult because the learning experience must be made alone, without the benefit of one who accepts the mantle of an educator. Since the beginning of history the value of education has been recognised; it is something which has not been lost with time. However, in these changing times, education for some is viewed as an ordeal which one must get through before being able to join the ranks of the employed or, as in some cases, the unemployed. For others, education is seen as the key which opens doors and broadens the scope of opportunities for the future. This group knows the value of the learning experience and embraces its challenges. These are our future leaders, industrialists and union spokesmen. The need for good leadership has never been greater or more urgent in Australia. We are poised on the precipice of new technologies, new frontiers and new challenges never placed before us as a nation. The education system is not the sole agency responsible for preparing our youth for the twenty-first century, but merely one facet of the total. Others which should and must be involved include the church, community organisations, business firms, trade unions and the family in encouraging our graduates to exercise leadership. In order to fuse all of these agencies we need to take seriously our regional education systems throughout Australia. For it is at the regional level all interested parties can come together and work towards attaining our goals. Regional colleges have a specific function-to serve their region. Their brief is to provide high quality education, extend educational and occupational opportunities and encourage community participation in education. Regional needs and interests are quite different from those of cities, yet they still provide diversity, complexity and opportunities in the education provided. They seek not only to train graduates to carry out jobs currently identifiable, but to prepare them adequately for important roles in the continuing development of our society and our nation. Higher education develops an ability to perceive relationships which afford understandings in many contexts, not only those presently known but also those yet to occur. Creative intellectual skills are mastered when students discover new contexts in which to apply their understanding and perceive a familiar pattern in unfamiliar events. At the same time, education provides students with the opportunity to develop their ability to communicate effectively, to understand, value and believe in our and other societies' social history and a keen awareness of what is happening now in the twentieth century. All institutions of learning have a common goal-to preserve, expand and transmit knowledge. At the same time they achieve understanding and develop a vision of what is best to do with this knowledge. That gets me back to the theme of this speech-the pursuit of excellence, the rejection of mediocrity. We will never develop our potential as a nation if we do not develop our people. The fate of Australia rests firmly on the shoulders of our young, and their fate is determined by the education they receive and how they can apply it to their understanding of their work and position in life. We have only one viable long term resource in our favour which will not run out, which is self-generating and which can adapt to any situation. That resource is our people, especially our young people, for in them our future is sealed as a member of the community of nations. We must nurture and care for them, like any resource, as precious objects, encourage them to make the most of their time in school and inspire them to continue the learning process. It is my belief that this is best done on a regional basis, for it affords all students the opportunity to remain in the close proximity of their homes, families and friends at the same time as they are studying. The support of the familiar will encourage the student to complete his or her studies and then make a valuable contribution to the community, the State and the nation. My home State of Queensland has made significant progress over recent years in retaining the highest percentage of year 12 students in school. Over 53 per cent of our high school students complete their final year. Consequently, the demand for higher education has never been so high. However, the positions available for them to continue their studies are not keeping pace with this demand. It has been estimated by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, an independent Commission, that 3,000 additional positions at colleges of advanced education, technical and further education colleges and universities are needed in Queensland so students will be able to continue their education. The Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) in the other place has made some progress towards redeeming this situation, but unfortunately there is still a long way to go. Demand still outstrips supply and, until we see a significant change in opportunities available for our potential students, Queensland will continue to be disadvantaged when compared to other States. The United States of America has come to terms with the concept of continuing education for everyone interested in keeping up with the current trends and demands for new skills. Predictions are being made that by 1990 most American adults will be working a 32 hour week and when not at work will be preparing for their next job. While the adult working week will be shorter, the student school week will become longer. Schools will be providing services to the community, to business and to young students who will use the recreation facilities, computer labs and job simulation stations. Job simulation stations are modules which combine computers, video discs and instrumentation to duplicate job or work environments. It seems to me that Australia tends to follow American trends, and I can see the same situation occurring here. Therefore, it is vital for our young people and mature age citizens to be given opportunities to further their education. We need to broaden our education system so the system can cope with the expansion of subject matter and market-place demands of the future. Curricula need to be devised which will seize and retain the interest of many students whom the present curriculum does not cover. Teaching methods may have to become more individualistic and co-operative; changes in school atmosphere may have to be made in order to encourage students to remain in school longer; and structures may have to be created which are not school-like but more relevant to society outside the classroom. It is important that we consider these changes if we are to keep our young people in school and at the same time prepare them for a different lifestyle in the twenty-first century. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(4.35) —I welcome the Government's initiatives in the grant arrangements that we have with the States. Like the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh), I express some concern as to the participation in higher education in Queensland. I will make some further comments about that. I believe this Government deserves commendation. It deserves the congratulations of the people of Queensland and, for that matter Australia, for the way it has adopted a very broad policy and, I think, a very positive philosophy of education in Queensland. It has understood that young people are our most important resource and we need to cultivate and care for them. I am also very pleased that the Labor Government has realised that our philosophy in education should be one not just of preparing young people for a university education, but of preparing young people for life. I have noticed as I have travelled around my electorate and other parts of Queensland how young people now work within a different school environment as we involve their skills in the participation and equity program. I note also that the non-government schools, the Catholic schools in particular, are most commendatory about this Government's attitude in giving a lead in solving many of their complaints about funding. It has given certainty to those non-government schools, and we have done it legislatively. I am most pleased with what is taking place. Whilst I give credit where credit is due, I believe there is an aspect that is being forgotten or overlooked. I refer to the cost of education for people who just do not have the privilege of living in the capital cities or provincial cities; in other words, in areas where there are education facilities. Recently I met with a group of people in a small township called St Lawrence. I also met with people in another small township in central Queensland called Marlborough. I am trying to bring together the human and political resources of that area to convince the powers that be that there is a need for a different approach to people who live miles and miles from the populated areas. In my opinion, there is a need for a new recognition of the problem of rural Australia as it relates not just to tertiary and higher education and to adult education, but even to ordinary secondary education. I use this opportunity to call on the Federal Government to review the present tax deductions available to people in rural Australia. There is a need also for a review of the distance factor. Young people living in St Lawrence and wishing to get a secondary education in the town of Sarina travel for 2 1/4 hours and make three different changes in buses. Again those south of St Lawrence who travel to Rockhampton travel enormous distances. Travelling 2 1/4 hours in a bus to go to school not only is a huge physical burden but also deprives young people of the many advantages that others take for granted in high schools, such as playing in sporting teams and taking part in cultural pursuits. But this does not happen for many young people in our small townships. We need to have a hard look at what is taking place. The correspondence system works. That is okay for parents involved in primary school teaching. It is all right for parents to help their children in primary school, but it is a different kettle of fish when parents are trying to help young people who are undertaking high school subjects. In Queensland, as in other parts of Australia, we have a back-up tutor system under which the principal of the local primary school will give that support or, in some cases, education officers will move around. But it is very difficult to undertake a correspondence course at high school level. Admittedly, there is a need for the State Government to accept its responsibility to decentralise further the education facilities of Queensland and supply more high tops. But much of the task stays with this Government, and we cannot walk away from that. It is my personal view that it is ridiculous these days to have a tax deduction of $250 for the education of a student. That nowhere near covers the costs of educating a young person today, particularly at high school, but more so if one is living outside the populated areas. I commend the Government for the special opportunities that it has given to the Aboriginal and Islander community of Australia. I welcome this because these people were being deprived, but I suggest to this Parliament that many low income whites and poor whites also need sensitive consideration. Just as we are making places available in our residential high schools for Aboriginal and Islander children so that they can go, say, to Rockhampton from the outskirts of the central Queensland region and live in these high schools we need to understand that the same types of financial, social and educational problems that the black community faced are now being faced by many low income and poor whites. We need to redress that situation; we need to address the problems. Families in the small towns need special assistance. So I take this opportunity to call for a review of the tax advantages or, should I say, the tax disadvantages. I spoke recently with some people living in the townships. I stress that I am not talking about wealthy farmers; I am talking about the ordinary people who live in our towns. They estimated that if they wanted to send a young person to a high school away from town it could cost $4,000 to $5,000 a year. That expense is not allowed as a tax deduction. There is a need for a new approach and for the children of those low income families to be given special places in our residential secondary schools. I am sure that this would be a low cost measure. An approach could be made to the various residential colleges throughout Queensland and the rest of Australia and find out how many spare places exist. We could suggest to the school administrations that a number of places be made available in each school and that they would be paid for by the Commonwealth. I think we also need to review the education allowances to help these people meet other costs. It may well be that residential colleges cannot cope with the numbers. If families were given some support-some sort of financial backup-the costs of a young person staying in the town could be met. This Government has introduced a special accommodation program. (Quorum formed). Before I was rudely interrupted and the attempt was made to stop me from speaking, I was making a number of comments about the problems facing people in country areas and in the small towns. For the benefit of those who listen to these debates it is probably important to note that members of parliament have many other duties and they cannot always be sitting in this chamber listening to speakers. We on the Government side are very heavily involved in committee duties. We work many long hours. Unlike the members of the National Party and the Liberal Party who do nothing except sit in the bar or play billiards all day long the Government members work hard. I think it is about time that some honourable members opposite came into the House to listen to some relevant comments that affect their areas. Getting back to the comments I was making, I stress the fact that while I support the very important initiatives that have been taken by this Government in raising the educational opportunities of the Aboriginal and Islander people there is a need for a recognition that many low income whites and very poor whites need the same types of advantages. I am calling for a different approach at a secondary level. This Government could, with the help and co-operation of State governments, make available the necessary moneys to provide places in the residential secondary schools to allow young people disadvantaged by distance and the cost involved to get a secondary education. The honourable member for Groom mentioned that he had some figures which showed that some 53 per cent of young Queenslanders were able to finish their secondary education. My figures show that in Queensland only something like 43 or 44 per cent of those between the ages of 15 and 19 are still at school. That is a very small percentage compared with America, where the average is about 74 per cent and with Japan, where the figure is about the same. I think we match only Ireland when it comes to the low numbers of students between the ages of 15 and 19 still at high school and availing themselves of educational opportunities. There is a desperate need to recognise the special problems of people in country areas-people who live some distance from education facilities. There is a need to carry out some type of in-depth study of people in country areas. I believe that there is a need for a special study on country town education. When carrying out these studies, we need to have a hard look at the present zone allowances because so many of these problems could be overcome if there was financial backup and assistance. Some time ago in this House I suggested that there was a need for a different zone allowance. Instead of introducing all types of assistance programs, if we were to review the zone allowances throughout Australia and link them to local government and also allow for a distance factor I believe that we could overcome many of these problems. However, it is simply ridiculous to ask a person in a country town to meet the cost-some $4,000 or $5,000-to send a student to high school. People simply cannot meet that cost. When one realises that many families will be faced with an ongoing problem in that they will have two or more children, the costs become very burdensome. We have a responsibility as a Federal Government to try to overcome those problems. I hope that as we consider and recognise the difficulties of the poor whites, the low income whites, the middle income whites and, in fact, anyone living in the small towns and also on the cattle properties and in rural areas, we will start to appreciate that there is a need for a different approach when it comes to costs. I was told recently about some of the problems that young people have in the employment area. I recognise what this Government is doing with its Priority One program, but most of the problems come back to rural and country Australia. That is where there is the lowest participation in education of students between the ages of 15 and 19. That is where there is the worst job opportunities. Because of the high cost of living that is where the greatest problems exist when it comes to family income. We probably need to say over and over again to those who live in the cities that there is a great difference between spending an income of $23,000 in Brisbane or Sydney and spending the same sort of money in Mount Isa or in far western Queensland. There is a need for this Parliament to review these cost factors. I am very much aware of what the Government has been doing. As I said before, I commend the Government for giving certainty to non-government schools and for writing into legislation the financial assistance available to non-government and Catholic schools. I appreciate what has been done with regard to the participation and equity program. I am very much aware of the expansion in the amount of technical and further education moneys given to the States. Even though the States get the credit this Government has been giving them money and making sure that they have a financial backup. But when it comes to country people I still think they are missing out. When it comes to small towns, again, those in small towns are suffering. So I reiterate my call that there is a need for a special study of country town education. There is a need to review the present tax advantages. There is a need to rethink through the system of assistance that is given to people who live in those areas so that their children can go and live in the residential secondary schools and get a decent education. Mr Humphreys —Joh does not care about education in Queensland. Mr WRIGHT —The Premier of Queensland does not care. The other day, I read a very interesting speech by the Queensland Leader of the Opposition, Nev Warburton, in which he simply outlines the economic ills of the State. He outlined very clearly the fact that Queensland was spending less than any other State of the Commonwealth on education, welfare, police, health and all these matters. The Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, said that that was untrue. I was most pleased to note that only the other day a very senior member of the National Party of Australia by the name of Sir Roderick Proctor, said how badly Queensland was performing. I only hope now that those in the National Party who really care about people will start talking about the lack of expenditure in Queensland on health, welfare and education. Obviously, only when there is recognition by the Government of the day of the problems do things get done. Only when the National Party in Queensland-which still holds power there and which I hope will not be in power for much longer-realises that the people are suffering will something be done. It is not just a political question. It is not just a matter of scoring on the Australian Labor Party Opposition in Queensland. It is a matter of the suffering of people. That is what has to be brought home to the people in Queensland, the voters of Queensland. Last election the Australian Labor Party missed out by only some 9,866 votes out of 1.5 million. It was not very many votes. Mr Humphreys —Not next time. Mr WRIGHT —However, we want to improve that, so that this time round we can get some decent government in that State-a government that really cares about people. May I say to the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), who made that very worthwhile interjection, that the thing that concerns me about Queensland is that the National Party Government of that State, a Party which is said to be country orientated, has given up the country people. The Ministers in that Government are the people who when one writes away about a high top in Queensland provide no answer. If one asks about improving the health facilities in country towns in Queensland one gets no answer or one gets a no from those people. It is that Government which has just taken away the speech therapist from the highlands of central Queensland. It is that Government that has removed a number of specialist teachers in those areas, teachers who are vitally important to maintain education standards. That National Party Government really does not care, and that is a great pity. Because of that, because the Queensland Government is not doing anything, we cannot say that we should do nothing. We therefore have to carry a greater burden as a Federal government. We need to realise that country people have great burdens to carry, burdens that are social, cultural and educational. It is up to this Government to understand that. Just as we have recognised that problems exist in so many other fields we need to recognise that problems exist for country people. I make this plea because I meet with these people in the country. I see the dilemmas they face, so I can come to this House and make a plea that we, as a government, should. We as a government must review the education deductions. We must try to give financial assistance to bridge the gap that is preventing many hundreds of young Queenslanders and other Australians from getting a decent education. The Queensland Government obviously does not care. The Queensland Government will do nothing about it. It is up to the Federal Government to act if the quality of life for those young Queenslanders is going to be changed and upgraded. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(4.53) —The States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill allocate additional funds to important areas of Australian education. In a sense each of these Bills represents machinery measures which seek to supplement funds already committed in line with the Government's earlier undertakings and commitments. The amounts involved range from $823,000 in both 1986 and 1987 for the participation and equity program through to $23m in 1986, $10m in 1987 and $11m in 1988 for the schools assistance package and something like $98.43m, spread over 1986 and 1987, for the tertiary and technical and further education sectors. Introduced in 1984, the participation and equity program has led a short, colourful and, one might say, controversial life. PEP subsumed the school to work transition program, a project with a clearly defined, if more limited, educational purpose. School to work focused on special programs to assist secondary students thought to have limited prospects in the market-place. In contrast, the participation and equity program focuses, in the words of a December 1985 Schools Commission report, `on the total education program and on reform of the school curriculum in order to increase student retention and participation rates and to improve the quality of schooling'. It will be appreciated that the Schools Commission 1983 paper entitled `Participation and Equality in Australian Schools' argued that our aim ought to be `a rise in participation that reflects a stronger commitment to learning by the whole age group'. It went on to recommend: . . . schools should recognise and respond to the different ways young people learn. Taken at face value, the key words and phrases in the 1983 Schools Commission report would, I believe, enjoy the support of most in the community. Unfortunately, when one comes to examine in detail just what is meant by the Schools Commission's 1985 statement `reform of the school curriculum in order to increase student retention and participation rates and to improve the quality of schooling', serious reservations must be expressed. Learning as it is generally and, I might say, correctly understood in the community at large has apparently taken on some new and rather odd meanings lately. Geoffrey Partington, senior lecturer in education at Flinders University, writing in 1985 said of the participation and equity program: . . . concentrates into one powerfully funded package a range of previously separate brands of educational nonsense. Far from trying to engage more students in the serious and useful pursuit of knowledge, PEP has aimed to improve retention rates in Australian schools by offering students what are, in practical terms, often-far too often-nothing more than childish alternatives to education. Instead of raising the level of the student to the level of the curriculum, we are in the process of lowering the curriculum to the level of the student. When we come to examine PEP we find that women's studies are as valuable as chemistry and media studies compare favourably with literature, that community action has a validity as great as physics. Plainly, that is nonsense. Should I be thought unduly partisan in these remarks, let me quote the view of Mr Bill Hannan, former adviser to the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and, at the time he expressed this view in January 1985, a ministerial appointee to the Curriculum Development Council and editor of the publication the Australian Teacher. In discussing accreditation and curriculum issues in Australian schools he argued: . . . we first need to recognise that studies in various fields-pure science, applied science, arts, crafts and humanities-can all be equally demanding and equally useful. That was the sort of advice the Minister was getting. It will be recalled that one aim of PEP is to increase the retention rates of older students in Australian schools. I understand that the figure is around 40 per cent in Australia while in the United States of America it is around 85 per cent. To get somewhere near the American figure would be an admirable target, but participation statistics are only part of the story. When one comes to look at the curriculum one finds that 25 per cent of students in United States high schools-here I am relying on the research of Professor Richard Powers, head of the History Department at the University of Massachusetts-obtain credits in physical and health education, work experience outside the school, remedial subjects and personal development courses such as training for adulthood and marriage. They are all worthwhile topics. They are all worthwhile subjects. However, I wonder whether they ought to attract academic credits for high school diplomas. This question arises particularly when one considers the testimony of college academics and administrators in the United States of America, who claim that many undergraduate students after 12 years of so-called progressive education are unable to speak or write correctly or coherently; few are able to read more than the simplest prose; a large majority have never heard of the Enlightenment, the Reformation or the French Revolution; they know nothing of the deterioration of Athens or Rome, of Czarist Russia and Weimar Germany, and next to nothing of the history of technology, industry, labour, fascism and Stalinism, or of how we found ourselves in two world wars or even in Vietnam. Almost none can as much as identify Jane Austen, Dickens, Walter Scott, Milton, Blake or Shelley. That is the testimony of US academics. We need to be careful before adopting educational curricula and accreditation policies from abroad that leave students with almost nothing really relevant to them as intelligent human beings or as Australian citizens. This brings me to the wider issue of education policy under this Labor Government-an appropriate subject as we consider the expenditure of funds on schools and the tertiary and technical and further education sectors. Speaking in the context of both the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, I must express my very real concern about the quality of education that Australia's youth is receiving. In support of that I refer to a quote from Robert Gottliebsen, Managing Editor of Business Review Weekly, who wrote in January 1985: Australia's educators are failing to meet the challenge of equipping our future workforce for a changing world. Along the same lines, in 1984 Senator John Button acknowledged in an address to the Victorian Economic Society: Australia has been very badly served by its education system . . . How can we become competitive given the quite inadequate performance of this important sector? Both Gottliebsen and Senator Button were acknowledging that both now and even more so in the future Australia will need to compete with work forces and skills in other countries in a competitive environment at a level never before experienced. Yet when faced with the testimony of some Cabinet Ministers, respected senior journalists, concerned educationalists, employers who complain that many job applicants are virtually unemployable, and university academics, who can spend hours providing example after example of major inadequacies in the most basic skills amongst first year students, the response from the educationalists who advance the theories and administered the policies which have accompanied the problems of our schools, is to insist that the practical meaning of all this evidence and opinion is a mystery beyond understanding because the possible reasons for these problems are `so many and so uncertain'. As well, there are those who claim, in the words of one education `expert' at the Canberra College of Advanced Education, that `there is no decline'. That sort of assertion is made despite the fact that, in the words of the same individual, `we often hear that some child cannot read or write well, that some academic received a wretchedly written essay or that some applicant for a job did not perform as well in a test or at an interview as some past applicants'. That is how those claims are dismissed. We are told that this is all irrelevant to the argument. Apparently employers, parents and academics are all wrong. Yet the facts suggest otherwise. P. P. McGuinness, a former adviser to the Whitlam Government and, at the time he made these comments, Editor-in-Chief of the Australian Financial Review, noted in June 1984: There is sufficient pent up dissatisfaction with the Government's system to make education reform long overdue. A perfect illustration of what is wrong with Australian education was the decade long saga and eventual emasculation and abandonment of the idea of comprehensive surveys of school standards. The full details are contained in a fascinating paper by Andrew Parkin in the journal Politics, of November 1984. Suffice it to say that this unedifying story demonstrates the determination of the teachers unions and the educational bureaucrats to stifle meaningful independent research into education standards. When the Australian Education Council eventually announced in 1983 that its national testing program would end, the Australian Financial Review editorial said: The radical chalkies have had yet another victory over common sense. The decision amazed visiting American educationalist, Dr Michael Kirst of Stanford University, who said he was astounded to see Australian newspapers resorting to extrapolating from American sources when commenting on standards in Australian schools. One important reform would be the return of meaningful national testing of educational standards. While the Americans are setting about repairing years of educational foolishness, our Commonwealth Schools Commission grandly informs us on page 14 of its 1985 report entitled `Quality and Equality': The Commission has viewed with interest the way in which the particular genre of reports typified by the report of the US National Commission on Excellence in Education, `A Nation at Risk' has been questioned by commentators with respect to the view of excellence put forward. Another good read is J. L. Goodlad's `A Place called School', which is recommended to set us all right about what the Commission calls `the dangers of taking a too instrumental approach to schooling'. The Commission goes on to note that measures recommended in `A Nation at Risk' tend to ignore `significant cultural and personal goals in education'. Presumably an `instrumental' approach would put women's, peace, media and community action programs at risk. This would, of course, be in direct conflict with the philosophy of a Minister for Education whose program is the embodiment of almost every odd enthusiasm of Australia's trendy Left educational establishment. Far too often these topics are the soft options that emphasise process and explanation rather than fact. All too often they lead to uninformed views and prejudices going unchallenged. This so-called progressive hegemony has brought in its wake `values clarification' for students which invades their privacy and assumes adult level maturity. At the least such nonsense imposes a relativistic view of moral values; at worst it strongly influences students in values contrary to those prevailing in the home or community. The school's role is to foster habits of intelligent methodological inquiry, and this requires the basic disciplines of literacy and numeracy. Indeed, one of the supposed aims of much so-called progressive educational reform-that of assisting economically disadvantaged students-in fact further disadvantages them. Many educationalists have pointed out that these students more than any others gain from a properly structured learning environment. Education is devalued when the curriculum is stripped of its content and when skills free of any cultural, literary or historical context are all that is taught. Students must be given accurate focal points from which to view the world. These must be of the right kind. They need to stress integrity, duty, compassion, discipline, respect for other's rights and the courage of individual convictions and intelligent patriotism. Effective education does not require a narrow approach. We need to cover both the basic skill subjects such as English, including spelling, mathematics, science and computers, and broader subjects such as history, geography and at least one language plus arts and music. A proper curriculum, an interested, active and professional faculty and effective discipline are all vital. It is important to remember that a genuine equality of opportunity is often most strongly present when real standards are enforced. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(5.09) —It is undeniable that the Australian education system is beset by problems at different levels. However neither time nor, I suspect, your tolerance pursuant to Standing Orders, Mr Deputy Speaker, will allow me to canvass all those issues this afternoon. Instead, I shall concentrate upon the problems besetting the colleges of advanced education and other tertiary institutions in country areas. One of the most outstanding failures of this Government has been its failure to properly care for the colleges of advanced education in rural areas. It is impossible to overstate the importance of these institutions, not just to those country students attending them but also to the rest of the community, for the role they play and the influence they assert in heightening the awareness of all the different aspects within that community. Let me give an example of an institute which is just outside the border of my electorate of Gippsland, but which is certainly attended by a great many students who come under my specific responsibility. I refer to the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education at Churchill. It has a very important role to play in cataloguing and promoting Gippsland history and also the different industries of Gippsland, as well as establishing what is called the Gippsland bank of statistics and information, which is a very valuable reference point for a number of different industries, individuals and secondary schools. Yet the Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education, like so many others in rural Australia, faces an uncertain future because of drastic reductions in funding. This Government should realise that its responsibilities to higher education lie not only in urban areas, but also in rural areas where institutions such as the Gippsland Institute take on what is probably a far more important role in the community than that which is played by their urban counterparts. The Gippsland Institute of Advanced Education performs a number of very important works throughout Gippsland, but none more important than the fact that it is a local place of higher learning for Gippslanders. A number of Gippslanders simply cannot afford or, perhaps for other reasons of which there are too many canvass, do not wish or are not able to attend, Melbourne tertiary institutions. The Gippsland Institute, therefore, is, if one likes, not just a home-based college, but an essential and much relied upon institution of learning. I was interested to receive correspondence recently from Mr Peter Farago on behalf of the Politics/History Teaching Team, seeking my support for the establishment, via the Victorian Post-Secondary Education Commission, of a course of study in politics-history. That is further evidence of the growth in maturity of this institution. I certainly wish that to be a successful application, as I know that the school of Social Sciences needs to offer a major in history and politics in its Bachelor of Arts course so that it will be given the same sort of weight which is given to universities in the capital cities. These rural institutions of higher learning also play a crucial role in tackling what is a subject which is neglected by this Government-rural youth unemployment. I have received a great deal of correspondence over several months from the Rural Development Centre of the University of New England in Armidale, New South Wales, which is headed by, among others, Mr Scott Williams. Mr Williams has done a great deal of collating of information from various sources on an analysis of rural youth unemployment. He is certainly to be congratulated for his work. Together with him is Mr Geoff Harris and Mr Vitols who have also done extensive research on the extent of youth unemployment and its effect on individuals and their communities. Such an approach by the Rural Development Centre stands in marked contrast to that of the Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that a number of Opposition members have called for a proper survey of rural youth unemployment to be undertaken without any further delay. Youth, who are always the main sufferers in an economic downturn, in the country have added difficulties because they are beyond the limelight of the Press and, in some instances, their own political representation. In my electorate youth unemployment is a staggering 26 per cent. Figures from the six Commonwealth Employment Service offices situated in my electorate and that of the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), show that 2,110 teenagers are seeking work. So between the towns of Warragul and Orbost, a staggering 2,132 teenagers out of a total of 8,100 are seeking work. Such a figure paints an alarming and gloomy picture for the future of these teenagers. It is incumbent on the Government to understand the nature of the problem by way of, I believe, an extensive survey because we are lacking in knowledge of the causes and effects of youth unemployment in country areas. The cutback in participation and equity funding has had a drastic effect on a number of youth unemployment schemes, not just in the electorate of Gippsland, but in other parts of Australia. The problem in regard to the 50 per cent cutback 12 months ago is that it was across the board. Why is it that this Government is incapable of distinguishing between good and bad projects when reducing funding? A number of worthwhile youth unemployment schemes are about to close or have closed. There may well have been wastage in PEP. Indeed, we know that there has been wastage in the secondary school sector of that funding program. But the fact remains that the technical and further education component of PEP was in many cases extremely valuable. To take one example, I refer to the youth unemployment project centred in Leongatha in my electorate and headed by Mr Michael McInerny. I have visited that project to see firsthand its operations. It goes under the title of affirmative action program for unemployed youths. The simple fact is that because of the cutback in funding to the TAFE supervision of these programs, a number of young unemployed in south Gippsland will have absolutely no assistance to prepare them, firstly, to obtain a job and, secondly, to retain it. In other words, the young unemployed in south Gippsland are left high and dry. The project is expected to close in June unless funding is forthcoming. Mr Michael McInerny is only too pleased to provide a detailed submission, as he has to me, to anybody who questions the worth or effectiveness of his program. Certainly, the figures of those who have passed through the program and who have then obtained employment are very impressive. For instance, of the 39 people who attended the program last year, 70 per cent have found work-with Mr McInerny's assistance. It is incumbent upon the Government in its rationalisation, for want of a better word, of funding for educational projects to differentiate between those that are worth while and those that are, as the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) highlighted, an absolute waste of taxpayers' funds. I believe that this program in south Gippsland has been successful. It assisted those youths who would find it extremely difficult to obtain a traineeship under Priority One, if any traineeships were available. They are youths who are at a transitional stage and who often do not have the certainty and the skills of a number of other youths who will be able to take advantage of Priority One traineeships. But the point is this: What traineeships really exist? We were promised 10 months ago that 10,000 traineeships would become available by the end of June 1986. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) has admitted to the House that only 800 traineeships have been filled. Realistically, as the Governments admits, there is absolutely no possibility of the goal of 10,000 being met. It is therefore a fraud and dishonest commitment and promise which raised expectations and which held out some hope for the growing army of young unemployed. At present 22.8 per cent of young people between the ages of 15 and 19 are unemployed. In drawing my remarks to a conclusion, I wish to touch on a number of matters. A particular worry is not just the indiscriminate cutback in funding to rural colleges of advanced education but the fact that in 1985 the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee estimated that 30,000 Australian youths who were academically qualified would not be able to find places in our tertiary learning institutions. Indeed, it is expected that in 1986 the figure will be roughly the same, if not higher. Those youths are simply not being allowed to attend institutions for which they have qualified. Therefore, a drastic rethinking of Government policies in regard to higher education is urgently needed. A number of other aspects of education worry the Opposition, particularly that relating to curriculum. There is a belief held by a majority of members of the community that, sadly, government schools do not provide the same discipline provided by many non-government schools nor pass on the same values and traditions. This is not a good thing. It is a responsibility of any government to ensure that the standards in the government school sector are, firstly, maintained and, secondly, enhanced. I realise that, as the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) is quick to remind us, the problems of curriculum, standards of teaching and discipline of students are largely the province of State governments. That is certainly true to a certain extent. Nonetheless, there is a growing crisis in the government school sector, with the falling away of standards in too many places. I believe that the Federal Government needs to address this serious problem. In summary, the Federal Government's record on education at all levels is quite appalling. It has a heavy-handed, indiscriminate approach to rationalisation of funding sources. This is particularly felt in country areas where institutions of higher learning and, for that matter, secondary schools, play as important a role in the local community as they do in providing education for individual students. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 30 April, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Holding) read a third time. Debate resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate the Australian Institute of Sport Bill 1986 concurrently with the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986. There being no objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(5.27) —I note that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has just come into the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, while the Australian Institute of Sport Bill 1986 and the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986 are connected with the Australian Institute of Sport, I note, just as a very small diversion, that during Question Time today the Minister made very complimentary remarks about the Opposition's tourism policy which, of course, is just a draft document at this stage. As I would not like him to think that he is the only person who does not have a copy, I present him with one, and I would welcome his comments. The only problem is that he will pinch all the good bits before we return to government. But since that will not be too long, I suppose he will have to work overtime to do that. Mr Deputy Speaker, to return to the point, since you are giving me a rather hard look, the purpose of these two Bills is to convert the Australian Institute of Sport from a public company to a statutory corporation. It has become increasingly clear that the AIS requires more parliamentary and ministerial control, as the events of late 1985 indicate. It has also become clear that most people associated with sport in Australia, within the Institute, the Australian Sports Commission and the sporting world generally, do not see the necessity for yet another statutory corporation within the world of sport. The Opposition, while not opposing the Institute in any way-in fact, we fully support it-will be opposing this legislation because the purpose of the main Bill, the Australian Institute of Sport Bill, is to turn the Institute into another statutory corporation. We believe very strongly that there are more than enough statutory corporations, boards and committees in this country, particularly under the auspices of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and we do not wish to see another one. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said: The legislation will ensure appropriate accountability to the government of the day and, through it, to this Parliament. We agree with that concept. We welcome the move to establish parliamentary control over this very important institute, which has something like $80m worth of facilities at its command and a budgetary allocation this year for its recurrent costs approaching $14m. It has a great number of staff and students, which I will come to in a moment. At one stage I believed that a statutory corporation was probably one of the options to establish more ministerial and parliamentary control over this important Institute. I do not believe this any more and neither does anyone on this side of House because a control mechanism is in place-that is, the Sports Commission-and that is where the Australian Institute of Sport should properly be placed. As I have mentioned before it is clear that no one in the sporting world to whom I have spoken is in favour of creating another statutory authority when the job could properly be done by one that is already in place. The Australian Sports Commission has a board of up to 20 people which is not fully extended and which is looking for control. If one is talking about the proper direction of government policy in sport one should be looking towards one institution which can properly direct that government policy. When people come to Canberra-several people on regular visits to Canberra have seen me in the last few days-they have to see someone in the Australian Sports Aid Foundation, someone in the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, someone in the Australian Institute of Sport and someone at the Sports Commission. It is not right nor is it a proper and efficient use of resources that people should have to traipse around the country trying to get simple directions, policy or assistance. As we also see this as an extension of political patronage into an area where it should not be-that of Australian sport-we oppose the Bill and move the following amendment: That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the House is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with as it does nothing more than add to the burgeoning number of statutory authorities already in existence when the functions of the proposed Institute of Sport could well be performed by an existing body'. The amendment will be seconded by my colleague the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl). When I say that it is not necessary to have a statutory corporation I in no way mean to denigrate or to cast any reflections on the present board of the Australian Institute-which as most people know is run as a public company-because it has given good service over the last eight years. The Institute owes its existence, and credit must be given, to both sides of politics because it probably had its genesis back in the days of Frank Stewart, a former Labor Minister for Tourism and Recreation in the Whitlam Government. There was a period of quiescence when it fell into limbo somewhat. In 1980 it came to life under Bob Ellicott, a Minister in the Fraser Government. A lot of the initial work-I pay credit publicly-is due to Professor John Bloomfield, the current Chairman of the Board of the Institute and to Dr Allan Coles who did a tremendous amount of the early work. It is not a matter of point scoring as to who set up what and who is responsible for what. Both sides of politics should take the credit, and that is as it should be in Australian sport. I make that quite clear. In 1986 the Institute has, to a large extent, come of age. Some 297 athletes are in residence, there are about 150 staff, some 2,200 visiting athletes, $80m worth of facilities and $14m worth of budgetary allocation. We do not take issue with the Institute; we are proud that a Liberal member set it up. We acknowledge all the work that has been done. In this debate the Institute is not what is in question; we give it our full support. What we want to see is its running properly and under proper control. I think it is appropriate at this stage to spend a couple of minutes on what we see as the appropriate role for the Government in sport. That role should be minimal as it should be for most areas in which the Government is involved. We would take an opposite view to what might be described as a strictly socialist point of view whereby governments should be massively involved in as many things as possible. I am not sure whether the Minister would describe himself as a socialist; I suspect not but he is a member of a socialist party and I presume that he will not walk away from that. Mr John Brown —A democratic socialist. Mr WHITE —Is there a difference between a democratic socialist and a socialist? Mr John Brown —Not much. Mr WHITE —Therefore the Minister is a socialist. We take the view that the Government's role in sport as in most things should be minimal. I believe that this Government is intruding far too much into the area of sport in Australia. Basically, sport is a private sector operation and we should be encouraging the private sector as much as possible and getting the Government out of areas in which it has no business to be. This encouragement, of course, runs to financial assistance. I acknowledge all the extra money that has been given by this Government in the last three years to sport and tourism. I will be interested to see whether a budget increase will continue in this area given the difficult economic circumstances which have been recently highlighted by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). He says that we are becoming a banana republic and that Australia is in a hole. Therefore, how much money will he give to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism? I note with interest that at a recent function the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism publicly said that he would not suffer and that he would make sure that sport got more money than it did last year. I wait with some interest to see whether that is true. Whatever money is allocated to Australian sport it has to be properly accounted for because it is public money. That leads me back to the Australian Institute of Sport and to the $13m-odd which is being allocated to it this year. It must be said that the recent history of the management of the Australian Institute of Sport has been somewhat less than brilliant. I think there are two particular problems: One is lack of direction as to what path it should be following. What are its strategic objectives? I note with interest from one of the Bills that the Institute will be required at long last to produce a strategic plan as to where it is going. I welcome that being written into the Bill. Management and lack of a strategic plan are the problems. I am not in a position to say who is to blame-whether it is the Government, the Board or the management structure. This Institute has had its problems and these problems must be rectified. They culminated in November last year when allegations were made in the Press against the Australian Institute of Sport. There was an inquiry and subsequently a censure motion was moved against the Minister in this House which, if there had been any justice, would have been carried. Unfortunately it was not. The reason for that censure motion was that the Minister kept insisting that all was well at the Institute. We all know that all was not well and what is more we know that as long ago as September, and probably earlier, the Minister knew that all was not well. However, he kept saying: `Don't worry. The Institute is in good hands. There is no problem out there'. I know-I think a lot of people also know-that as far back as September the Minister had decided that the Institute was to be brought in from the cold and that a new statutory authority was to be created. That goes back to September. If the Minister had come into this House when the problems arose and said `Yes, there are problems at the Institute; I have been aware of them for some time and I am taking action to make sure that they are fixed', there would not have been any censure motion. What we are trying to do on both sides of the House is to make sure that the Institute is run as effectively as possible. When the Minister decided to take action back in September but kept saying to us in the House in November that he was not aware of any problems, he was rightly moved against in a censure motion in this House. I presume that he would not admit it because his ego would not allow him to say: `Yes, there is something wrong in my Department'. The minutes of the Institute's Board of 19 September clearly reflect that the decision had been made by the Minister. The interesting thing about those 19 September minutes is simply that the Board was very upset that it had not been consulted. The allegations against the Institute were investigated by Price Waterhouse. I said at the time and I say again that those investigations should have been carried out by an independent investigator because Price Waterhouse were the appointed auditors for the Australian Institute of Sport. As it turns out, it appears that their report in November 1985 was thorough and satisfactory; but it would have been a neater solution if someone else had been appointed to do that investigation because it would have removed any onus from Price Waterhouse to investigate themselves, which is what happened when the Government asked them to do the job. Price Waterhouse reported in November. The Minister kept on saying that there were no worries at the Institute. The fact is that the Price Waterhouse report listed these problems: There was excessive entertaining of staff, too many working lunches in restaurants, excessive travel and excessive expenditure on furniture. The higher duties allowance must come under the Public Service rules; the spot merit fund was doubtful and should be discontinued; the tender procedures were somewhat shaky. There was a lack of understanding of the budget process; there was a budget shortfall of $450,000; there was no corporate plan; the staff budgeting system was poor; and there was low morale at the Institute. Yet the Minister still comes into the House and says: `It is nothing'. If that is nothing and if that is how he expects the most prestigious sports institute in this country to be run- Mr John Brown —In the world. Mr WHITE —In the world perhaps. If that is the sort of standard the Minister expects, let me tell him that it is not the sort of standard we on this side of the House expect, particularly when some $13m of public money is involved. Just to reinforce the point I am making that a great deal was amiss, on 28 November, the same day the report was tabled in this Parliament, the Board of the Australian Institute of Sport met in Canberra. It regarded what was happening at the Institute so seriously that it passed 30 resolutions at its meeting on 28 November-the Board minutes are available-at the very same time that the Minister was in this House telling us that nothing was wrong, in the face of the Price Waterhouse report. The Board, meeting on the very same day, passed 30 resolutions to tighten up the management of the Institute. Let me read some of the actions the Board took to make sure that the Institute was properly run. It is a pity it did not move before. It established an executive committee; it reviewed the priorities of the Institute; it ensured that Public Service guidelines were put in place for entertainment and employment; that the spot merit fund was discontinued, and that tighter financial arrangements were put in place. The role of the executive director was clearly defined; the role of the general manager was clearly defined; a staff consultative group was formed; audit programs were put in place; travel arrangements were tightened up; and there were to be no further staff appointments and no consultants appointed without the express approval of the executive committee. On 28 November we had damning Price Waterhouse report and, on the same day, the Board of the Institute passed 30 resolutions. I ask the Minister, in all reasonableness, how can he come into this House and still say that there is nothing wrong at the Institute? The Price Waterhouse report and the Board minutes, which make very interesting reading, provide not a bad list for someone to say that all was going well. At the same time that all this was going on we had the fiasco of Mr Rodney Groux. Mr Rodney Groux was hired as a consultant by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism. As I understand it, at one stage he was sent to try to help the Institute overcome some of its problems. I do not know what his job was. In fact, in all the months that he worked as a consultant for the Minister, no one seemed to know exactly what he was supposed to be doing. He disappeared for a month, on the Minister's own admission. The Minister said that he did not know where he was. I ask the Minister: During that month when he was adrift, astray, wherever he was, was any attempt made to find him? Did the Minister's Department attempt to find him? Was he paid for that month? What was he doing? Was he questioned when he returned? If Mr Groux was paid a salary during that month, can the Minister tell us now what Mr Groux did? Mr Charles —What has this to do with the Bill? Mr WHITE —It has everything to do with the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! I interrupt the honourable member. The Chair has been listening closely to his remarks and I am bound to say that their relevance is becoming somewhat tenuous. Mr WHITE —Mr Deputy Speaker, let me attempt to show you how relevant they are. The relevance of Mr Groux to the Australian Institute of Sport is that when he was hired as a consultant in 1985, as I understand it and according to the Minister, a great deal of his time was spent in assisting the Institute of Sport. During some of the time when he was supposed to be at the Institute of Sport sorting out some of the problems highlighted by the Price Waterhouse report and by the Board minutes-he was being paid out of the public purse to help the Institute sort itself out-he was adrift, away for a month, and no one knew where he was. That is the relevance of Mr Groux to the Australian Institute of Sport. Without dwelling on that point, because it has been made tonight and it was certainly hammered home in previous weeks, I simply ask: Was he paid during that month? Where was he and what work did he do during that period? There are two main threads to the debate on the Australian Institute of Sport. The management structure is obviously wrong and must be addressed. I very much hope that it will be, and I will deal with that in more detail in the Committee stage. As far as I know-I would be delighted to be told otherwise-there has never been proper direction or a proper strategic plan for the Institute of Sport. It is no wonder we see legislation introduced to enforce parliamentary and ministerial control over the Institute. It is our most prestigious sports institution. It cannot be left to wander along with a will of its own. It must be properly administered for two good reasons: The first is that public funds are involved and the second is that it must be the institution which sets the example for the hundreds and hundreds of sporting bodies in our country. The Opposition's view on the problem of the AIS is simply that control and direction must be established. We believe that, in regard to the overall administration of sport in Australia at a national level, either the Sports Commission or the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism has to run the show. The Minister knows as well as I do that there is a great deal of confusion amongst people in the sporting world as to who they should be dealing with, at what level and on what subjects. The Sports Commission has a Board of up to 20 members and 22 staff. It has almost one staff member for each Board member. The Board simply does not have enough to do, apart from the general direction and control of sport. The Government recently set up a Sports Aid Foundation, which we opposed. I ask the Minister to clarify who exactly is on the Board of the Sports Aid Foundation. Mr John Brown —I thought I read out all their names. Mr WHITE —The Minister did read out the names. Mr John Brown —Do you want them again? Mr WHITE —I have the list with me. The Minister should listen. The names that the Minister read out do not correspond to the names that were given to me by someone else-I will tell the Minister who gave them to me later. The discrepancy involves Sir Peter Abeles. Is he or is he not on the Board of the Sports Aid Foundation? Mr John Brown —Yes. Mr WHITE —If that is right, someone else is very wrong. Mr John Brown —Your information is usually fairly suspect. Mr WHITE —Someone over whom the Minister has direct control gave me the names. The Minister might like to get that matter sorted out. I ask the Minister again whether that Board has now been officially appointed. There seemed to be some confusion when we last debated these issues in the House. The members of the Board had met but they had not been officially appointed. That was very confusing. We have an Australian Sports Commission which, in our view, should be the agency for running sport in this country. It should control the Sports Aid Foundation. There is no need to have a separate Sports Aid Foundation Board. There is certainly no need to have a separate statutory corporation for the Australian Institute of Sport. The Minister must sort out the responsibilities of the Sports Commission and the Department. Approximately 45 people in the Department are involved in sport and recreation. I admit that I do not know what they all do. I am told that many of them, able as they are, would be better placed in the Sports Commission. That matter must be clarified. If it is not sorted out by the time we return to government, we will certainly very quickly sort it out. Mr Charles —It will be a long time before you get back into government. Mr WHITE —The way the Government has been going in the last week it will not be very long at all. The Government will be welcoming an early election if we get more statements by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) as to where we are heading. The Opposition supports the Institute of Sport very strongly. We want to make sure that it is properly administered and run on policy lines which are in accord with what the Government wants and not just with what the Institute wants. We want to see a broadening of the Institute's activities. It has an elitist role. No one will deny that. We want to see a broadening of its coaching activities so we get more of a system in which coaches are brought in and then sent back to the community. Certainly the Institute does that to an extent now-it is to be complimented on that-but the system must be broadened. The decentralisation program must go ahead. We want to see the use of the Institute and its facilities by a broader range of people. I will speak on that matter during the Committee stage. The Opposition believes that the Government has been sloppy and careless in its handling of the Australian Institute of Sport. The Minister dodged the issue in claiming last year that all was well when he knew very well and had known for months that all was not well. He misled the Parliament last year and a censure motion was moved against him. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! I do not think the honourable member can assert that the Minister misled the Parliament. Mr WHITE —I have said it often enough previously. Why would I not be able to say it now? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may be able to assert that outside the chamber-- Mr WHITE —I have said it often enough in the chamber, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is provision in the Standing Orders enabling a person who believes that a Minister has misled the Parliament to deal with that. One then does not continue to raise the issue in debate. The honourable member may like to rephrase the way he put the matter. Mr WHITE —As I am running out of time, I acknowledge what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last year in the Parliament we asserted that the Minister misled the Parliament and moved a censure motion against him which, if there had been any justice, would have been carried. I commend the Opposition amendment to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the amendment seconded? Mr Nehl —I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak at a later time. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(5.57) —Like most honourable members on this side of the House, I had a great deal of difficulty in following the logic of the argument put by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) during the last half an hour for a number of reasons. We are here to debate the Australian Institute of Sport Bill 1986 and the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986, which seek to establish the Australian Institute of Sport as a Commonwealth statutory authority rather than a public company, which it is now. In the 30 minutes for which the honourable member spoke something like five minutes was devoted to talking about what that might mean and what the Opposition's policy might be, if it could devise one, on the Australian Institute of Sport and on sport generally. The rest of the time was spent bagging the Institute or the operations of the Institute and generally bagging the Opposition, because one has to remember that the Australian Institute of Sport was established by the coalition when it was in government. We on this side of the House believe that came about essentially as a knee jerk reaction to a disappointing performance by Australian competitors overseas in a variety of sporting events. It certainly reflected the lack of any semblance of a sports policy by the Liberal Government. It also certainly reflected the pressure that emanated from the community and goaded the previous Government into some form of action. The honourable member for McPherson said, on the one hand, that the Sports Institute was a terrible institute because there are no concrete procedures for management and for directing how the place should operate and, on the other hand, agreed with the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) that the Institute was the world's best. When those sorts of arguments are put forward it is no wonder we on this side of the House find it difficult to follow them. We pay tribute to a former Liberal member of this place, Bob Ellicott, for at least having the foresight to get involved in this area of sports management and see that the Institute of Sport became a reality. It is unfortunate that those on the other side do not seem to share the vision he had at that time and are proposing an amendment which in effect means, as usual, that they do nothing. The amendment says that the House is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with but there is nothing put forward to suggest that there should be anything in its place, other than to say that its management should come under the Australian Sports Commission. There are very valid reasons why this should not be the case, and I will come to that shortly. The honourable member for McPherson also referred to some management problems which arose and which were raised in this House, and mention was also made of a censure motion. This Government clearly was of the view that, with the Institute being established as a public company, there were some deficiencies in terms of public scrutiny, and particularly government scrutiny. There was at that time an ongoing process under way to review the AIS and look at some of the questions concerning management. That was happening at the time the Opposition launched its attack at the end of last year condemning the AIS and also the Minister's handling of it. Frankly, this Government, following its traditional process of discussing and consulting with those in the community who have relevance to these particular areas, took the view that we should look at it far more closely. A number of the problems identified by the honourable member for McPherson-he referred to certain comments of the auditors Price Waterhouse-of course were under consideration. It is the view of this side that because of the establishment of the Institute as a statutory authority, those sorts of problems will receive proper government scrutiny and the ongoing problems associated with some of the management difficulties in the past will be overcome. We have already heard that the Opposition wants to subsume the AIS into the Sports Commission, but it fails to recognise that the AIS is already an autonomous body, set up for a specific purpose. As such it needs to be independent in order to be able to focus on its own particular goals. That is most important. Accusations that the Bill is creating an additional instrumentality are ludicrous, because the AIS already exists. It is not being created by this Bill. That is an important point. I wonder how many people in this place have had the opportunity to look at the Institute, to study what it does and to appreciate for themselves the contribution that it is making to improving the sporting talents of many people in Australia, particularly many young people. I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to spend a couple of hours over at the Institute, and it was indeed an eye opener. We have seen it grow, from a vision of perhaps one man on the Opposition side back in 1981 to something which, as the Minister has said, now takes its place as the premier institute for sports advancement in the world. I certainly subscribe to that view put forward by the Minister. It enables us to take the best athletes in Australia and give them the opportunity to improve themselves in their athletic areas and at the same time not hinder them academically. If we look at the situation at the Institute at the moment, we can see quite clearly what I mean by that. The opportunity is provided for people to go there and receive training and coaching from the best coaches available in Australia and at the same time to continue their academic prowess by going to local high schools, colleges of advanced education or whatever. So in effect we are marrying the idea of developing Australia's sporting talented people with the idea that once they have completed competing for Australia or for their State in their chosen sport they will not be placed on the scrap-heap because they do not have a further career to pursue. Those days are long gone, and this is an important part of the Australian Institute of Sport that many people do not recognise. If one has the chance to consider in some detail how this place operates, one also sees that the main basis of the Institute's activities has been the residential sports program. Scholarships are awarded under this program, and they provide athletes with access to a wide range of services and facilities while at the same time enabling them to further their sporting and academic or work experiences. As I have already said, that is most important. We see that through a number of programs-such as the national training centre program, the satellite coaching program, the visiting athletes program and areas of overseas participation with which the Australian Institute of Sport is involved and on which some of my colleagues will speak a little later-we are offering the people of Australia and our nearby neighbours the opportunity for advanced coaching and improvement in their sporting prowess so that we can develop within Australia people who can in turn go on and pass on their prowess and coaching talents to other young people. That is most important because quite clearly, although the primary objective of the AIS has been to promote, provide, encourage and develop opportunities for Australians to pursue and achieve excellence in sport and activities associated with sport, it is not a medal factory. It is not there purely and simply to churn out medal makers for Australia so that, as many Eastern countries tend to do, we can parade them on the world stage and say that this makes us a dominant group. We are not about that. Rather, the resident athletes are encouraged to pursue their academic and work experiences and careers with the same diligence as their sporting careers. That is most important. Nevertheless, the AIS has been associated with some remarkable and notable sporting achievements. We owe a great debt to those dedicated men and women who make up the coaching staff at the Institute of Sport. In 1984, for example, the Australian Olympic team included 52 athletes and 13 officials who were scholarship holders or coaches at the AIS. That is a significant contribution. Five AIS athletes, all swimmers, won medals in the 1984 Olympic Games. Three AIS swimmers won 1984 United States of America national swimming titles. At the 1982 Commonwealth Games, 26 of the 70 gold medals won by Australians went to AIS athletes. Robert de Castella, a well-known athlete-known probably to every Australian-who comes from Canberra, and the world's leading marathon runner, as proven recently in the Boston marathon, is a former AIS athlete. Mr John Brown —He is a present AIS athlete. Mr MARTIN —He is a present AIS athlete, and his coach is on the coaching staff of the track and field team. A number of AIS coaches have been selected as national or assistant national coaches. On and on we can go. The AIS water polo team was undefeated in a 12-match tour of Europe in August 1985. Six members of the AIS soccer team represented Australia in the 1985 Youth World Cup finals in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Five AIS team members were selected in the Australian water polo team which competed in the 1985 World Cup. There have been creditable performances in international tennis by players such as Patrick Cash, Anne Minter, Wally Masur and Simon Youl, and a number of others including Michelle Turk, who just happens to come from the great Illawarra region. The Illawarra region has provided a good share of the administrators and coaches at the Institute. We see, for example, that Dr Adrian Hurley is coaching in the basketball area. He is a former high school teacher I had the pleasure to work with in the Wollongong area a number of years ago. He is making his mark, and is contributing to the Australian Institute of Sport. A number of other people are in a similar position. As I said earlier, they are to be congratulated and commended for the effort they are putting in to see that the Australian Institute of Sport rightly takes its place in Australia-indeed, in the world-as the premier sporting facility to promote young people's abilities, young people's talents, and to combine the promotion of those sporting talents with the ability to continue to pursue academic or work careers. As I said at the outset, the achievements of this Institute clearly demonstrate that this Government has been 100 per cent spot on, and this Minister has been spot on, in supporting this body. The Government also has been absolutely spot on in providing ongoing finance for the Institute. I believe that this Government is also 100 per cent spot on in endeavouring to bring this body under the umbrella of government control, which will occur through its creation as a Commonwealth statutory authority. To simply say that it is a public company and therefore should be controlled by or come under the umbrella of some other group is not to provide a feasible alternative. I was hoping that these Bills would receive the support of both sides of the Parliament. However, again I am disappointed, just as I was then those opposite opposed the legislation for the Sports Aid Foundation and the Sports Commission. Mr White —We did not oppose the Sports Aid Foundation. We opposed the Board. Mr MARTIN —It might interest the honourable member to know that the Sports Aid Foundation which he was criticising earlier this evening, has since its establishment processed some $45,000 in donations towards the Commonwealth Games. If that is the kind of response we can expect from the general public to initiatives by this Government to promote sport, I suggest to those opposite that they should re-think their ideas. I suggest that they might like to take back the draft policy that they flicked across the table to the Minister. Mr John Brown —That was on tourism. Mr MARTIN —Oh, that was only tourism. Well, they like to give their sport and recreation policies a little more thought and take on board the Government's achievements. I commend the Bills to the House. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(6.12) —The Australian Institute of Sport Bill and the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill do not call in question the role and significance to Australia as a whole, and to our sporting community in particular, of the Institute of Sport. The Opposition supports the Institute of Sport. In fact, the Liberal and National parties when in government, played a very significant part in the development of the idea of the Institute of Sport. The idea may have emerged some years ago, but it was under a Liberal-National Party Government that the Institute was established. The circumstances of its establishment are well known to members of this House. At the time the decision was taken to establish an Institute of Sport it became desirable to do so as speedily as possible. It was administratively quicker to establish the Institute by the formation of a company to administer the conduct of that organisation through that structure. It has been under that structure that it has come from a dream to the reality that was described by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin), who preceded me. No one on this side of the House would have any argument with him about the significance, role and success of the Institute of Sport. Indeed, we too congratulate the administers, all the staff of the Institute from its inception, its board of management, the athletes themselves and all those from many other sectors, both from the private sector and from the government bureaucracy, who have in some way lent their support to the great success of that Institute. The company that this legislation seeks to put into liquidation and replace with a statutory authority was formed on 24 September 1980, as the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) said in his second reading speech, and commenced operations on 26 January 1981. From a position of having no athletes and conducting no courses in any sports, within one year it had 151 athletes and eight residential sports-athletics, basketball, gymnastics, netball, soccer, swimming, tennis and weight-lifting. Since then the number of sports has been extended. During those early years the Institute and its concept acted as a very significant catalyst not only to the establishment of additional sports at the Australian Institute of Sport, but also to the creation in a number of States of State institutes of sport. I recall attending a Recreation Ministers Council meeting at which the idea of the establishment of State institutes of sport was discussed. From those discussions a number of States have taken up that idea. In a relatively short time sport, and its role through institutes of sport, has come a long way. I am sure that just as the present Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism is pleased with the developments that have occurred in sport in the last three years, Ministers who preceded him in other governments were pleased with the dynamic and exciting developments that had occurred in sport. Having said that, I turn to the Bills. The Opposition's concern about the legislation is not about the concept of an Institute. Our concern does not call in question the great success of the Institute or the need for its continuance and further development. It calls into question the procedure being adopted by the Government to convert a company into a statutory authority. We ask: Why is a new statutory authority in place of a company necessary when only 12 months and a week or two ago the Minister introduced into this House an Australian Sports Commission Bill and set up a Sports Commission? That was a new statutory authority. When the Minister introduced that Bill he said: Central to those plans was the creation of the Australian Sports Commission to draw together more effectively our national sporting effort. What is the Minister now doing? He is fragmenting that effort. He is perpetuating a division of responsibility between the Institute and the Sports Commission. One is surprised that this legislation is not winding up the Sports Institute as a company and incorporating it within the Sports Commission. It is quite fascinating for us to look at this Bill and to read the Minister's statements concerning the role of this new statutory authority. The Minister says that the Australian Sports Institute is to have responsibility for the added thrust of the Institute's coaching efforts. It is to have responsibility for program implementation. It is to be responsible for the provision of sports medicine and sports science services. It is to be responsible for fund raising and for consulting with national and State sporting bodies and with State and Territory governments. It is to pursue a number of new sports development initiatives. In addition, it is to provide resources, services and facilities to enable Australians to pursue and achieve excellence in sport, while also furthering their educational and vocational skills and other aspects of their personal development. Many Australians outside the Australian Institute of Sport are doing just that. This legislation would appear to give the Australian Institute of Sport a wide field of responsibility. I happen to have received a document called `An Introduction to the Australian Sports Commission'. I was interested to read the functions of the Commission. They are: To maximise funding for sport from the private sector to supplement funds from the Commonwealth Budget; to provide leadership in the development of Australia's performance in international sport; to increase the level of participation in sport of all Australians. Other functions are to advise the Minister in relation to the promotion and development of sport and to raise money for sport. Further functions are as follows: . . . to administer and spend money from the Budget or raised by the Sports Aid Foundation; to co-ordinate activities in Australia for the promotion and development of sport; to consult and co-operate with appropriate authorities of the Commonwealth, of the States and of the Territories, and with other organisations, associations and persons, on matters related to its activities; to initiate, encourage and facilitate research and development in relation to sport; to collect and distribute information and provide advice on matters related to its activities. Those objectives and functions are almost identical with the objectives and functions of the Australian Institute of Sport. How will the responsibility of the Australian Institute of Sport be limited? How is overlap with the Australian Sports Commission to be avoided? If there is complete overlap or a large degree of overlap, why not incorporate the Australian Institute of Sport within the Australian Sports Commission? If we look at the programs of the Australian Sports Commission we find that it is responsible for program implementation. The new Institute of Sport statutory authority will also be responsible and have powers for program implementation. The Australian Sports Commission has programs covering sports development, sports talent encouragement, sports science research and drugs in sport and an Australian coaching council, yet these are all areas of responsibility that are now to be conferred upon the Australian Institute of Sport. I am very concerned that we should ensure that the dollars provided by government to Australian sport go to promoting sport and not in providing duplicated, triplicated jobs within bureaucracies, statutory authorities or departments at the expense of Australian sport. When one looks at the legislation governing the Australian Sports Commission, one cannot help wondering whether there is a need for a Department of Sport at all because if one analyses the work the Department of Sport is doing one finds that it is double guessing the Australian Sports Commission, that it is double guessing the Australian Institute of Sport. Why do we have this triplication? Why do we have two statutory authorities and a government department consulting with State governments and Territory governments and with sporting organisations and leading sportsmen and women around the country? People in sport will be utterly confused by this treble contact and yet the Minister 12 months ago said he wanted a body that would co-ordinate this Government's responsibilities in sport. He set up the Australian Sports Commission to do that. My submission to the House tonight is that the introduction of this Bill is a denial of the purposes for which the Minister introduced a Bill 12 months ago to set up an Australian Sports Commission. It is for that reason, amongst others, that the Opposition is opposed to the conversion of the company now running the Australian Sports Institute to a statutory authority. We think that it should be done in other ways. By doing it in other ways the money that is provided by governments will go further because less money will be spent on bureaucratic corporate structures and departmental structures and more money will be available for scholarships for the Institute of Sport or to fund the great variety of programs that are now conducted through the Australian Sports Commission. As I said a few minutes ago, one cannot help wondering whether the time has not come for the Government to face up in difficult economic times to the need to reduce the number of departments. If the Institute of Sport and the Australian Sports Commission are to have the responsibility that the legislation gives them, maybe those officers now working within the Department should be transferred to one or other of these two statutory authorities, although my preference would be to see it as one statutory authority. I want to draw the attention of the House to another aspect of this Bill. Some 12 months ago, when the Australian Sports Commission legislation was before this House, I expressed my concern at the way in which the legislation gave ministerial control over a statutory authority in a way which, if used by a Minister, would give the Minister day to day control of that statutory authority as if it were a department of state. I would be interested to learn from the Minister whether he has given any directions to the Australian Sports Commission or whether he intends to give any directions to the Australian Institute of Sport. If so, does he intend to give them detailed day to day administrative instructions, or is it his intention to use that power only as a last resort, only in the circumstances of either or both those statutory authorities behaving in a way that has them trespassing beyond what he, as Minister, perceives to be the charter established for those institutes? It may be that the experience of the last 12 months has indicated that the Minister, in spite of his professed claim that there should be strong ministerial control, has really given to the Australian Sports Commission the degree of autonomy that I was concerned he may not give it. If one sets up a statutory authority for the purpose of giving it freedom to advise, that body should be free to give advice which sometimes governments may find hard to handle. Likewise, in the case of the Australian Institute of Sport, that body needs independence and autonomy. I was interested to find in the Minister's second reading speech that he drew a parallel between the statutory authority this Bill will set up, the Australian National Gallery, the National Library and, indeed, the Australian Sports Commission. I think he had a case of apples, pears and bananas because-- Mr John Brown —They are all fruit. Mr WILSON —They may be all fruit; there are some similarities, but there are also some quite significant differences between the two collecting agencies, the great National Library of Australia and the Australian National Gallery, and a sports commission and a sports institute. I would have thought that there might have been a greater parallel between the Sports Institute and a college of advanced education or a university. Having in mind the nature of the program of the Institute of Sport it may be that it needs autonomy and freedom, freedom of the type that universities describe as academic freedom. If a sports institute is going to be at the frontiers of sports training and development, it needs that freedom and autonomy and should not be constrained by tight bureaucratic administrative control. In this legislation the Minister is given the power to give day to day directions. I hope that he will see that power as a last resort power and give to the Institute, its board of management and its director the academic freedom to conduct its programs in the best interests of Australian sport. If he does not do that we will find that the Institute will become more and more bureaucratised; its role will be less imaginative and, being less imaginative, less successful. Another point I want to bring to the attention of the Minister is the fact that in this legislation, as in the Sports Commission legislation, the Institute is required to bring down a strategic plan. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr WILSON —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I spoke at somewhat more length than I will now on the Bill to make a statutory authority out of the Australian Institute of Sport. I do not have time to summarise in the very limited time I have left a number of points I made in my speech. I conclude by saying that I very much support the idea of the Institute of Sport but I do not believe that the Government's approach in establishing it as an independent statutory authority is the appropriate way to go. I believe it would be better if it were incorporated with the Sports Commission so that there could be genuine co-ordination and a simplification in the procedures and administration of the Government's policy on sport. Debate (on motion by Dr Charlesworth) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(8.01) —I move- That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the income tax law in two major respects. It also contains other amendments to the taxation laws. The principal measures to which it will give effect are the proposals I announced in December 1984. The first of these was to tax each year of income accruing to resident taxpayers from discounted, deferred interest and capital indexed securities. Another was to strengthen the interest withholding tax provisions in relation to such securities held by non-residents, and other non-traditional financing arrangements. The Bill will also exempt from tax certain allowances paid to recipients of the new Commonwealth formal training allowance. A technical defect in the rebate provisions of the income tax law that apply to certain employment termination payments is to be corrected. The income tax secrecy provisions are to be amended to enable information concerning superannuation funds, approved deposit funds and similar funds to be conveyed to persons who may be responsible for supervision industry. Finally, the Bill will amend the income tax gift provisions and make a number of purely technical amendments relevant to the recent changes to the repatriation laws. I turn now to discuss in more detail the measures contained in the Bill. Discounted and Other Deferred Interest Securities In December 1984 I announced the Government's decision to adopt a new method of taxing income accruing on certain non-traditional securities on which some or all of the income yield is accumulated and paid only at maturity. The gain to an investor from holding such securities is income that is akin to interest and is taxed under the present income tax law only on redemption or prior sale of the instruments. That deferral of tax gives rise to effects on budgetary revenue and advantages investors in those securities by comparison with investors in traditional securities having the same nominal before-tax yield. These revenue and market effects are undesirable, and the income tax law is to be changed to correct that situation by taxing the overall yield on non-traditional securities on a basis broadly comparable to the way in which income derived from traditional securities is taxed. Amendments contained in this Bill will ensure that income that is compounded or accrued in each year from a discounted or other deferred interest security will be taxed in that year to the investor. This accruals basis or assessment will apply to the holder of an affected security whether it was acquired on issue or by purchase in the secondary market. A gain arising from the sale of an affected security for more than its accrued value will be included as assessable income of the vendor, while a loss on sale will be an allowable deduction. With certain exceptions the securities to which these particular measures will apply will include original issue discount securities, interest at maturity securities, and securities such as dingo bonds which separately market the entitlements to principal and interest on underlying securities. However, such securities will only be subject to these measures if they were originally issued after 16 December 1984 with a term exceeding one year and where, at the time of issue, the deferred yield on the security can be ascertained and, for each year in the term of the security, exceeds 1.5 per cent of the redemption price. Securities of the indexed capital type, or those where the yield to redemption cannot be determined on issue, will be subject to other measures contained in this Bill, provided they were also issued after 16 December 1984 for a term exceeding one year. In these cases, the assessable income of the investor in any year will include the actual increase, by indexation or otherwise, in the accrued value of the security during the year, as well as any interest actually derived during that year. Where these kinds of affected securities are also issued or purchased at a discount, the discount will be included in the holder's assessable income on a straight-line basis over the period the security is held. This will be based on the term, or the remaining term, as the case may be, of the security. If such a security is purchased on the secondary market at a premium over its accrued value, the premium is to be allowed as a deduction on the same basis. The accruals basis of assessment will not apply to relevant securities held by non-residents or forming part of a taxpayer's trading stock. Subject to certain exceptions, issuers of affected securities will be allowed deductions each year for the discount or other interest component calculated on a basis similar to the assessable income of the investor. The exceptions, which are on an anti-avoidance and revenue protection nature, are securities issued after today off-shore or payable to bearer. Deductions in those cases will continue to be allowed in the year in which the discount or deferred interest is actually paid. By bringing forward the taxing point of income on these securities, the arrangements I have outlined will redress the tax deferral advantages of such securities. This will result in some unquantifiable gains to revenue. Interest Withholding Tax I turn now to the proposal I also announced in December 1984 to strengthen the interest withholding tax provisions of the income tax law. In recent years, there has been a move away from the more conventional means by which overseas finance is provided. This has been with the aim of avoiding the non-resident lender's liability to Australian withholding tax. Some of the arrangements involve the use of discounted and other deferred interest securities, including capital-indexed securities of the kind I have just spoken about. A typical arrangement involves securities which, instead of being held by a non-resident until redemption-at which time withholding tax would apply to the payment of the discount or deferred interest-are sold to a resident just prior to maturity. This means that, while the resident purchaser is usually liable to tax on the excess of the redemption price over the purchase price, the balance of the discount, which effectively passes to the non-resident as part of the proceeds from the sale of the security, is not subject to withholding tax. Further, the arrangements are often structured so that the profit has an ex-Australian source. In these cases the profit derived by the non-resident cannot be taxed by assessment. The proposed amendments will overcome this avoidance technique by ensuring that the tax will apply to the difference between the sale price of the security and its issue price. Where a non-resident vendor has purchased such a security from a resident of Australia, the Bill provides that the withholding tax liability may be adjusted to bear only on the difference between the sale proceeds and the purchase price. This measure will apply to relevant debt obligations and securities issued after 16 December 1984 irrespective of their term but, subject to certain safeguards, will only affect payments made on or after the date the Bill becomes law. Techniques that result in the avoidance of interest withholding tax include hire purchase and similar contracts, such as `terms purchase' and `lease with option to purchase' arrangements. The charges under these arrangements have not, in the past, been classed as interest for withholding tax purposes, although they are, in reality, the reward for the provision of the finance. Again, because the arrangements do not enable an Australian source to be attributed to the charges, the non-resident `lender' is not subject to tax by assessment. The Bill will amend the income tax law to bring hire purchase and similar charges-that is, the excess of total payments over the cost price of the goods-within the scope of the interest withholding tax provisions. This amendment will also apply to contractual obligations entered into after 16 December 1984 but, again subject to appropriate safeguards, only in relation to relevant payments made on or after the amendment becomes law. The Bill will also remove doubts that may exist about the application of the interest withholding tax provisions to certain payments made in relation to bank accepted bills of exchange. It is not altogether clear whether withholding tax is payable on the discount element of a bank accepted bill where a resident indemnifies or reimburses a non-resident acceptor for the face value of the bill at maturity. This is to be compared to the situation where, if the resident drawer of the bill had met the face value of the bill directly, withholding tax would clearly be payable on the discount. The Bill will clarify this by specifying that withholding tax is to be payable on any amount or amounts that constitute the discount or interest factor under a bill of exchange. Similar provisions are contained in the Bill in relation to promissory notes. These provisions will only affect payments made in respect of bills of exchange and promissory notes drawn or issued after the amendments receive the royal assent. These changes will prevent a continued loss of revenue of an unquantifiable amount. Allowances for Job-Seekers On 19 December 1985, my colleagues, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and the Minister for Trade and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs (Mr Dawkins) announced the introduction, from 1 January 1986, of a new system of Commonwealth training allowance. The new allowance, called a formal training allowance, has a single age-related structure and is consistent with the aim of the Government's Priority One strategy in improving education and training opportunities for young people. The formal training allowance includes a living component which is equivalent to the social security pension or benefit entitlement for which a trainee may otherwise have qualified. Recipients of social security pensions or benefits who are paid allowances because they have a dependent child, live in a remote area or require rent assistance, are exempt from tax on those allowances. So as not to disadvantage persons in receipt of the formal training allowance, an amendment proposed by the Bill will exempt from income tax those allowances that may be paid to trainees that correspond with the non-taxable allowances paid to social security pensioners or beneficiaries. An associated amendment will ensure that taxable payments of trainees are subject to regular pay-as-you-earn tax instalment deductions. The estimated cost to revenue of this measure is $100,000 in 1986-87 and $200,000 in a full year. Employment Termination Payments Rebate The Bill will give effect to the proposal announced on 11 March 1986 to remove an unintended effect of the income tax rebate provisions that limit the rate of tax payable on certain payments made on termination of employment. Those payments are lump sum superannuation and kindred payments that relate to service after 30 June 1983 and most lump sum payments in lieu of accrued annual leave and long service leave. The rebate provisions limit the rate of tax on such payments to no more than 30 per cent. In the case of the first $55,000 of relevant lump sum superannuation and kindred payments made to a taxpayer aged 55 or more, the rate is limited to a maximum of 15 per cent. However, a technical defect means that the provisions may not always allow the full benefit of the rebate where some part of the payments is subject to tax at the lowest marginal rate of 26.67 per cent for 1984-85 and 25 per cent for 1985-86. Amendments contained in the Bill, which will first apply for 1984-85, will correct that defect. The amendments are not expected to have any significant effect on revenue. Income Tax Secrecy Provisions At present, because associated exemptions and deductions are dependent on compliance with various provisions of the income tax law, the Commissioner of Taxation is largely responsible for the regulation of superannuation and similar funds. The suggestion is made from time to time that the non-revenue aspects of fund regulation should be the responsibility of someone other than the Commissioner and the Government has that possibility under consideration. Any transfer of this responsibility would, of course, occur only after consultation with appropriate representatives of employer and business groups, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the superannuation industry. If it is decided to transfer responsibility, it is most likely to be given to the Department of the Treasury or to a new supervisory authority. In either event, it is anticipated that any decision in that regard would be taken prior to the Budget sittings. Therefore, this Bill-the last relevant Bill scheduled for passage during the current sittings of the Parliament-proposes the amendment of the income tax secrecy provisions to permit the Commissioner of Taxation to communicate information to either the Secretary to the Treasury or any new authority for the purposes of carrying out any transferred functions. The proposed amendment will have no revenue impact. Gifts The gift provisions of the income tax law are being amended by the Bill to make gifts to the Pearl Watson Foundation tax deductible. The Pearl Watson Foundation was established to commemorate the considerable contribution to the Australian community of Pearl Watson, the late wife of Mr Justice R. S. Watson of the Family Court of Australia. As honourable members will be aware, Mrs Watson died tragically in a bomb explosion at her home on 4 July 1984. The Foundation promotes education and information programs in areas such as marital breakdown, family law, and marriage counselling and conciliation services. Deductions will be allowable for gifts, the value of which is $2 or more, made after today. The cost to revenue of this measure is estimated at less than $10,000 in a full financial year. Finally, the Bill will make formal amendments of the Income Tax Assessment Act made necessary by changes contained in the recently enacted Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. A comprehensive memorandum explaining in detail the measures that I have outlined will be circulated to honourable members within the next day or so. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory notes to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(8.17) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will formally declare and impose tax, at a rate equal to the amount of withholding tax avoided, in two particular situations. The broad effect of one of the measures contained in the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1986, about which I have just spoken, is to subject to withholding tax the profit derived by a non-resident from selling a qualifying security to a resident prior to its maturity. As a safeguard against arrangements designed to avoid or minimise the effect of these provisions-for example, by the sale of a security for less than its market or arm's length price-the Commissioner of Taxation will be authorised to adjust the sale price of the security to the price at which it would have been transferred by persons dealing at arm's length. As it will be not generally possible to collect the withholding tax avoided in these kinds of arrangements from the non-resident, the tax imposed by this Bill, will be payable by the resident transferee. I also indicated in my earlier speech that, subject to appropriate safeguards, withholding tax would not be payable in relation to payments subject to the new measures made on or before the amending legislation becomes law. Those safeguards are designed to prevent arrangements under which interest that would normally be payable on and after the date in which the legislation receives the royal assent is in effect prepaid before that date. Where the Commissioner of Taxation ascertains that such prepayments have occurred for the sole or dominant purpose of reducing the withholding tax otherwise payable, the person who made the payment is to be liable to pay the amount of withholding tax sought to be avoided. This Bill will also impose that amount of tax. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(8.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will give effect to the proposal announced in my 19 September 1985 tax reform statement to replace the present double taxation relief arrangements of the income tax law with a general foreign tax credit system. Since that statement, detailed consideration has been given to the most appropriate arrangements for a foreign tax credit system in Australia. In this process, the Government has considered repre- sentations from many sources, and held discussions with interested business groups. In the light of these further deliberations, the details of the system that I will shortly describe differ in some respects from those outlined in my September statement. These differences generally tend to lessen the tax impact of the proposal on Australian residents. Moreover, the information gained in this process has confirmed the Government's view that the present manner of treating foreign source income of Australian residents is not consistent with the general equity, neutrality and efficiency objectives of a sound taxation system. As well, the present treatment encourages Australians to avoid tax by arranging to give their income an artificial overseas source. The Asprey Taxation Review Committee, in 1975, recommended the introduction of a foreign tax credit system in the interests of equity and efficiency. In 1978 the previous government announced that it would introduce such a system but, in the face of criticism from certain quarters, the measure was abandoned. Such criticism overlooks the fact that foreign tax credit systems are common in developed countries-American, West German and Japanese firms, amongst others, have extensive overseas operations despite being subject to such systems in their home countries. The direct gain to revenue from this measure is estimated at about $60m per annum at 1985-86 levels of income, with the first revenue gains accruing in 1988-89. In the longer run, however, the revenue gains could be substantially greater if followed up with initiatives against off-shore tax avoidance activities which would be based on the foreign tax credit system framework. I turn now to the details of this measure. The new system will first apply to assessments in respect of the year of income commencing on 1 July 1987. Under it, all foreign source income derived by Australian resident taxpayers-apart from certain salary and wages that I will mention shortly-will be subject to Australian tax, and a credit will be allowed against that tax for analagous foreign tax paid on that income. Except for certain interest income derived overseas, foreign source income will be assessed on a worldwide basis. This approach will enable excess foreign tax credits from high tax countries to be offset against Australian tax on income from low tax countries. Foreign tax on the foreign income of an Australian company will be creditable against its Australian company tax on that income, but not against compensatory tax that will be payable as part of the proposed imputation arrangements. Credits for foreign tax will be set against company tax before compensatory tax offsets company tax. An Australian company receiving dividends from subsidiaries overseas will be allowed credit for underlying foreign company tax on the profits from which the dividends are paid, as well as for any foreign withholding or other tax imposed on the dividends. The credit for underlying tax will be allowed for unlimited tiers of subsidiary companies provided that each company in the chain has a 10 per cent controlling interest in the company immediately below it, and the Australian parent has a direct or indirect interest of at least 5 per cent in the voting shares of each company. As part of this mechanism, dividends received by an Australian parent from an overseas subsidiary will be treated as being first payed out of a pool of the subsidiary's accumulated profits. This pooling approach, which is of an anti-avoidance nature, will apply on a prospective basis, and any dividends in excess of the pool will be treated as paid out of the subsidiary's profits of earlier years on a last in first out basis. The measurement of income for overseas branches or other overseas business, commercial or investment activities of Australian taxpayers will be determined in accordance with Australian income tax law. For subsidiaries, book profits as disclosed in the accounts of the company will be used, with scope for these to be adjusted where that is appropriate. Overseas branches of Australian life insurance companies will be taxed, under the new system, only on income remitted to Australia and not on all branch profits. The Bill contains currency exchange conversion rules that are to apply to convert various categories of foreign income to Australian dollars for Australian tax purposes. Salary and wages earned overseas by an Australian resident and liable to tax in the country of source are to be fully exempt from Australian income tax where derived in performing service overseas for a continuous period of at least 12 months. A proportionate exemption will apply where the period is from 3 to 12 months, with a credit being allowed for foreign tax paid on any amount not exempted. These provisions will not affect persons working overseas on approved projects to whom a specific exemption in the present law will continue to apply. However, the foreign earnings of such persons, as well as salary and wages earned overseas that are to be exempted on the basis I have just outlined, will be taken into account in calculating Australian tax on other income derived by a taxpayer, so that exemption of the foreign earnings will not also reduce the Australian tax payable on that other income. In most cases, the taxation treatment of foreign pensions received by Australian residents is governed by the terms of an existing double taxation agreement, and this position will not be altered by the foreign tax credit system. The new system will therefore apply only to foreign pension income in the limited number of cases where pensions are derived from non-treaty countries. As an anti-avoidance measure, certain foreign source interest income is to be assessed separately from other income, with separate tax credit limits. Because of arrangements that might be designed to avoid this interest quarantining, dividends received from foreign subsidiaries will, under certain circumstances, be traced to determine whether interest income has been re- characterised and remitted to Australia as dividends. Where necessary, dividends will be apportioned into an interest income component and other income, with foreign tax credits being allowed separately on each component. Interest earned in carrying on normal business activities and interest received by banks and other financial institutions will be excluded from the quarantining process. Although the Government has decided not to treat other forms of passive income in a similar way to interest, the position will be monitored to see whether there is a need to widen the quarantining measures. Under the Bill, losses incurred in any year in respect of an overseas branch operation or other particular business, commercial or investment activity will not be offset against domestic income in the same year, nor against other foreign source income, but will be available for offset against profits derived in any of the seven succeeding years from the same branch or activity. Taxpayers will have the option to carry forward domestic losses for offset against later domestic income as at present or to offset them against foreign income. Excess foreign tax credits will not be able to be carried forward or back, but will be transferable within wholly owned company groups for set-off against Australian tax payable on other non-interest foreign income derived by another group company in the same year of income. The Bill also contains measures to recognise selected taxation incentives of a developing country. In the absence of special measures-called tax sparing relief-a foreign tax credit system can negate incentives in the form of tax holidays or tax reductions offered by developing countries to encourage foreign investment to assist in the development of those countries. Tax sparing relief is traditionally granted in the context of a comprehensive agreement for the avoidance of double taxation between the two countries concerned. Australia has followed this approach, but the Bill will also enable tax sparing to be granted on a country by country basis by regulations made for that purpose. Where tax sparing is granted in respect of income from a particular country, either by way of regulation or under the terms of a comprehensive taxation agreement, the tax forgone by the foreign country under the relevant taxation incentive measure will be deemed to have been paid by the Australian taxpayer before arriving at the income received. The taxpayer will therefore be entitled to a credit for the foreign tax forgone in respect of the relevant foreign income. Finally, in giving effect to the general foreign tax credit system, it is also necessary to remove from the income tax law those double taxation relief provisions that the new system will replace. To this end, the Bill will repeal the existing foreign tax credit provisions that apply to foreign dividends received by individuals, to most classes of income derived from Papua New Guinea, and to foreign source interest and royalties subject to limited tax rates under Australia's comprehensive tax treaties. It will also repeal existing provisions that exempt from Australian tax various categories of foreign income that will become subject to the new system. For the same reason the Bill will withdraw, in relation to foreign source dividends, the rebate provided by section 46 of the Income Tax Assessment Act that now effectively exempts such dividends from Australian tax. An issue that the Government has under notice in the light of representations is whether to extend the capital expenditure deductions for mining companies to such expenditures on overseas projects. A decision will be announced as soon as practicable. A technical explanation of the provisions of this Bill is contained in an explanatory memorandum that will be made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. I present the explanatory notes to the Bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(8.31) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill before the House amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to introduce a tax on certain capital gains and modify the current income tax measures relating to the taxation of employee share benefits. Capital Gains Tax This legislation will enact a fundamental reform to the Australian taxation system. It will make the tax system much fairer by smashing the basis of much of the rampant tax avoidance that occurred under our predecessors. And it will make the tax system much more efficient by encouraging investment that will generate growth and jobs. For years a debate on this issue has dragged on in this country-a debate which unfortunately has too often been characterised by misinformation and hysteria rather than rational discussion. This Government invited discussion on a capital gains tax at the National Taxation Summit in July 1985. We listened carefully to the views of the Australian people as expressed at that meeting, and the design of the tax reflects those views. Capital gains contribute to taxable capacity no less than wages and salaries, interest and dividends, and business trading profits. It has been particularly inequitable that those who receive their income primarily or wholly in forms such as wages and salaries have been taxed more heavily than those who have been able to arrange for much or all of their income to be taken in the form of capital gains. The absence of a capital gains tax has also undermined the intended progressivity of the tax system since the distribution of the ownership of capital is more heavily concentrated among the higher income groups. In addition, it has been at the core of many tax avoidance arrangements involving the conversion or dressing up of income as capital gains. The introduction of a capital gains tax therefore strikes at one of the foundations of tax avoidance in Australia, and makes a crucial contribution to the Government's efforts to stamp out tax avoidance practices. The lack of a capital gains tax has also distorted investment choices towards less productive uses. Decisions to invest have been determined, not only by the overall yield of a project, but also by the composition of that yield as between tax-free capital gains and assessable income. This has produced an inappropriate pattern of investment, preventing Australia from achieving the best possible economic growth rate. Australia is a capital scarce nation-the last thing it should be doing is providing incorrect signals to the market as to how to allocate that capital. By ameliorating this distortion, the capital gains tax will help to improve the overall productiveness with which capital is invested in Australia, improving our international competitiveness and lifting our economic growth rate. The design of the capital gains tax introduced by this Bill follows that announced in my 19 September 1985 statement on tax reform, as expanded upon in Press releases which I issued on 28 November 1985 and 20 March 1986. I now turn to the main features of the Bill. Plan of the Tax The tax will apply only to capital gains realised on assets acquired after 19 September 1985. Accordingly, assets acquired by taxpayers on or prior to that date will be exempt from the tax when disposed of by them. This will substantially reduce the immediate impact of the tax and allow the community a lengthy period in which to adjust to its application. Except where assets are acquired and disposed of within 12 months, the tax will apply only to real capital gains realised on the disposal of assets, that is, to any gain remaining after removing the purely inflationary element. To achieve this, the cost base of assets will be regularly indexed according to the movement in the consumer price index over the time from when the expenditure was incurred to the date of disposal. This means that an asset which increases in value at no more than the rate of inflation will bear no capital gains tax. Assets whose value increases at more than the rate of inflation will be taxed only on that part of the gain which exceeds the inflation rate. Any real capital gain released on an asset will be included in assessable income in the year of receipt and subject to income tax, but will receive the benefit of averaging. Under the system of averaging adopted, a capital gain realised in any year will be notionally spread over five years for purposes of determining the rate of income tax applicable to the whole of the gain in that year. Currently gains on assets are taxed if they fall within either section 25a or section 26aaa of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The former section will cease to apply for assets acquired after 19 September 1985 but section 26aaa, which deals with gains on assets bought and sold within 12 months, will continue to apply, where relevant. Consistent with the equity and anti-avoidance objectives of the tax, gains on the foreign assets of Australian residents, as well as gains on their Australian assets, are to be included in the capital gains tax base. However, relief from double taxation will be provided for any foreign tax levied on gains on foreign assets subject to the tax. One design feature of the capital gains tax requiring elaboration is its application to non-residents. Consistent with the principle that non-residents are subject to income tax on their Australian source income, the Government has decided that non-residents are to be taxed on a substantial range of capital gains. Broadly, the following assets owned by non-residents are to be included within the capital gains tax base: Any asset used in carrying on a trade or business in Australia; Land and buildings, and specified interests in land, situated in Australia; Shares in Australian resident public companies or units in resident unit trusts, where the non-resident or his or her associates had at least a 10 per cent interest in the company or unit trust; and Shares in Australian resident private companies and interests in resident partnerships and trusts. Because of the 10 per cent threshold test applying in relation to shares held in Australian public companies, it can be expected that the tax generally will not apply to purely portfolio holdings of Australian shares by non-residents. Where arrangements apply for the crediting of Australian capital gains tax against the non-resident's liability in his country of residence, the total tax burden will increase only to the extent, if any, that the rate of Australian tax exceeds that in the foreign country. This point is important to bear in mind when assessing the implications of the tax for the attractiveness of new foreign investment in Australia. Where crediting arrangements apply, failure to tax non-residents on their Australian source capital gains generally simply results in us giving up revenue for the benefit of foreign treasuries. An important general design feature of the tax is that the death of an asset holder will not be taken to give rise to a realisation of his or her assets for capital gains tax purposes. An exception applies where the beneficiary receiving the assets is exempt from income and capital gains tax to ensure that any gain accruing over the period that the deceased held the assets does not disappear entirely from the tax base. With certain exceptions-broadly, personal use assets and assets subject to income tax depreciation and balancing adjustments-nominal capital losses on the disposal of assets will be able to be offset against capital gains of the current or subsequent years. In calculating a gain or loss, any capital expenditures associated with the acquisition, improvement or disposal of an asset will be taken into account. Exemptions and Rollovers Honourable members will recall some exclusions from the tax that have been announced previously. The most important exemption relates to gains on the taxpayer's principal residence. Also exempt is 20 per cent of the otherwise taxable capital gains on the sale of business goodwill wholly created by a taxpayer, where the net value of the taxpayer's business interests is less than $1m. Other exemptions include gains made by bodies exempt from income tax, the proceeds of life insurance and superannuation policies, gains on certain motor vehicles, and gains on most kinds of personal use assets whose disposal value is less than $5,000. Rollovers-that is, deferral of capital gains tax liability-are to be allowed for asset ownership changes associated with specified types of business reorganisations where no change occurs in the underlying ownership of the asset concerned or where the underlying assets against which the taxpayer has a claim do not change. The specific situations provided for include, for example, transfers of assets between companies in the same group, provided the companies share 100 per cent common ownership. The Government has considered the view that more general rollover relief should be available for business reorganisations on the argument that not to do so could inhibit desirable business behaviour. It has rejected this argument on equity grounds. Taken to its logical conclusion, it is virtually akin to saying that it is only the capital gains of individuals not operating businesses which should be subject to the tax. Rollovers are also provided for certain involuntary asset disposals. These include the compulsory acquisition of assets by a government body and the theft or destruction of assets, where replacement assets are acquired within a stipulated period. In addition, in order to avoid the possibility of undue financial hardship, rollovers will apply for asset transfers between spouses incident to the breakdown of legal marriages. The Bill also generally provides for the continuation of capital gains tax exempt status where an asset acquired prior to 20 September 1985 is transferred in circumstances where it would have qualified for a rollover if acquired after that date. Additional Matters The Bill will give effect to the Government's decision to treat as new assets subject to capital gains tax major capital improvements made after 19 September 1985 to assets acquired on or before that date. A major capital improvement will be taken to have occurred where the indexed cost base of the improvements at the year of disposal exceeds both an indexed specified value-$50,000 for the year ending 30 June 1986-and 5 per cent of the asset's disposable value. To leave such major improvements outside of the capital gains tax base would significantly distort investment decisions as between the improvement of existing assets and the purchase of new assets. The Bill also provides for the capital gains tax treatment of trusts to parallel their income tax treatment. This will mean, for example, that where a beneficiary in a private trust or a unitholder in a public unit trust is presently entitled to a capital gain made by the trust, it will be taxed in the beneficiary's or unitholder's hands. Where this is not the case, it will be taxed in the trustee's hands. Capital gains tax will also apply to units held in unit trusts, where the units were acquired after 19 September 1985. Leases and leasehold improvements are to be treated as assets subject to capital gains tax. Special provisions are to apply where a leasehold interest in land is converted to freehold after 19 September 1985. Where the lease was acquired after that date, capital gains tax is not to apply until the freehold is disposed of. Where the lease was acquired on or before that date, and had a term of at least 99 years, the tax will not apply to the disposal of either the leasehold or freehold interest. Where the term was less than 99 years, the tax will only apply to any real gain accruing on the land from the time of its conversion to freehold. Also subject to capital gains tax will be payments for the surrender of various rights. An example would be payments under restrictive covenants whereby the recipient undertakes not to use specified assets or to trade only with the other party to the agreement. Such rights are assets and gains made on their disposal are to be included within the capital gains tax base where they are not already subject to income tax. The basic design features of the capital gains tax will apply to mining exploration and production rights. Their application is further explained in a Press release being issued this evening. The Bill contains a number of specific anti-avoidance provisions. The general anti-avoidance provision of the Income Tax Assessment Act, Part IVA, will also, of course, have application. The tax will be assessed annually as part of the normal income tax assessment process and the existing income tax penalty provisions will apply for breaches of the law in the capital gains tax area. Finally, I would emphasise that, in designing the capital gains tax, the Government has taken great care to ensure that it will not impact unfairly. The restriction of the tax to assets acquired after 19 September 1985, the exemption for the principal residence, the concessional treatment of personal use assets including motor vehicles, and the non-taxation of inflationary gains mean that, for most taxpayers, the tax will have little or no impact. Groups such as farmers and small businessmen who have expressed concern that a capital gains tax would be unduly harsh and lead to the break-up or sale of the family farm or business upon their death have no foundation for such concern. The exemption for pre-20 September 1985 assets means that there will be no tax liability for farmers and small businessmen in respect of their asset holdings as at 19 September 1985. Further, the exemption for the principal residence and reasonable curtilage, the tax-free transfer of assets upon death and full indexation of gains for inflation, will mean that the vast majority of those who acquire farms or small businesses after that date are unlikely to face a substantial liability when they dispose of their assets. The availability of averaging provides further protection to taxpayers. Employee Share Acquisition Schemes As a consequence of the introduction of the capital gains tax, amendments are also to be made to those provisions of the income tax law that relate to the taxing of benefits associated with shares and share rights acquired under employee share acquisition schemes. Under the existing law, shares acquired under such schemes and subject to conditions or restrictions on disposal are taken to have been acquired when those conditions or restrictions cease to apply. The excess of the value of the shares at that time over their cost to the employee is subject to income tax. The result is that any unrealised nominal capital gain accrued between the date of issue and the date when the conditions or restrictions cease is subject to tax, as well as the `fringe benefit' element represented by the excess of the market value of the shares at their date of issue over their cost to the employee. In relation to share rights, the present law subjects to tax-when the rights are either disposed of or are exercised to acquire shares-the excess of the sale price or the value of the shares, as the case may be, over their cost of acquisition to the employee. Here also, an unrealised capital gain may be subject to income tax, in addition to any `fringe benefit' element. In respect of shares or rights issued after 19 September 1985, the Bill will give taxpayers the option of being taxed on the benefit derived as calculated at the date of issue, rather than at the relevant later date. Where that option is exercised by the taxpayer, the acquisition cost of the shares or rights for capital gains tax purposes will be taken to be their market value at the date of issue. Financial Impact The estimated net revenue gain from the introduction of the capital gains tax and modifications to the employee share benefit provisions is $5m in 1987-88 and $25m in the fifth year of operation of the capital gains tax. This Bill marks another important step towards a fairer tax system. In revenue terms its direct yield is modest, but it will make a significant contribution to the protections of the income tax base. It is an historic change to the tax system and one which the Parliament should have enacted many years ago. It was of course never enacted because the coalition government was prepared to see people take their income as capital and not pay their fair share of tax liability. A detailed explanatory memorandum is being made available shortly to honourable members. I trust that coalition members will read it avidly to find the folly of their neglect of the tax system over the last 50 years. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(8.50) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1982, which declares the rates of tax payable by individuals and trustees generally, to implement the announcement of 28 November 1985 that a form of averaging would apply for calculating the tax payable on capital gains. The accompanying Bill proposes to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to provide generally that capital gains realised by a taxpayer, as a result of a disposal of assets acquired on or after 20 September 1985 will be included in the taxpayer's assessable income. The amendments made by this Bill will, broadly, require the tax payable in respect of a net capital gain realised in a year of income, after taking into account allowable capital losses, to be calculated by adding one-fifth of the net capital gain to the pre-gain taxable income. The additional tax attributable to that amount is to be multiplied by five to arrive at the tax payable on the capital gain. This will mean for those taxpayers whose taxable income other than capital gains is not taxed at the highest marginal rate, that the inclusion of a net capital gain will not necessarily result in income tax being levied at a higher marginal rate. This rule will be modified for primary producers and other taxpayers in receipt of forms of income receipts to which notional assessment procedures already apply to cushion the impact of crossing tax brackets. In those cases, one-fifth of the net capital gain will be added to the average income or the notional income, instead of adjusting the taxable income. The average or notional income in those cases will also be calculated without reference to the capital gain. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Carlton) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(8.54) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill reflects in large measure the Government's response to recommendations made in a report by the Administrative Review Council entitled `Review of Taxation Decisions by boards of review'. It proposes that, with minor departures, the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council be adopted. In accordance with the Council's recommendation, the principal function of the Bill is to abolish the taxation boards of review and transfer the present jurisdiction of the Boards to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The changeover is to take place on 1 July 1986. The present avenue of appeal under some taxation laws to a supreme court will remain. The Bill also contains amendments of the sales tax law to give further partial effect to the decision of the former Government, adopted by us on coming to office, to revise the objection and appeal provisions of that law. Other provisions in the Bill will make further amendments of the objection and appeal provisions of the various laws administered by the Commissioner of Taxation with a view to achieving a degree of desirable uniformity. Finally, the opportunity is being taken to repeal some Acts that are no longer operative. I turn now to the more important features of the Bill. Taxation Boards of Review In deciding to accept the Administrative Review Council's recommendation, the Government was concerned to ensure that the complex and exacting task of reviewing taxation decisions was undertaken by persons with a high level of expertise in and specialist knowledge of the taxation laws. A notable feature of this Bill, therefore, is the creation, within the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, of a separate division to review taxation decisions. This new Division is to be known as the Taxation Appeals Division. Members of the Tribunal will be assigned to the Taxation Appeals Division after consultation between the Treasurer and the Attorney-General. The separate division will ensure that the review of taxation decisions is undertaken by Tribunal members having knowledge and skill relevant to that function. Those of the existing Taxation Board of Review chairmen and members who so wish are to be appointed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as senior non-presidential members and assigned to the new Taxation Appeals Division. Additional full time and part time members will be appointed as appropriate. I emphasise that the high standards set by the taxation boards of review over the past 60 years and the informal review procedures of the boards will be maintained by the Taxation Appeals Division of the Tribunal. Under the more flexible procedures of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, a tribunal may, however, be constituted by a single member, although a three-member tribunal may also sit, as the occasion requires. A substantial backlog of requests for review by the Taxation boards of review has developed in recent years, primarily as a consequence of the tax avoidance boom of the mid-1970s and early 1980s. The extra hearing capacity provided by these more flexible procedures should enable this backlog to be dealt with more quickly than would otherwise be the case. There is to be some modification in relation to taxation reviews of existing Administrative Appeals Tribunal procedures. Requests to have decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will, as recommended by the Administrative Review Council, be sent in the first instance to the Commissioner, who will refer them on to the Tribunal. This procedure will enable decisions to be re-examined by the Commissioner before they are referred to the Tribunal for review. Another departure from the usual practice of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be that all taxation review proceedings are to be conducted in private, unless the taxpayer requests a public hearing. This follows the existing practice of the boards of review and is consistent with the principle that the taxation affairs of people are matters that ought to be kept confidential. Also in keeping with this principle, decisions of the Taxation Appeals Division of the Tribunal will, like decisions of the Taxation Boards of Review, be prepared so as to ensure that on publication the identity of the taxpayer concerned is not revealed. As recommended by the Administrative Review Council, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act is to be modified so that taxpayers will not in the first instance, be able to obtain from the Commissioner of Taxation statements of reasons for decisions disallowing objections. However, at the time a matter is referred to the Tribunal, the Commissioner will provide to the Tribunal a statement of reasons for the disputed decision and the Tribunal will make available to the taxpayer a copy of those reasons. As a resource saving measure and to assist in making inroads into the backlog, the documents and a statement along the lines of those presently made available to the taxation boards of review will be provided until 30 June 1988. After that date the more detailed reasons and documents required under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act will be provided to the Tribunal. Under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, the Attorney-General on behalf of the Commonwealth, or any other person whose interests are affected by the disputed decision, may intervene in a proceeding before the Tribunal. The Bill will modify the operation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act so that, consistent with the principle of confidentiality in taxation matters, the taxpayer concerned will have to consent to the joining of outside parties, other than the Attorney-General, in proceedings before the Taxation Appeals Division of the Tribunal. While the right of the Attorney- General to intervene will extend to taxation review proceedings, I make it clear that it is the Government's intention that such intervention would occur only where an important question of public interest not concerning an interpretation of the taxation law is involved or where the interpretation of the provisions of the Administration Appeals Tribunal Act is an issue. Matters relevant to intervention by the Attorney-General could be dealt with separately from the review of the disputed decision. In keeping with long standing provisions of the Taxation law, neither the Administrative Appeals Tribunal nor the Federal Court will have power to prevent or restrain the collection and recovery of tax where an objection decision is subject to review by the Tribunal. All modifications of the Administrative Appeals Tribunals Act in respect of taxation review proceedings are to be enacted in a new part of the Taxation Administration Act. Subject to transitional arrangements mentioned later, appeals from an Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision on a question of law will be to the Federal Court. The Government has also decided to extend the appeal rights of taxpayers in certain respects. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the supreme courts are to be given a discretion to permit a taxpayer to widen the grounds of objection in appropriate cases. In addition, the Commissioner of Taxation will be permitted to extend the time in which an objection may be lodged. A refusal by the Commissioner to grant an extension of time will be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Consistent with allowing extensions of time for lodgment of objections, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the supreme courts are also to be given authority to grant an extension of time in which a taxpayer can request the Commissioner of Taxation to refer an objection decision to those bodies. Transitional Arrangements Transitional provisions will apply to requests for reference to a taxation board of review that are awaiting referral by the Commissioner of Taxation at 1 July 1986. Special rules will also apply to references at the boards awaiting hearing or decision. Requests that have not, at the changeover date, been transmitted to a board of review will be treated as requests for review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These will be referred to that Tribunal by the Commissioner. Cases with a board of review at the changeover date where a hearing has not commenced, will be treated as being with the Tribunal. These will be reviewed by the Taxation Appeals division of the Tribunal under the new arrangements. In these situations an appeal from the Administration Appeals Tribunal will, in accordance with the procedure under its enabling Act, be available to the Federal Court on a question of law. Where, at the changeover date, a board of review has commenced, or completed, a hearing but no decision has been given, the continuation of the hearing or the decision will, where practicable, be by the Tribunal constituted by one or more of the former members of that board of review. This will be deemed to be a proceeding by, or decision of, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Such cases will be appealable to the Federal Court where a question of law is involved in the decision. This means that the appeal may be by way of a fresh hearing before that court. The $2 fee presently payable by a taxpayer before a reference or appeal is forwarded to a taxation board of review or a supreme court is to be abolished. Fees paid in all cases undecided at the changeover date are to be refunded. The transfer of tax jurisdiction to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will have no direct revenue consequences although, to the extent that the Tribunal is able to reduce the backlog of review requests, there could be some earlier settlement of taxation debts. Sales Tax The opportunity is being taken by this Bill to give further partial effect to the decision of the former Government-adopted by us on assuming office-to revise the sales tax objection and appeal provisions. Amendments in the Bill will bring the objection and appeal provisions of the sales tax law into line with the comparable income tax provisions. Sales tax payers will have a right of objection and review in all cases where a liability for sales tax exists. In particular from 1 July 1986 they will have the option of having decisions on the classification of goods and the refund of tax reviewed by either an administrative tribunal or a Supreme Court, instead of resorting to the unwieldy and inappropriate procedure of defending a recovery action before a court. Objections, Reviews and Appeals By this Bill, further amendments are to be made to the objection and appeal provisions of the various taxation laws administered by the Commissioner of Taxation to correct some deficiencies and achieve a degree of uniformity. Under the various taxation laws the right of objection against an amended assessment is intended to be limited to matters connected with the particular item that is the subject of the amendment. The Federal Court of Australia has decided, however, that the relevant provision of the income tax law imposes a monetary, but not a subject matter, limit on an objection against an amended assessment. This decision could apply to the detriment of the revenue in some circumstances. It may also unfairly restrict a taxpayer's right of objection in other cases. Amendments proposed by this Bill are designed to restore the law to its intended effect. As a result of amendments enacted in 1984, most taxation laws provide for an assessment of additional penalty tax payable by a taxpayer. To simplify the objection and appeal procedure, assessments of additional tax and ordinary tax incorporated on the same assessment notice are to be treated as one for the purposes of the objection and appeal provisions. Only a single objection or request for review will need to be made to cover the entire tax liability. Under its newly acquired jurisdiction to review taxation decisions, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will have the power to affirm, vary or set aside decisions of the Commissioner of Taxation on objections. Further amendments being made by this Bill will make it clear that the Supreme Courts will likewise only be authorised to make orders in relation to objection decisions. The Commissioner will be required to give effect to decisions of the Tribunal or a court within 60 days after they become final. To bring the objection provisions into line with provisions relating to requests for review or appeal, other provisions of the Bill will provide that objections must be lodged with, and not merely posted to, the Commissioner of Taxation within the specified time limit. This time limit, which as earlier mentioned will be capable of enlargement, will be uniformly extended so that a limit of 60 days applies to both objections and applications for review or appeal under all taxation laws. Other amendments will enable persons who have requested reference of an objection decision to the Tribunal or a Supreme Court to give notice to the Commissioner to refer the matter to the Tribunal or Court within 60 days. This will bring all taxation laws into line with a comparable provision in the income tax law. Redundant Acts Finally, several taxation laws that the Commissioner of Taxation administered and which are no longer operative are to be repealed. An explanatory memorandum, which I will table shortly, comprehensively explaining the features of this Bill is being circulated for the information of honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr Carlton —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: The Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Capital Gains) Bill has 103 pages but it is not accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. I wonder whether the Treasurer will make that explanatory memorandum available tonight. We have been provided with an outline of about eight pages but this does not go into the clauses of the Bill. It is quite impossible for the Opposition to consider this matter over the weekend for debate early next week without a detailed explanatory memorandum on one of the most important measures that have been introduced tonight. I really must have an assurance from the Treasurer that the explanatory memorandum for the capital gains tax Bill will be available tonight. Mr KEATING —I am not sure that I can give that assurance, but I can assure the honourable gentleman that the memorandum will be available just as quickly as I can get it to him. Mr Carlton —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: It is quite impossible for this House to consider this matter in an orderly fashion, and for us to consider it over the weekend in order to debate it early next week, without an explanatory memorandum. This is the most important Bill in the group of six Bills that have been introduced tonight. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —The honourable member has made his point and I will rule on the matter. There is no provision in the Standing Orders for the tabling of an explanatory memorandum. Legislation provides that courts can take into account the wording of an explanatory memorandum, but it is a matter for the discretion of the Minister as to whether he will table it and when. It is merely for the guidance of members in accordance with that discretion. There is no provision in the Standing Orders for the tabling of explanatory memoranda. Mr Carlton —I seek your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could I ask the Treasurer whether he will guarantee to defer the debate on the Bill beyond next week if the explanatory memorandum for it is not available tonight? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the honourable member has taken advantage of the Chair. Does the Treasurer wish to respond? Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, let me respond by saying that I will make the explanatory memorandum available as quickly as possible to facilitate the debate and so that the Opposition is apprised in the most digestive way of the principal features of the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think that must conclude the matter. Mr Carlton —I am sorry, but that is not acceptable. It is not acceptable that the Treasurer has had eight months to bring this into the House, and there is no explanatory memorandum. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will resume his seat. It is not a matter of the honourable member taking a spurious point of order or simply standing to make a speech. There is a question before the Chair and that is the matter that must be dealt with. Mr Carlton —He has had eight months to produce the memorandum and he has not done so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is being quite disorderly. He will kindly resume his seat. Mr KEATING —If the honourable member cannot read the Bill, that is his problem. Let me make it clear that we will make a copy available to the Opposition as soon as possible, probably tomorrow morning. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer has not sought the indulgence of the Chair at this stage. I intend to deal with the question. The question is: That this Bill be now read a second time. I call the honourable member for Mackellar in relation to that point. Mr KEATING —I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill-that is, the Taxation Boards of Review (Transfer of Jurisdiction) Bill 1986. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Minister has tabled the explanatory memorandum. The question is: That this Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(9.11) —He did not table the explanatory memorandum that we need. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(9.13) —Earlier in the evening, when I was sitting in my office listening to the shadow Minister, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), speak on the Australian Institute of Sport Bill, I was fascinated to hear him say that it was his view that sport should be a private sector activity and that the Government should get out of sport. I hope that as many sportspeople in this country as possible were listening, because it would seem that after three years in opposition, honourable members opposite still have very little empathy with the sports lobby and the sports people of this country. Clearly, sportsmen and women in this country have been the poor relations for many years compared with their counterparts overseas. I have not been one to espouse the views of Malcolm Fraser in this House over the years, but I will quote from his speech when he opened the Australian Institute of Sport on Australia Day in 1981. The then Prime Minister said: Up until now, too many world class Australian athletes at the end of their normal schooling would have had to make the decision to undertake tertiary studies or to continue with their sport. There were no adequate facilities or opportunities to enable them to do both, as is common overseas. The Australian Institute of Sport, established in close co-operation and arrangement with high class tertiary institutions of the National Capital, alters all of this. Here young Australian athletes can pursue their sport and gain other qualifications. . . . . Coaches and athletes working together through this institute will, I am certain, produce great things for Australia and carry Australia's name high. Indeed, the former Prime Minister was much more empathetic with the views of sport in this country than seems to be the case with the shadow Minister. Further, the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) talked about the confusion that would exist with the Australian Institute of Sport being established as a statutory body, and suggested that perhaps the Institute should be subsumed into the Sports Commission. It was only a year ago in this place that members on the other side of the House said that the Sports Commission should not be established. Now they seem to be supporting this proposal. I will refer to one or two other aspects of the speech made by the honourable member for Sturt. He suggested that the high performance orientation of the Institute of Sport was in some way incorrect and that this aspect of the Institute of Sport should be subsumed into the Sports Commission. I point out to the honourable member that, of course, there are aspects of the Institute of Sport that are very specific. The sports science aspect of this Institute is an important and necessary part of high performance sport. Also, there are the commercial fund raising activities which the Institute of Sport undertakes. I have no difficulty with seeing Dr Dick Telford selling cereal on television if that brings to the Institute of Sport money which otherwise would have come out of the taxpayer's pocket. I have no difficulty with this practice. I cannot imagine why such commercial enterprise should be opposed by the Opposition. The AIS evolved over many years. Many governments presided over the gestation of the Institute, which developed rapidly and has done much since it was established. The present status of the Institute is one of world renown. Indeed, many sports people from overseas provide us with glowing reports of the programs and the work that the Institute has been undertaking. However, there are problems with the AIS. Perhaps the biggest problem that is seen by sportspeople in this country is the untouchable, impenetrable nature of the Institute. Indeed, for many it is known as Fortress Bruce. I hope that in this speech I can point to one or two directions which could be taken by the Institute. I hope that the Institute will direct its activities beyond Canberra to the sports people of this country in general. Certainly this Government has undertaken to decentralise many of the activities of the Institute. This very appropriate action has gained wide support. It is also necessary for us to utilise more fully the fantastic facilities we have in Canberra. I have no doubt that the administration can be streamlined. I would like to see the Institute of Sport reach out in terms of its coaching programs, its international programs, its contact with sports people overseas and, as I mentioned earlier, perhaps even its commercial approach. I think this is an important area in which the Institute needs to move. Of course, the residential sports programs that were mentioned by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) are the basis of the activities of the Institute. The programs provide access to services and facilities for those who gain scholarships and allow them to pursue their sport as well as their academic or work careers. I hope that that thrust of the Institute will continue. However, it was this Government that saw problems in that approach. There are problems for teams being based in Canberra. Teams do not have significant competition or the right competition. In a sense, they are often isolated from the major capital cities where the best sports competition may occur. There may be difficulties in Canberra in regard to facilities. Because of that this Government sought to decentralise various aspects of the residential sports program which enables the Institute to use facilities provided in all States. It enables the Institute to involve the States and the Territories. Indeed, the State institutes of sport which have been established over the last few years are involved in that procedure. I hope that the Institute of Sport will also develop secondary level sports and appoint coaches in this area, so that particular groups or national bodies which cannot get together in a continual residential program are able to use the facilities where necessary, where appropriate, and where possible. It seems very important also that many of those outstanding athletes in this country who for all sorts of reasons-work or study or family or social situations-are unable to move to a centralised residential program are able to get assistance from the Institute of Sport and avail themselves of the facilities and coaches that exist in their home towns or States. I note that the Institute of Sport is interested in moving in this direction and I commend it for doing so. It is also important that this massive, fantastic facility that we have here in Canberra is used for individuals and for national teams. Indeed, the national training centre scheme which has been developed over the last couple of years should grow. National teams are able to come to Canberra and avail themselves of the facilities and services here to prepare for overseas competitions or for competitions within Australia. About 40 groups take up this option annually. This is another aspect of the training centre approach which is important and which must be developed by the Institute. Another program which has developed-it is perhaps only in its embryonic stage at the moment but certainly should grow in the future-is the satellite coaches scheme. I hope that the Institute of Sport will continue to provide assistance in backup and wherewithal to coaches, who have been doing very good work in their States or capital cities over the years. These coaches provide a very reliable source of talent identification for the Institute and it is important that their work continue and that they be assisted by the Institute of Sport. Perhaps one of the most important areas in which the Institute can play an increasing part is in the role of coaching. I am sure we are all aware of the importance of coaches. One only has to look at the success of Australian tennis players in this country in the early 1950s and 1960s to see that. One attaches the name Harry Hopman to that success. Percy Cerutty was a well known and renowned coach of a number of successful athletes; he was responsible for their success. Arthur Liddiard in New Zealand produced a number of outstanding runners. Even the coach, Pat Clohessy, of that outstanding runner we presently have in this country, Robert de Castella, is very important to his success. The relationship that exists between a coach and an athlete is an intimate one in many cases; it is central to an athlete's performance. It is an ongoing thing; it does not occur just on the day of the performance. I believe that high level master coaching courses and facilities need to be provided and the Institute of Sport is the appropriate way this can be done. This will not usurp the work that is already being done in that area. The Australian Coaching Council co-ordinates the national coaching accreditation schemes that presently exist. It does a very good job with level 1, level 2 and level 3 coaches in association with national federations. Presently the Australian Sports Commission, through its development grants and its programs with children, assists with coaching initiatives for national federations. The AIS runs seminars and courses for those who are interested in and require the backup support that the Australian Institute of Sport is able to provide. I hope that in future more top level coaching programs will be made available through the Institute of Sport. I hope that the technical backup that the Institute of Sport has and can provide will be better used. Perhaps there will be short and long term residential courses for those coaches who wish to coach at the very highest level. Certainly the Institute of Sport has the facilities and the ability to provide that backup. I would like to say briefly one or two things about the sports science and sports medicine aspect of the Institute of Sport. It is worthwhile to look at the activities in which it has been involved over the last few years. It has provided a complete sports medicine service for those athletes who are based in Canberra; it has supplied personnel for Australian teams competing in major contests; it has taught medical, physiotherapy and nursing students from all over Australia and New Zealand; it has established links with many sporting medicine personnel from other countries. Indeed, it has hosted post-graduate doctors from all parts of Australia. In a lot of other ways the sports medicine aspect and people at the Institute of Sport have played a part in disseminating throughout this country information on the highest level of sports medicine. In the same way, in the area of sports science, the Institute has given assistance to athletes and coaches in the areas of physiology, biomechanics, psychology and technical workshops. Residential athletes at the Institute benefit, the national training centre people benefit and coaches, visiting athletes and other groups throughout this country are assisted by the work of the sports science people. I would hope that this modern sports science and sports medicine facility that we have in Canberra-I understand that it is one of the best in the world-will continue to do that work and will continue to be involved in first class research, in sharing our ideas with those overseas and perhaps in learning from them and recruiting appropriate scientists and specialists from all over the world so that the interchange of ideas that is so important to high level performance in sport is continued. There are many other programs in which the Institute of Sport is involved and I would hope that these programs will continue and grow, that the international goodwill that sport can often provide a vehicle for, can continue and that the exchange of ideas, possibilities and athletes from all over the world can continue and grow. I would hope that we could manage these facilities here; indeed, within the Bill there is provision for a strategic plan which I hope will improve that management of facilities in this country. I hope that the commercial sponsorship that the Institute is able to develop and very rightly so-it has a unique product to sell-can continue to grow. Certainly that will relieve the taxpayer of financial burdens. These Bills will see that the AIS grows, develops and succeeds, and produces better and better results. I have no doubt that it will. I commend this legislation to the House. I think that it confirms the Government's commitment to sports men and women in this country and they know it only too well. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(9.25) —Migrants to this country have often expressed the view that the English language does not provide words which sufficiently and actively express thoughts permeating one's mind. We talk about the character and spirit of Australia, but these words do not really indicate what we are trying to describe. The Greeks had a far better word and it is ethos. Sport has been very much part and parcel of the Australian ethos. It is natural that it should be so. Many reasons have been given why sport has become such a strong interest of Australian people. It is true that we have natural advantages such as the temperate climate and the availability of space. It is true too that, after a century of coming to grips with taming a rather inhospitable distant land, there grew a desire for a home-grown culture and it has found fertile ground in both the sporting and battle grounds. I believe that these three factors have developed the Australian ethos. Writers and historians have argued that sport and war were the two main areas in which Australia's national identity could be expressed. In the arenas of international sport and war, Australians could strive to show that they were equal to, if not better than, all other nations. I refer to things such as the Gallipoli campaign, the Boer War and in sporting areas our contests in the international arenas of cricket, athletics, swimming and the various codes of football. We, as Australians, have forged a nation where performances in international sport and war, whether the encounters were won or lost, were a sure indication that, if we choose other fields in which to expand our energies, we could reasonably expect to do well. Many people would disagree that there is a basic philosophic close association between sport and war. Indeed, Lorenz has described sport as `a special ritualised form of battle developed by the culture of man'. Australian sport can trace its origins back to the exploits of our international competitors, beginning with the first modern Olympics in Athens in 1896. It is interesting to note that, when the architect of the modern Olympics, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, propounded his idea for a new era in international sport on 25 November 1892, he said: Let us export our oarsmen, our runners, our fencers into other lands. That is true free trade of the future and the day it is introduced into Europe the cause of peace will have received a new and strong ally. It inspires me to touch upon another step I now propose and in it I shall ask that the help you have given me before you will give me again, so that together we may attempt to realise, upon a basis suitable to the conditions of our modern life, the splendid and beneficial task of reviving the Olympic Games. It is not for me in my contribution in this debate to harrow the ground that has been covered by previous speakers. I support the view that has been advanced by the Opposition, whilst at the same time giving general support to the initiatives detailed by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). Surely it is sound common sense to ensure that the Australian Institute of Sport owns and controls the various facilities. That lessens government red tape and bureaucratic control. I would hope that, when this legislation is implemented, it will not increase government intervention in the Institute's administration and the carrying out of its aims and objectives because, quite frankly, people associated with the Institute are in a far better position to know what ought to be done, how it is to be done and when it is to be done. The only government intervention should be the requirement for the Director of the Institute and the Auditor-General to present an annual report to Parliament. If the Institute is to be hamstrung by too much inquiry and direction from government I believe that it will eventually flounder. It will prosper by harnessing the enthusiasm, the expertise and the balanced judgment of all who are associated with it. The AIS has had many remarkable achievements in its short history. I wish to incorporate in Hansard the names of all 1982 Commonwealth Games gold medallists and the name of our 1984 Olympic Games gold medallist, Glynis Nunn. I also wish to incorporate in Hansard a list of all AIS board members since its inception because, quite frankly, unless their names are enshrined their valuable and valued personal contributions may never be adequately acknowledged. At least the fact that their names have been recorded in a parliamentary debate may be of some value to them. I seek leave to have those names incorporated in Hansard. Mr John Brown —Leave is granted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —The question is whether the material complies with the directions that have been laid down by Madam Speaker. It will be looked at with a view to seeing whether it complies. If it does, we will note that leave has been granted and it will be included in Hansard. If it does not, it will not appear. The list of Australian Institute of Sport gold medal winning athletes read as follows- 1982 COMMONWEALTH GAMES 400m Hurdles, Gary Brown Women's Javelin, Sue Howland 200m Swimming Medley, Lisa Curry 400m Swimming Medley, Lisa Curry 100m Swimming Medley, Lisa Curry 4 x 100m Freestyle, Greg Fasala 4 x 100m Medley, Dick Orbell 4 x 200m Freestyle, Ron McKeon 4 x 200m Freestyle, Paul Rowe 1984 OLYMPIC GAMES Heptathlon, Glynis Nunn Mr McVEIGH —The Institute of Sport has created its own ethos, which I have spoken about previously. The ethos of the Institute has been created by the leadership of directors and coaches, by the inquiring minds of people who have searched world-wide for ideas and who have put their thoughts into action. I was very proud as an Australian, after my return from a trip to Europe last year, to be discussing some of the overseas institutes I had visited and to be told that during the World Cup Athletics in Canberra last year visiting athletes from the United States of America, Europe, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and East Germany had indicated that the Australian Institute of Sport was the best in the world, being superior to the Lenin Sports Institute in Moscow and the Colorado Springs Olympic Training Centre in America which, until the establishment of the AIS, were looked upon as the world's leading sports centres. Therefore, all associated with the AIS can be very proud indeed of what has been achieved. It is interesting to note the respect that the Institute has gained from private sponsors. I have been reliably told that, notwithstanding the fact that private sponsorship has been sought only in recent years, already over $1m has been given by well established, highly regarded companies. The Institute plays a wider role than is commonly acknowledged. It distributes an enormous amount of literature to coaches and athletes. This literature covers such simple things as avoiding injury through proper warm-up procedures. The Institute has become established as a tourist attraction. Only last week, eight busloads of children from Victoria visited the centre. I can readily understand their enthusiasm for what has been established there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! It is a suitable time to interrupt the honourable member. I am inclined to allow to be incorporated in Hansard the list of Commonwealth Games gold medal winning athletes because it is a list which incorporates a table of events in which they have participated. I am not inclined to accede to the honourable member's request in relation to the list of board members. I am making this ruling now so that if the honourable member wishes to read the names into the record he is at liberty to do so. Mr McVEIGH —Well, they had better be given back to me. The Institute provides the opportunity for the pursuit of excellence, not only to those who are permanent residents but also in its capacity as a national training centre. Over 2,000 athletes from over 50 different sports have attended the centre for periods lasting some weeks or for three or four days. Similarly, coaches can make use of the facilities. Under the guidance of Dr Peter Fricker and Dr Dick Telford, the Sports Science Medical Centre has become a focal point for Australian sports medicine and could be described as a reference centre. This centre is one of the most advanced centres in the world as far as applied research is concerned. It is also doing a lot to make the findings of its research known to many people. One of the interesting aspects of initiatives adopted by the Institute is that of international exchange. It is appropriate to recall at this time, with the visit of our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to the People's Republic of China, that in the very near future the well known Australian swimmer Steven Holland will be going to Beijing to conduct a swimming clinic, whilst the People's Republic will be sending to Australia a diving coach, equally highly regarded in international competition. Perhaps an excellent way of spending some of our overseas aid money would be to promote friendship and peace among athletes in various countries by this international exchange. The Institute also has affiliated with it satellite coaches, which to my mind is an excellent idea insofar as it fits in with my philosophy of decentralisation. The idea of outpost scholarships-the great Australian athlete Glynis Nunn attends the Institute as an outpost scholar-allows the facilities to have a wide-ranging, practical application. The success of the Institute has been due in part to the efforts of the coaches. It is good to know that these coaches in the main are Australians. People whose names come to mind are Bill Sweetenham, the swimming coach, and Pat Clohessy with his colony of distance runners. These coaches have made their names because of their ability to adapt. For instance, the distance runners use not only the facilities at the Institute but also the forest at Stromlo because that allows for a change of scenery. It is interesting to note that because we have a top quality Institute and top quality coaches we begin to attract top quality people from other disciplines-people like Judy Hudson, the well known Olympic swimmer and great Australian competitor of a decade ago who was good enough, academically, to get a scholarship to the United States of America. She came back, graduated from the University of Queensland and, having gained a lot of practical experience, came down here with her expertise and enthusiasm. That indicates what happens when we have top quality people running an institute; it indicates the type of people they attract. The Minister in his second reading speech recorded the thoughts expressed by Sir Donald Bradman. I too would like to refer to them. The Minister quoted Sir Donald as follows: Whilst I applaud our Government's new found encouragement for the sporting fraternity, I hope nobody gets carried away by the mistaken notion that financial help and good facilities guarantee success. They merely open the door. Success must still be motivated from within. Hard work and dedication remain essential for all individuals, who must embrace with equal fervour, opportunity and responsibility. Athletes who use the AIS have the advantage not only of the facilities but also of absorbing the philosophy of top class coaches, who tell all the athletes that they also have a part to play. Sport is very much a part of life, and the success of the Institute can be recognised by the quality of the people who have trained there and who have now moved on to other facets of their lives. Four such people who come readily to mind happen to be Queenslanders and I just instance them because I have certain parochial pride in Queenslanders and people who come from my own electorate. I refer to Paul Narracott, Gary Brown-there is no greater competitor than Gary Brown and I for one would love to see him at Edinburgh as I think he would win another gold for us-Don Wright, a great hurdler who was educated in my own area, and of course Glynis Nunn. Those four people, like so many people from the Institute, are what we might term ornaments to the Institute and credits to themselves for the quality of citizenship they bring to the wider application of the Australian nation. They all epitomise, to my mind, the fact that the peaceful future of mankind depends upon our capacity to conduct international sport in a continuing and meaningful way. They pursued excellence by a determination to win, but not a determination to win at all costs through abuses, through over-zealousness, through senselessness and inhumanity. They relied on fitness, dedication and sporting tradition. They exemplify what should be the goal of any government, and that is to ensure that the athlete, at the various stages of his or her life, is regarded as a fully functional, productive member of society, who is also a diplomat and who is a great teacher because he or she teaches by the greatest teacher of all-good example. We know the Institute by the quality of the people it turns out, and in the cases I have indicated above, it is real quality. Sport is very much part of human nature. It emanates from our natural impulses for freedom, symbolic meaning and the pursuit of perfection. To my mind, sport is a natural religion in the sense of involving one's spirit, a sense of awe and fate, a quest for community and for participation in life, and a respect for the mystery and power of one's own being and the being of one's rivals. Sport disciplines us in the sense that it is organised, it requires sacrifice and it teaches those real religious qualities of heart and soul which makes us better people. I would hope that Australia never ever becomes a nation of spectators, a nation which, as far as sport is concerned, merely wants to read about what is happening, to look at replays of sporting events and to have a hushed expectancy of the same things being repeated next week. Sport is a natural outlet for human emotions and we would hope that we can have a continuation of friendships made on the sporting field between individuals and teams, because personal and team loyalties, formed in adolescence and maintained through life, serve to remind us that there are areas in life which can give us a comfortable stability-things that have a permanence among the harrowing interruptions and continuing transitions of daily life. The Australian Institute of Sport has established its name because of the quality of the people who have worked there and the achievements of those who have brought it fame. The Olympic motto is citius altius fortius-faster, higher, stronger. That Olympic motto applies also to the Australian Institute of Sport, an Institute which has seen many great athletes pass through its ranks. I have not been handed the right piece of paper; I wish there were not stealers in this place! While I am awaiting that piece of paper, I shall read into the Hansard record the list of all AIS Board members since its inception: Sam Richardson, John Cheadle, John Daly, Deirdre Hyland, Wayne Reid, Donald Talbot, Kevan Gosper, John Newcombe, Grahame Dempster-he happens also to be a product of Warwick, so it is no wonder he is such a great athlete-John Devitt, Joyce Brown, Lisa Curry, Peter Montgomery, John Coates, Michael Wenden, Geoffrey Pollard, Elizabeth Darlison, Herbert Macdonald, John Cheffers, John Bloomfield, Richard Pratt, John Landy and Paul Brettell. All those people have played a meaningful and significant role in developing the Institute. I am just sorry that somebody has not given me back my piece of paper with the names of Commonwealth Games winners and also that of Glynis Nunn, who won the gold medal for us at the most recent Olympics. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! To correct any reflection that may have been made on the Chair, the piece of paper was kept for incorporation in Hansard in accordance with the honourable member's request and my earlier ruling. Mr GRACE(Fowler)(9.42) —It gives me great pleasure to support the Australian Institute of Sport Bill and the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill. We have to go back some years to the Whitlam Government, for it was in that Government that the late Frank Stewart made the dream of a sports institute in Australia possible. It was Frank Stewart's determination that succeeded in getting a review into the role, scope and development of sport and recreation in Australia. That report-the Bloomfield report-became the platform for this country's direction in relation to sport and recreation. Ultimately this led to a proposal for an institute of sport and recreation, but unfortunately because of the political situation in 1975 it was never established. Over subsequent years a number of the recommendations in the Bloomfield report have been put into practice by Federal, State and Territorial governments. It was not until 1980 that the idea of an Australian institute of sport was resurrected. The then Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Ellicott, to his credit pushed the Fraser Government into supporting the concept. On Australia Day 1981 the Australian Institute of Sport was incorporated as a public company. When we look back to that day in 1981, we recall that some 151 athletes attended the Institute-representing a number of sports, including basketball, swimming, soccer, gymnastics, athletics, netball, tennis and weightlifting. That was just the beginning. Since then we have seen the Institute progress at an exceedingly strong rate. Funding levels and participation rates have grown, a testament to its great success. Current funding for the Australian Institute of Sport in 1985-86 is running at $13.94m. This compares favourably with 1980-81, when the original budget was just over $1m. Hopefully we will see the funding for the Institute increase even further in future budgets. At present some 300 athletes in 13 sports participate in the Institute's programs and around 2,200 athletes in 52 different sports attend the Institute under the auspices of the national training centre program which was introduced in 1982. As I stated a moment ago, the Australian Institute of Sport was incorporated as a public company in 1981. The introduction of this Bill will enable the Institute to convert to a Commonwealth statutory authority from a public company. This will enhance even further the Institute's ability to accommodate the needs of our country's vastly talented young men and women. Australia has had over a number of years great sports men and women, but for many years they have had to struggle to scrape up as much money as they could to send themselves around the country to compete. Also they needed to provide themselves with money while at their home base. The second Bill, the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill, will allow for the transfer of public companies' assets and liabilities to the new statutory authority. Let us look at some of the areas that will be enhanced by these Bills. There are six areas altogether, but I do not wish to touch on them all. I will touch on, firstly, the objective of the establishment of the Institute; secondly, the functions of the Institute; and, thirdly, the powers of the Institute. I pose the question: What are the objectives of the Australian Institute of Sport? They are about providing resources, services and facilities. Those three areas in themselves are extremely important because without them a number of people would not be able, especially in this day and age, to afford the high costs associated with training for long periods. By providing those resources, services and facilities, the young men and women of Australia will now be able to pursue actively and, I am certain, will achieve their goals in life. It does not stop there. While those sports men and women are out in the sporting arenas achieving their goals, what happens to their educational and vocational skills and their personal achievements? The Institute provides for its athletes in those areas. I believe that the introduction of these Bills will make the running of the Institute a lot smoother. The other major benefit that the Bill addresses is the coaching aspect. I think the coaching aspect was touched on earlier in the debate by my colleague, the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth). This area is also very important, for without good coaching methods it is very hard for our future stars to shine. It will enhance all levels of sports throughout Australia. It is fast becoming recognised that improved coaching methods improve performance. This is relevant when we look at the area of top grade sportsmen. Not only is it important for coaching methods for top grade coaches, it is also necessary for coaches in levels from junior school sport to those just below top grade. It is common knowledge that, as we progress through time, our athletes are becoming faster and stronger. Although when we look at the area of, say, junior sport, if improved coaching methods are available it may foster a young child who shows potential in a sport, but if those methods were not available the child may go unnoticed. I believe it is extremely important to foster this potential. A few years ago, sports medicine and research was not rated as highly as it is now. It is pleasing to see that the Government has seen fit to provide further assistance in these areas. I would like to bring to the attention of honourable members a news clip that I saw not long ago. It relates to the areas of sports medicine and research. It stated that young sports men and women were most susceptible to knee injury during their growing years, around 13 to 18 years of age. It went on to say that at this young age, while playing a contact sport, they could, without any doubt, stop these injuries if they wore a support piece on their knee. This is because at that age their tendons, ligaments and bones are not fully developed. Someone in the early 20s may not be as prone to such an injury. That is just one area where research and sports medicine is so valuable. Everybody recognises the importance of competition. Competition will bring out the best in everybody. I draw honourable members' attention to clause 6, sub-clause (2), which states: In performing the function referred to in paragraph (1) (a), the Institute may conduct sporting events for the purpose of providing opportunities for persons participating in programs referred to in that paragraph to compete in sport against each other and against other persons. This clause is self-explanatory. As I have just said, competition brings out the best. As the Institute will bring out competition from overseas, so our athletes will benefit. Not only will our athletes benefit; other sections of the community will benefit also. The Bill also makes specific reference to community access. The community in general has always had access to the Institute. The Institute does not belong just to those Australians who have excelled or who have the potential to excel. I turn now to clause 7 of the Bill, which is entitled `Powers of Institute'. The wide-ranging powers in the areas referred to in that clause are very important for they will facilitate the smooth running of the Australian Institute of Sport. It is also important that the Institute operate within the framework of the Government's overall sports development objectives and policies. It must be stated that it is very important for the Institute to promote itself in the best way possible. The Bill outlines the ways in which the Institute can conduct its activities. There are two areas that I feel are very important. I draw the attention of honourable members to clause 7 (1) (e) which states in whole that the Institute may `provide scholarships and other like benefits'. I feel that sometimes it is perceived that those top sportsmen and sportswomen have a life of luxury just having to do some running and weightlifting and some less demanding training and that they have ample time available to themselves. We all appreciate that that is not true. Without the provision of scholarships we could just say of those people that they are fit, but being fit in body will not endow them with what they need for the rest of their lives. I feel it is extremely important to be fit in body and in mind. The provision of scholarships will enable these people to become professionally equipped to handle the rest of their working lives. By applying their time to sport and to the educational side of things, their development must and will improve. I turn to paragraph (h) of clause 7, which states that the Institute may: obtain commercial sponsorship for the Institute and participate in marketing arrangements involving the endorsement by the Institute of products and services associated with sport; That is a very salient paragraph indeed, because it is important, as the Institute is Australia's prime sporting hall, that we should make sure that the rest of the Australian community knows of the facilities that exist. Today millions of dollars every year go into Australian sport by way of commercial sponsorships. A couple of examples are, of course, the sponsorship of cricket by Castlemaine-Tooheys Ltd along with that of the Benson and Hedges Co. Pty Ltd, which also sponsors the Australian Ballet. To the best of my knowledge, from viewing New South Wales television, the Institute has been able to gain some marketing ground through television advertisements. I refer to a commercial promoting a breakfast cereal in which the Institute's facilities are used. I understand that this is only one way in which the Institute has become involved, but there may well be different advertisements in other States promoting the Institute along with a product from those States. In the time remaining to me, I wish to address my comments to sub-clause (2) of clause 7. Hundreds of sports men and women would be able to improve their performance in their respective fields if they had access to the Institute's facilities and programs. The community will have access to these facilities. Community access is a very important part of the Institute's programs. Fees will be charged for the community's use of the Institute's facilities and its programs. The Bill also allows for community input into events arranged by the Institute. I point out that it is intended that the fees to be charged will be reasonable. The last part of the clause I wish to canvass is sub-clause (3) and that is a welcome inclusion. It states that the Institute may exercise its powers inside and outside Australia. Suffice it to say that the most important part of that sub-clause is that which relates to the Institute's powers outside Australia, especially when sports people go overseas falsely representing Australia under the guise of being representatives from the Australian Institute of Sport. I commend both Bills to the House and I commend the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown)for his handling of the Australian Institute of Sport. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(9.55) —I support the amendment moved by the Opposition with respect to the Australian Institute of Sport Bill. I believe that a debate such as the one we are having in the House tonight will not take place in the future if we adopt the suggestion that the Australian Institute of Sport should be answerable to the Australian Sports Commission and not directly to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and, therefore, directly to the Parliament. I congratulate the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) for his genuine interest in sport and its problems. Of course, he has a few problems-he supports the wrong football team in Sydney, although we mostly forgive him for that. However, I believe-I say this without any feeling of ill-will-that the problems he had last year with the Australian Institute of Sport, problems which I think most Ministers holding that portfolio would have had, would not have been resolved as satisfactorily as they have been had we not had the capacity to raise these matters in the House. I have some concern that with the Bill now before the House we will be moving away from the capacity to bring matters before the public, via this Parliament, following a Press report. Mr Charles —It is the exact opposite. Mr DOBIE —It is not the exact opposite. It is exactly what would happen in the future. I will be very brief in my speech, but the second point I wish to make concerns the fact that, although we are objecting to the legislation, that must not be interpreted, as it has been by certain members of the Government, as showing a lack of interest in sport and the problems and difficulties associated with sport. I listened with great interest to the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) who, with his own splendid-in fact, outstanding-sporting record, has a good background in this area. A lot of what he said was very good and very strong. But, again, I was very disappointed to hear him speaking about the lack of interest in sport on the part of those opposite. This is particularly disappointing when the promotion of his own sport, which has now been decentralised from Canberra to Perth, was due entirely to a Liberal government. I refer in the first place to a Liberal government in Western Australia using its Bicentenary donation from the Federal Government for a hockey sporting complex in Perth, and, secondly, to the development of the Australian Institute of Sport here through Liberal legislation. Mr Rocher —He has a convenient memory. Mr DOBIE —It is obviously a convenient memory. I was very pleased also to hear the honourable member for Perth say that he had no objection to the commercial sponsorship of the Institute of Sport. As far as I know this is the first occasion on which he has come forward with such a statement, and I welcome it. I wanted only to say a few things about the fact that I believe we are moving away from parliamentary interest in sport by this legislation. No matter what may be said by the Government on this occasion, the reality is that matters will not be brought before the Parliament through a statutory authority with the same ease that would apply if the Institute had a greater responsibility to the Minister-a Minister who, as I have already said, has a great and compelling interest in sport which is much admired by the sporting community around Australia. I believe the sporting community will be somewhat confused by this legislation, which proposes to move the Institute of Sport away from the Minister's control. I am one of the lucky members in this place who have had certain associations with the Institute-not as a sportsman, I am quick to point out. I know it is hard for honourable members to believe-it is a fact that I have a difficulty in maintaining the sporting image-but there it is. I have had contacts with several of the activities at the Institute of Sport. Mr John Brown —A former star beach sprinter. Mr White —Wrestling. Mr DOBIE —I hear the compliments flying, but I do not care to acknowledge them. I pay a great tribute to the coaches at the Institute. I was very attracted to the idea raised by the honourable member for Perth that the satellite coaching scheme should be given some impetus and should be developed with great urgency and great care. I pay tribute to a group I know very well at the Institute, namely, the men's basketball section. I pay tribute to Adrian Hurley, Patrick Hunt and Philip Smyth for the tremendous work they have done through the Institute in raising the standard of basketball, not just at the international level but at the club level throughout this country. They have a very interesting scheme. They are not interested in basketball `bums', as they call them; they want their sportsmen to have interests other than the sporting program they are following at the Institute. This style of program whereby those who have the scholarships are required to study or work for a minimum of 12 hours a week, is something that should be very much encouraged and publicised. In fact, the general public is not basically aware of the study and work demands on the students who gain the scholarships. Therefore in this brief speech I pay tribute to the coaches and to the programs that they introduce. Other honourable members have talked about the problems of administration and direction. I do not criticise any of the people holding office at the Australian Institute of Sport, but I believe that, as with most new departments, the problem is one of ministerial direction-or in this case administrative direction. Exactly the same thing happened when the Federal Education Department was created some years ago. The reason it did not fall into a trap was that it remained a department, totally answerable to this place for all its items of expenditure. I am concerned that in the movement that is contained in the Bill before the House tonight, we are moving into a new area of administrative problems. We will not be able to examine these problems closely or in a critical and constructive manner. In conclusion I must put in one plug-heaven knows, I have been trying for this for long enough. I would like to have rugby league included in the AIS as a sport that is worthy of great encouragement. I know that the Minister thinks that it does not need any coaching as a result of representations he has had from Parramatta and those other western suburbs clubs, but in our area around Cronulla we feel a great need for this great national-yea this great international-sport to be encouraged at the Institute with some training programs. Heaven knows, it has included soccer and I suppose it has a certain international flavour as well. Mr Charles —What about Aussie rules? Mr DOBIE —Honourable members keep mentioning strange words which I do not understand. Mr Rocher —What about Australian rules? Mr DOBIE —Australian rules-that is better. It is a good sport. I hope that it will not be long before the AIS comes to the party and decides-as I know it wants to-to include rugby league as one of the vital sports in the important States of this country. I wish to finish my speech by saying that I appreciate the tributes that have been paid here to Frank Stewart, Professor Bloomfield, Dr Coles and Bob Ellicott. Party politics aside, I hope that these names will be remembered for many long years as people who did much to bring Federal politics into the sponsorship of sport which had long been wanted in this country. I cannot see our sport going any further without continuation of that activity and, more importantly, that interest. However, we need more than just interest in our own local teams. It is all very well for those of us who are keen on rugby league to attend our club's matches every week and be thoroughly entertained and inspired, but we must go beyond that. We must consider those sports which do not have universal appeal and which do not claim large audiences-those sports which provide great activity and interest to a large number of participants but do not have the audience that Australian rules has, that rugby league sometimes has and that rugby union occasionally has. We must take a broad view here. I lament the passing of the capacity of this Parliament to examine critically the administrative problems which will face the Institute of Sport in the coming years. When one talks to the people at the Institute one realises that they are very conscious of the problem that will face them. If I can be reluctant and enthusiastic at the same time, I am reluctant that the Institute of Sport has become the topic of a party political debate-- Mr John Brown —It should not have. Mr DOBIE —It should not have, as the Minister says. But unfortunately, I say to the Minister that, in regard to the legislation that he has brought before this House, those of us who wish this Institute to be still answerable to this House for its expenditure must oppose the Bill and support the amendment to the motion for the second reading put forward by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White). Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.05) —I have great pleasure in supporting the Australian Institute of Sport Bill. I point out to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), what the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) said in his second reading speech: The legislation will ensure appropriate accountability to the government of the day and, through it, to this Parliament. In contrast to what the previous speaker said, this legislation, by setting up a statutory authority under the provisions that have been spoken about, particularly by the honourable member for Fowler (Mr Grace), will put the Australian Institute of Sport on the footing it should have had before this day. Like all other major statutory authorities, it will be responsible to the Minister and the government of the day and, through it, the Parliament, which can oversee the workings and operations of that statutory authority. In contrast to what the honourable member for Cook said-in fact, what most members of the Opposition have said throughout this debate-we on this side of the House believe that accountability will be one of the pluses of this legislation. Throughout this debate many members, including the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) and the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), have suggested that they do not like this legislation. However, with the exception of the honourable member for Cook, and I disagreed with him, no one including the honourable member for McPherson and the honourable member for Sturt, said why he disagreed with the setting up of the statutory authority or what dreadful things it would do. Let us look at the amendment that has been moved to the motion for the second reading. The last sentence reads: the proposed Institute of Sport could well be performed by an existing body. It does not say `the existing body', it says `an existing body'. What existing body? Mr White —The Sports Commission, for the tenth time! Mr CHARLES —That is not contained in the honourable member's amendment. Is that the next amendment that will be moved? Mr White —Can't you hear? Mr CHARLES —I do not care what the honourable member is saying now. It is not contained in the amendment. Are we supposed to guess what his brain waves are? The amendment says `an existing body'. I am quite sure that the honourable member could sit here all day and come up with a different body every five minutes. The fact is that he does not know what he is doing. As the Minister interjected during the speech by the honourable member for Cook, it should not have become a political debate, but the Opposition has attempted to force one for no reason. Throughout this debate today at no stage has one good reason been brought forward to suggest that this legislation should not be passed, as it will. The Institute of Sport was the brainchild of Frank Stewart in 1973. It was eventually picked up by the Fraser Government through Bob Ellicott, who was very energetic and enthusiastic about the project. It eventually got off the ground and came into operation in 1981. I am glad that the present Minister was appointed in 1983 because he is not only a sports enthusiast but also a knowledgeable person. He has brought many good things to the portfolio and has moved the Institute along. Funding for sport and the Institute have trebled in the time of this Government. The planning and programs that the Institute has brought into operation have expanded greatly over the last few years. The national training centre program and the visiting athletes program are just two of those. Last year over 1,000 athletes came here for tuition under the visiting athletes program. The national training centre program is more for the elite-the international standard athletes. So far this financial year 52 sports have participated in the program with 2,200 athletes and coaches attending 105 training camps. This shows the extent of the programs and the good that is being done amongst our sport generally, not only in the elite area but right across the board. The Institute is planning all sorts of extensions in its programs to enable people who are less well off to participate in its activities. As the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) mentioned earlier, the sports medicine centre or science centre of the Institute is one of the best in the world. Sports medicine throughout the world has really leaped ahead in recent years. It is good to see that Australia has caught up rapidly in this area in the last few years. It has been marvellous to see the amount of money that has been put into sports medicine research in this country. Australia has benefited greatly; again, not only in the international sporting area but throughout the community. The benefits apply not only to sport but also to daily life. We are at last beginning to realise the many things, such as better nutrition, that flow from sports medicine research. As I said earlier, the Institute's sports medicine centre, which is one of the best in Australia, is becoming one of the best set-ups in the world. I congratulate the Institute on that. I am sure that it will move to bigger and better things. A number of State institutes are now feeding into the national sports Institute, and this is very good to see. I am sorry to say that I do not believe the Victorian State Government has done as much for sport in Victoria as it should have done. It is one State that has not moved in that direction yet, although I must congratulate that Government for the fact that it is about to sponsor the national tennis centre, which will involve over $50m. Let us hope that that project comes off and is a success. I was also pleased to read recently that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism disagreed quite strongly with the collective wisdom of the State Ministers in regard to police intervention on the sporting field, whether it be football, basketball or any other sport. I agreed with the Federal Minister's comments. It is disastrous to have police running on to the grounds with pencil and pad trying to charge people with offences. If that practice is adopted, Australian sports will take us a step backward into the last century. Such an incident should never have been allowed to occur. The Leigh Matthews incident that occurred in Victoria last year was a disgrace and the political pontificating at that time by the Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Mr Race Mathews, was nothing short of disgraceful. I am glad to see that the Federal Minister disagrees strongly with all the State Ministers in that regard. The national sports Institute has come a long way in a very short time. It has moved from covering eight sports to covering, I think, around 13. Mr John Brown —It is already 13. Mr CHARLES —There are already 13 sports. There are plans for more sports to be involved and for the decentralisation of sports. It takes a certain amount of time for the benefits to flow through, not only to the international area but also throughout the community. In the next decade we will see the fruits of our efforts, in particular the efforts of this Government, which has trebled the funds for the Institute over the last three years. We will continue, on a genuine basis-unlike the previous Government-to assist our sporting people at the elite level and throughout the community. I am sure that we will see other programs emanating from this Government in the next few years to assist with the sport and recreation facilities of this country. Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr John Brown-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.15) —At the outset I would like to say that I am very pleased to have the opportunity of seconding the amendment which was moved by the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) earlier today. In his speech he put the case very succinctly and very well for opposing the provision that the Australian Institute of Sport be changed from a public company to a statutory authority. He made it very clear that there was absolutely no necessity to do this because sporting bodies in this country are not asking for it and virtually no one in the sporting world wants it. The trouble is that we have far too many statutory authorities in the country already. Just a very quick glance at the list of statutory authorities of the Commonwealth, which was published by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in October 1984, reveals that we have over 400 statutory authorities already and that, of course, does not include the various subsidiary companies. In the 12 months to October 1985 another 31 statutory authorities were created. We do not need any more. We need fewer statutory authorities, less bureaucracy and less expenditure. This does not mean to say that I, and I am sure everybody on the Opposition side of this House, do not applaud the work of the Institute of Sport. I for one think it has done a marvellous job. I will not attempt to repeat what the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) said. He went through the workings of the Institute in very great detail and made an excellent statement on the work that it is doing. It is very satisfying that the $80m of facilities and the $14m budget are being used to assist Australian sportsmen and sportswomen. The shadow Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the honourable member for McPherson, made it very clear in his speech that the Australian Sports Commission, which has a Board of up to 20, is quite capable of doing the job. At the present time this is a confusing situation in the sporting world. There is duplication. We have the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism, the Sports Commission and the Institute of Sport. If the Institute of Sport becomes a statutory authority, Board membership will comprise a full time or part time chairman, who will be appointed for five years, a deputy chairman who will also be appointed full time or part time for five years and no fewer than seven or no more than 11 other directors who will be appointed for three years. They can all be full time or part time directors. Excluding the Director of the Institute, who is ex-officio on the Board, there would be a minimum of nine members on the Board and a maximum of 13. The honourable member for McPherson in moving the amendment made it very clear, in a very polite and sensitive way, that this opened the opportunity for political patronage. I will put it a little more vulgarly and say that it provides the opportunity for jobs for the boys and possibly jobs for the girls too. I know that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), a man whom I like and respect-I know he is sincere in doing his job for sport-would not be involved in any form of political patronage of this kind. Nonetheless, the opportunity is there. I do not believe that it is right or correct that this Parliament should further enlarge the opportunities for jobs for the boys. I would like to make some reference to the comments of the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin). He is a very pleasant young man, very earnest and very sincere. The trouble is that he is misguided because he completely confused the issue with this amendment. He said that the amendment opposed the statutory authority and offered nothing in its place. Of course, the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) who spoke before me, also obviously did not hear the honourable member for McPherson's speech because the shadow Minister made it totally and completely clear that he believed the Australian Sports Commission would do the job. I just remind the House that that amendment reads, in part: . . . the House is of the opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with as it does nothing more than add to the burgeoning number of statutory authorities already in existence when the functions of the proposed Institute of Sport could well be performed by an existing body. The honourable member for McPherson made it very clear that that existing body was the Australian Sports Commission. The honourable member for Macarthur said that the Institute needed to be independent. But it becomes quite clear, when we read the Bill and the explanatory notes that, under the new system, the Institute would be completely under the thumb of the Minister. I will just read some of the words in the explanatory memorandum. It states: Clause 11 . . . Enables the Minister to give written directions on any matter to the Board and ensures that the Board must comply with them. Clause 12 . . . Requires the Board to prepare and implement strategic plans for the Institute's operations. That is a good thing. The explanatory memorandum continues: The first plan is to cover a 3 years period commencing on a day occurring within 12 months of the commencement of the Act. Clause 13 . . . Provides for Ministerial approval of the Institute's strategic plans. Clause 14 . . . Allows the Board to vary the strategic plan, subject to Ministerial approval. I think that reinforces the point made that the Institute will be under the thumb of the Minister. As the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) said, the Institute would be under the day to day control of the Minister. The honourable member for Macarthur praised the Institute of Sport and grudgingly admitted that it was established by the coalition Government. But, instead of being a little gracious about that, he said that it was just a knee jerk reaction to the lack of medals at the previous Olympics. I think he could have been just a little more generous. Of course, the honourable member for Fowler (Mr Grace) also grudgingly said: `Bob Ellicott pushed the Fraser Government into it'. But we cannot escape the fact that the Fraser Government established the Institute of Sport. I would just like to make it very clear that we too praise the staff and the coaches for the great job that they are doing. The honourable member for Macarthur made mention also of the five Australian Institute of Sport swimmers who won medals in 1984. He mentioned Robert de Castella, the soccer players and the tennis players and I support him in what he said about them. They have done a marvellous job, and those associated with the Institute have also done a marvellous job. But in bringing in that matter and failing to address the question of the amendment, the honourable member is obscuring the real issue. The real issue is the question of management and administration. We on this side of the House want the Australian Institute of Sport to continue to be successful. We want it to go on to bigger and better things. But increasing the number of statutory authorities will not do it, and jobs for the boys will not do it either. The honourable member for Macarthur claimed that we on this side of the House opposed the Australian Sports Aid Foundation. We support very definitely the method of getting more funding for sport, but we oppose the setting up of another board to do it. There are up to 20 board members on the Sports Commission and 22 staff. I think there are six or seven-I do not think anybody really knows at this stage-on the Sports Aid Foundation Board and, of course, now we are going to have 13, 15 or whatever it is on the Board of the Institute of Sport. The next speaker for the Government was the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth). I say in passing that I have great respect for him as a great Australian sportsman. I think his contribution to sport in this country has been quite magnificent. He made some reference to the Institute as being, I think, fortress Bruce. He agreed that there was a need for streamlining in its administration and a need to move out of Canberra and decentralise its activities. I support him in his suggestion that this should happen. He also said that this fantastic facility should be available for national teams more than it is at present and that 40 groups use it now. He spoke at length on the coaching provided and the sports development grants and the achieve- ments of the Institute in sports medicine. This is all great. It is tremendous. I endorse every word he said, but he missed the point of the amendment. All we are seeking to do is to support the work of the Institute of Sport, to continue to give it every possible support, but we want to reduce bureaucracy. For heaven's sake, in the last few days we have had talk from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about banana republics and third rate economies. We are entering straitened financial circumstances. We are entering a period when we have to tighten our national belt. We will not do that by creating new statutory authorities ad infinitum. We have a responsibility to the people of Australia to reduce bureaucracy, waste and expenditure. I support the amendment. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(9.27) —I guess that in some ways I am winding up this debate on the Australian Institute of Sport Bill 1986 and the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986. The amendment moved by the shadow Minister, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), suggests that no statutory authority should be set up and that the Australian Institute of Sport should remain in its present role. Mr White —Not as a public company, but under the control of the Australian Sports Commission. Mr JOHN BROWN —Not as a public company, but under the control of the Australian Sports Commission. What we are doing with this legislation, which seeks to turn the AIS into a statutory authority, is not a case of establishing a new statutory authority but merely converting the existing unsatisfactory expedient company status of the AIS into that of a properly constituted statutory authority created by the Parliament rather than, as exists now, by Executive prerogative. I would have thought that the proper role for this Parliament was to see that public moneys are properly supervised. The views that have been expressed by various members of the Opposition tonight strike me as being very odd. The honourable member for McPherson wanted more restrictions on management. That is reasonable. The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) wanted freedom similar to that of academic institutions for the Institute of Sport to roam free in whatever direction it wanted. I would have thought that the difficulties which the AIS encountered-which I freely admit-at the end of last year were a product of the fact that its public company status gave me as Minister and certainly Parliament no proper purview. It is not a matter of trying to form another statutory authority merely for the sake of having another. It is a matter of ensuring that the Institute of Sport, whose achievements I am pleased to note have been the subject of congratulations from honourable members on both sides of the House tonight, is properly under the purview of the Parliament. We are not trying to do anything sinister in terms of extending the already extensive range of statutory authorities. We are merely seeing that the AIS performs according to the view and demands of the Parliament. Another oddity I find is the demand by the shadow Minister that the AIS should be under the control of the Australian Sports Commission. I disagree with that proposal thoroughly for a number of reasons which I will elucidate shortly. It strikes me as being very odd that the shadow Minister would demand that the AIS come under the control of the Sports Commission because on 16 May his predecessor as the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), opposed the Australian Sports Commission Bill on the basis of the Opposition's `fundamental philosophy in view of its role and responsibility of government'. He indicated that a coalition government would establish in lieu of the ASC an advisory body with no administrative role. I note that the existing Opposition policy on sport states: A Coalition Government would re-institute a Federal body to be an independent adviser on sport and recreation. It would be representative of national sporting organisations and charged with providing the forum to stimulate national levels of participation and achievement of sport and recreation. This body would be autonomous and advise the Government of long term policies and programs to develop the diverse needs of the Australian community at all levels. It would not have an administrative role. That is greatly at odds with the Opposition's new proposition that the Australian Sports Commission should be given even greater powers and should control the functions and day to day running of the Australian Institute of Sport. What does the Opposition want? Mr White —I will tell you in a minute. Mr JOHN BROWN —It is about time the honourable member did. I have noticed the varying strands of opinion that have come out tonight; maybe this great new policy the honourable member is about to tell us about might clear it up. Mr White —Haven't you got the new policy? Mr JOHN BROWN —No, but I have the tourism one. I notice the Opposition released it, to save me doing so. The Opposition has to realise that the Institute of Sport has a very specialised day to day role, developing sports persons and coaches and managing substantial facilities for sporting, recreational, general entertainment and other community activities. That huge amount of property now under the control of the Institute of Sport must require a special body to run it. It could not possibly be run by the Australian Sports Commission, which has an entirely different role. The Sports Commission should not get bogged down with oversighting day to day operations such as running swimming pools and providing facilities for pop concerts. It should not risk being side-tracked from the important overall roles it is already performing. The ASC, being a relatively new body, has yet much to achieve, and I might say that in its short history it has achieved a great deal. Certainly we cannot agree that the Sports Commission should be undertaking the overall day to day running of the Institute of Sport. The suggestions the Opposition makes are a fairly gratuitous insult to the hard working AIS Board, which comprises outstanding people. That is particularly the case when it is suggested that my motives are to extend political patronage into Australian sport. I would have thought that the people I have appointed to that Board were sufficiently well known and sufficiently respected in their own right to be insulted with any suggestion of political patronage. We propose with the statutory authority to move away from any form of political patronage. That has certainly been my view in the running of my Department since I have been Minister. In fact, the large amounts of money that are given to sporting organisations in Australia are now allocated by an independent authority and I have not yet, in two Budgets, altered one decision it has made. There is no longer any possibility of political patronage, with some sport that I favour being given money. That Board of 20 commissioners of the Australian Sports Commission expended $8m last year and something like that this year in a way that had no interference whatever from me. That is exactly the way it should be. I notice that again the shadow Minister has raised the matter of the Price Waterhouse report, casting doubts on its validity. I would have thought that Price Waterhouse would have been considered in enlightened enough terms by everybody in this House for nobody to cast aspersions on its propriety. It was a poor reflection upon that company when the honourable member suggested that it should not have been asked to do it. Mr White —You should not have put them in that position. Mr JOHN BROWN —Price Waterhouse volunteered to do it, and it produced a report which was furnished in this Parliament to everybody's satisfaction except the honourable member's. It seems to be a great disappointment to him that it uncovered no sign of dishonesty, impropriety or illegality. I think most people, especially the speakers in this debate tonight, are happy with the report. In particular, two former Ministers spoke glowingly of the Institute of Sport and I am sure they are happy that the report proved what it did. Mr Rocher —It proved that there were some inefficiencies, though. Mr JOHN BROWN —Nobody is suggesting there were not inefficiencies, and that is exactly why we are moving to a statutory authority-to allow this Parliament to have a greater purview of the public moneys that are being expended at the Institute of Sport. I think the mismanagements to which the honourable member pointed were fairly understandable, given that suddenly the Institute of Sport Board was given the function of looking after not just the running of the Institute but also the whole of the physical facilities associated with that area at Bruce. It is quite understandable that at that stage, very early in its career, it could have run into a few minor management problems. They have all been solved to everybody's satisfaction, and the House will be pleased to note that the Budget of the AIS will come up in a better than balanced position-in fact, in a positive position-although maybe at the halfway mark it was running behind. That is fairly normal practice in most businesses and I cannot see anything terribly sinister about that. I find it quite disturbing that once again the shadow Minister has come in here tonight and given me a negative, carping, miserable, defeatist speech on sport. It is a matter of great pleasure to me that other Opposition speakers adopted a much more positive view. It is a great pity that this basically apolitical area-in which I ran as shadow Minister for three years and had only one argument with the Government in that period, and that was over the attempted boycott of the Moscow games-has now become the subject of contentious, political debate. It is disillusioning to sporting bodies around Australia who believe sport to be apolitical. Mr White —So, if we agree with you, that is all right. Mr JOHN BROWN —No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the honourable member could adopt a more positive attitude to what we are trying to do in sport. If he takes a dispassionate look at his colleagues' miserable record towards sport in 30 years of government and compares it with what has happened in the last three years, perhaps he will take a more positive view. Certainly a positive view was taken by the honourable member for Groom (Mr McVeigh) and by the honourable member for Sturt-and certainly if the Hon. Bob Ellicott were here he would adopt the same view. Things are happening in sport now that never happened before. I am inundated every day with letters from surf clubs. In three years the surf club grant has gone from $200,000 to over $1m. It has gone to the most noble of the sporting bodies in Australia. For the first time ever disabled athletes in Australia have $1m with which to fund their activities. The Institute of Sport has had its budget doubled. The Australian Sports Commission has now introduced Aussie Sports, which I venture to say is the most inventive, imaginative and useful sports policy that any government has ever invested in in Australia. We shall now have the prospect that every child in Australia, no matter what his or her sporting inadequacy, will be involved in some form of sporting participation, because this Government has been able to get the State governments and education departments in every State to agree to include the Aussie Sports program as part of the core curriculum in schools. In regard to the Sports Aid Foundation, about which I was asked a question earlier, Sir Peter Abeles certainly has accepted membership of that Board. The information received by the honourable member for McPherson was probably a couple of days old. It is only in the last couple of days that Sir Peter has accepted a position on the Board. The Board is composed of Mr Ted Harris, Sir Donald Trescowthick, Herb Elliott, Kevan Gosper, Kerry Packer, Nick Whitlam and Sir Peter Abeles. I doubt that anybody could put together a board of more respectable and more capable people. Mr Tuckey —How much is that going to cost? Mr JOHN BROWN —It is not going to cost anything. I am sure the honourable member for O'Connor will be pleased to learn that these honourable persons have decided that they will accept no fees, no travelling allowances-no expenses whatever-in pursuit of this task. In their four weeks of operation they have put more than half a million dollars through the sports aid campaign for the Commonwealth Games and also for the America's Cup challenge. That is a product of this Government having the guts to introduce tax deductibility for contributions to sport. I make no apology for the Government's record in sport. I am appalled that the honourable member for McPherson, for whom I have a high regard in many ways, does not take a more positive attitude towards sport. We are certainly not above criticism, but if he were to take a dispassionate view of what this legislation is all about he would see that it seeks to make the Australian Institute of Sport more responsible and more answerable to this Parliament. That is the way it should be. We reject the Opposition's amendment out of hand. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr White's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 54 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J. Blewett, N. Kent, L. Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J. Brown, John Kerin, J. C. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Charles, D. E. Langmore, J. V. Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cross, M. D. Maher, M. J. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Martin, S. P. Dawkins, J. S. Mayer, H. Dubois, S. G. Milton, P. Duffy, M. J. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G. Fatin, W. F. O'Keefe, N. P. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gear, G. Punch, G. F. Gorman, R. N. J. Saunderson, J. Grace, E. L. Scholes, G. G. D. Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C.(Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jacobi, R. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hodges, J. C. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ewen Moore, J. C. Cameron, Ian Nehl, G. B. Carlton, J. J. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. 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. Hayden, W. G. Smith, W. Cohen, B. Braithwaite, R. A. Darling, E. E. Cobb, M. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Oringinal question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Amendment (by Mr John Brown) proposed: Clause 42, page 15 (lines 41 to 44) and page 16 (lines 1 to 6), omit the clause. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.48) —In the interests of time I just wish to make a few points in response to the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown). I make a point that has been made again and again during this debate, that we on this side of the House strongly support the Australian Institute of Sport, but are totally against the setting up of yet another statutory authority to administer it when there is already in existence an authority which is quite capable of administering it and when most of the members of that authority want to take that responsibility on board. This is not a degradation of the existing Board. Acknowledgment of all its work over the years has been made time and time again in this House. We are saying that, particularly in the economic climate in which we are working, there is no need for another statutory authority. Although a board is in place, this is an opportunity to reduce by one the number of statutory authorities for which there is absolutely no need. I make the point in regard to the Price Waterhouse report that it is not a reflection on the company, which has done good work. I am saying that the Minister should not have put that company in the position where it had to investigate itself. In conclusion, I wish to say that we on this side of the House wish the Institute well. We want to see it go from strength to strength. It has already established a massive reputation in this country and overseas. We want to see it administered efficiently. As the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) said in a very good speech, we want to see it broaden its approach to sport in this country. We do not want to see it unduly handicapped and we do not want to see it being run by yet another statutory authority. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism)(10.50) —The shadow Minister, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), hoped that the Australian Institute of Sport would go from strength to strength. Let me forecast two initiatives which will take place. Two new sports will be introduced in the Institute of Sport this year. I can assure the House that as a positive step towards improving the sporting facilities available to the depressed black African people of South Africa we will be inviting four or five black South African coaches to the Institute of Sport on a scholarship this year. We will try to send them back to improve the lot of that very depressed majority of black people of South Africa. The honourable member may rest assured that the Institute will go from strength to strength. That in fact, will be the case. Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown)-by leave-read a third time. Consideration resumed from 17 April, on motion by Mr John Brown: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr John Brown) read a third time. Motion (by Mr John Brown) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.53) —I rise to speak following the debate we have just had on the Australian Institute of Sport and its future. I rise to talk about a sporting event that in fact is now taking place in my own electorate. Of course, I refer to the sixth world three-day event which will be attended by the Opposition spokesman on sport, recreation and tourism, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), on Saturday in the city of Gawler in the electorate of Wakefield. Yesterday I attended the opening of the sixth world three-day event. The opening was held at Roseworthy Agricultural College, a prestigious agriculture tertiary education institution situated in the town of Roseworthy since 1883. Roseworthy College occupies 1,200 hectares of land. There, in front of the grand old college building, stood the eight teams from around the world who were to participate in this sixth world three-day event. They appeared before His Royal Highness Prince Philip. Each stood in front of a flag pole from which the flag of the appropriate nation was unfurled while the national anthem of that nation was played. I must say that it was a proud moment for everyone who stood there to witness that ceremony and the pomp and splendour that surrounded it. While we sit here in this House there are teams from New Zealand, Germany, Canada, Great Britain, France, Ireland, the United States of America and Australia participating in this horse event. I make the point that in fact this is the first occasion on which there has been such a world equestrian event held in the Southern Hemisphere. Why should that be so? It is simply because the quarantine restrictions maintained in this island of Australia are so rigid that it has not been possible to have an event of this size in this nation before. As honourable members will appreciate, simply airlifting a horse from the United Kingdom to Australia can cost up to $30,000. There have been strict quarantine provisions enforced at Torrens Island in the electorate of the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Young), who is the Leader of the House. There will be 10,000 overseas visitors in South Australia for this Jubilee 150 event. That is more people than were involved in the famous Grand Prix, which was also a part of our State's Jubilee 150 celebrations. The cost of the event is being shared by sponsors and the South Australian Government, which has underwritten the event. I gladly concede that that Government has been aided by a $98,000 community employment program grant from the Commonwealth Government. The event will involve dressage competitions which are taking place today and tomorrow, followed on Saturday by the most spectacular cross-country course event, which is the heart of three-day eventing, and the show jumping on Sunday. By any standards this is a prestigious event. After the Grand Prix it is the largest event to be held in South Australia and it warrants the attention of the Federal Parliament. Unfortunately the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was in China and was unable to be present at the opening of the event, and I suppose that for that reason the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) found it inappropriate to be there too. I regret that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) also found it impossible to attend, for some reason, and what was quite unforgiveable was that I was the sole member of the Federal Parliament present when Prince Philip opened that event yesterday. Where was the Government? Where were the back benchers? Where were the Australian Labor Party senators? This week the Senate has not been sitting. Would it really have been too much for the Government to have requested one South Australian senator to represent it at what will be a key event in South Australia's Jubilee 150 celebrations? Where were the ALP senators at this key event? Why has the Government chosen to snub South Australia-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(10.58) —In answering the question put to the House by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), probably they were all out training for that big event that will be held throughout Australia-the Run Against Time organised by Sports Aid. I will be running in that event on Sunday and I hope that any other members who happen to be in Canberra this weekend will join me for the run, which begins outside Parliament House at 9 a.m. Mr Robert Brown —They will not join you. They could not last the distance, but you can make it, Ros. Mrs KELLY —I do not know about that; I would not put my money on it! However, I do not wish to speak about that matter tonight. I wish to discuss the program of the United Nations Children's Fund to immunise the world's children by 1990 against six vaccine-preventable diseases which are currently killing more than three million children each year. It is estimated that vaccine-preventable diseases kill a total of 3,450,000 children each year in the developing world and a similar number are crippled or handicapped. About 58 per cent, or two million, of these deaths are caused by measles. Tetanus is responsible for about 803,000 deaths and whooping cough for a further 606,000 deaths. The toll is as heavy for those who survive. If immunisation remains at today's levels then polio, to take just one example, will paralyse for life about 2.5 million children over the next 10 years. This should be of concern to everyone in this Parliament and throughout Australia. There is no doubt that in the past 18 months several nations have doubled and trebled their levels of immunisation against vaccine-preventable diseases which have been killing so many children each year. Throughout 1985 world-wide demand for vaccines has been running at approximately three times the 1983 level and it is estimated that because of this about 800,000 lives are being saved each year by current immunisation programs. But of course that is only touching the surface. It is important-- Mr DEPUTY 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 papers were deemed to have been presented on 22 May 1986: Air Force Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 105. Broadcasting Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 100. Defence Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 101, 102. Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, Nos. 103, 104. Judicial and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Allowances) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 106. Papua New Guinea (Members of the Forces Benefits) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 99. Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 98. Veterans' Entitlements Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1986, No. 97. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1255) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 23 May 1985: Has the Minister's Department, or any statutory authority or organisation for which the Minister is responsible, employed consultants since March 1983; if so, (a) who has been employed, (b) for what purpose, (c) what working plan was given to them, (d) what was the cost of their services, (e) when did their services commence and finish, and (f) was any fee in excess of the initial quote; if so, by what amount. Mr Scholes —The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows: (a) to (f) Information in response to these questions as they relate to my Department and all authorities for which I am responsible, excluding the Parliament House Construction Authority, is contained in the table at attachment A. The approximate cost of preparing this response was $6,500. The Parliament House Construction Authority makes extensive use of consultants. It is estimated that compilation of the information sought by this question would involve approximately 200 working hours or nearly six weeks of ordinary time and the Authority does not have the resources required to answer this question in the way it was asked. However, the Authority's major consultants and the purpose for which they have been employed are listed at attachment B. The Australian Capital Territory Health Authority provided information relating to this question for inclusion in a response to Question 1253 by the Minister for Health. The response appeared in the Hansard of 11 February 1986. ATTACHMENT A Name Purpose Cost Period Excess cost $ $ DEPARTMENT OF TERRITORIES Dr Indgk... Provide advice on appropriate synthetic surface for the National Sports Centre 250 1 Day . . Mr E. Lynn... Introductory 2,000 word article for a Nolan exhibition 500 1 Day . . Mr J. Buckley... To curate the Nolan Galleries `Rimbaud Exhibition' by Sydney Nolan 1,000 12 Weeks . . Mr P. N. Troy General Council Pty Ltd To provide advice on an appropriate organisational structure for the Department's Local Government responsibilities 7,190 6 Months . . Department of Main Roads (A. Simms & I. Lowrie)... Assist in establishment and operation of ACT traffic signal system 1,000 2 Days . . Ms J. Ford... Produce an inventory for science and technology in Canberra for CDB 4,000 . . . . W. D. Scott... Market research for CDB 4,950 . . . . Groome & Assoc.... Review of Forest Branch activities 37,948 6 Weeks . . R. V. Wood... Growing of pine trees 1,700 1 Week . . W. Nichol... Research and produce a promotional brochure for CDB-complete Boards Activity Report 3,000 . . . . Ms J. Lang... To advise on employment issues in ACT and to chair the ACT Employment Advisory Committee 160/d x 2 d/wk over 12 months 1 Year . . Peat Marwick Mitchell services Advise on current and future systems requirements for accounting and workshop area for Public Transit 30,000 8 Months . . J. Moray (Dept. of Conservation Forests & Land Management- Victoria) 2 day seminar on Insect pests in pines 597 2 Days . . R. Nielson... Investigate and provide advice on growing and developing poplar and willow plantations on a commercial basis in ACT 2,200 3 Weeks . . Touche Ross Services Pty Ltd To identify and investigate the options for the Canberra Commercial Development Authority to fund the construction and operation of a 24,000 square metre retail shopping centre in Tuggeranong 24,000 1 Month . . Swimming Pool Consultants Pty Ltd To train staff at the Erindale Centre in swimming pool and plant operation 650 1 Day . . Coffey & Partners Pty Ltd Site investigation to ascertain the foundation conditions on some sites in South Bruce 1,000 . . . . B. Forner (Acoss) J. Hall... As part of the Regional Community Development Program prepare discussion papers along with suitable programs to be funded 2,300 1,300 . . . . Mrs J. Serle... To negotiate on behalf of Department `supply of specially printed wall paper' for Lanyon Homestead 750 25 Hrs. . . Price Waterhouse... To determine Department's computer replacement requirements in 1985-86 6,250 Feb. to Mar. 1984 . . Price Waterhouse... Detail conversion cost on Burroughs equipment in 1985-86. Detail changeover problems. Provide approximate timetable 8,850 . . 748 W. E. Nicol... Edit a publication `ACT Forest-Practices' 400 10 Hrs. . . Dr D. Rolf... Provide seminar on horticultural opportunities for disabled people at Botanic Gardens 300 1 Day . . R. Eade... Draft recommendations of suitable programs for funding in West Melbourne under Regional Community Development Program 2 300 12 Days . . W. B. Maloney North West Finance and Insurance Pty Ltd Draft recommendations of suitable programs for funding in West Melbourne under Regional Community Development Program 2,300 12 Days . . Dr J. Yates... Preparatory work for the inquiry into local government finances 3,470 10 Weeks . . Ms Drake, Ms Walmsley C. Paris Inquiry into homelessness and inadequate housing 13,000 Nov 1983 to Jan 1984 . . A. Ashley & Associates Mr. A. Ashley To become a member of the Task Force on Self Government for the ACT 51,585 Dec. 1983 to June 1984 . . Pak-Poy Pty Ltd and Kneebone Pty Ltd To provide training for Departmental staff on the CANVASS suite of programs for the ACTION bus system 9,249 3 Months 2,963 Peat Marwick Mitchell Services Revise Public Transit Branch accounting system 26,977 10 Weeks . . 2 Post Graduate Scholarships Produce a history of Canberra 22,000 . . . . D. Rennie... Seminar on motor accident compensation 200 2 Days . . E. S. Knight & Co.... No fault motor accident scheme 11,832 . . . . Mr R. Beatie... Prepare promotional material for Tourist bureau for inclusion in journals etc. 3,410 6 Months . . Mr J. McMillan and Dr G. Hawker To become members of the Task Force on Self Government for the ACT 1,342 7 days each . . System Reliability Australia Pty Ltd Report on ``Zeag'' parking equipment 6,712 . . . . Mr K. S. Edmunds AM... To inquire into gambling and amusement machines in the ACT 13,056 July to Dec. 1984 . . Ms C. Drew... To conduct a course for senior Australians for growth and exploration 360 3 Months . . Price Waterhouse... Assist in the preparation of a case for the replacement of mainframe computer equipment 14,660 . . . . Ms J. Lang... To advise on employment issues in the ACT and to chair the ACT Employment Advisory Committee 450/wk for 2.5 day/wk for 12 months 1 Year short termed to 1 Month . . Dr A. Merritt... Review occupational health and safety and workers compensation legislation in ACT 152/day 6 months . . D. Burley... Speak to the conference of the Local Government Industry Training Committee. Meet with other organisations 650 2 Days . . T. Vinson... Welfare Inquiry 204/day . . . . R. Walmsley... Welfare Inquiry 118/day . . . . M. Rogers... Welfare Inquiry 6,250 50 Days . . C. Young... Welfare Inquiry 172/day . . . . H. Evans... Welfare Inquiry 5,000 40 Days . . K. Windschuttle... Welfare Inquiry 2,580 15 Days . . W. Seddon... Legal opinion 300 . . . . E. Fernandex... Coding 1,600 . . . . P. Rae... Edit Data 15/day 25 Days . . S. Lean-Fore... Analysis results of survey 1,000 . . . . Actcoss... Co-ordination of survey 6,600 . . . . R. Chynoweth... 1,200 . . . . O. Burston... 111/day 4 Weeks N. Lewis & Associates... To prepare conservation and Museum plans for Calthorpe House 16,000 April to July 1984 . . Applied Natural Resource Management To provide expertise in the establishment and management of Namadgi National Park 19,500 January to June 1984 . . Peat, Marwick Mitchell and Co. To undertake a complete review of the Lands Division of the Department 52,956 Dec. 1984 to May 1985 . . A. Ashley and Associates... Provide advice to the Government on a number of issues involving Self Government 49,280 July 1984 to Jan. 1985 . . NSW Corrective Services Training To provide disturbance control training to Custodial Officers at the Belconnen Remand Centre 14,997 9 Days . . Ms H. Axelby... To rationalise a large recruitment task involving word processors and typists 2,000 20 Days . . Ms Stiles & Chevelier... To conduct `an assertiveness and stress management' course 900 5 Weeks . . Mr Lynn... To prepare an introductory article on the Nolan exhibition 1,000 . . . . Mr Lehany... Archaeological survey of Lanyon gardens. Prepare a conservation analysis of the gardens and surrounds 10,000 . . . . Mr A. Thorn and Mr S. Kosinova... To provide advice on wall treatment at Lanyon 300 . . . . Mr B. Rabonne... Assist in planning and exhibition of the refurbishment process at Lanyon. Designers to prepare final work drawings for brochures, a poster, a basic advertising format, etc. 2,700 Sept. 1984 to Feb. 1985 . . Mr I. Tituarer... To conduct `life games' for Life be In It Program 250 . . . . Mrs V. Lyon... Produce camera ready quality reprints from a computer printout-part of Regional Development Program 404 38.5 hrs . . Mr R. Beattie... Prepare promotional material for inclusion in journals etc. 16,905 1 Year . . Phillip Cox and Partners... Assess building conservation needs, Calthorpe House 1,315 February to April 1985 . . Phillip Cox and Partners Prepare specifications, plans for conservation of Calthorpe House and oversight work 4,300 (Stage 1) May 1985 until complete . . Carol Cains... Report on Conservation needs of fabrics for Calthorpe House 295 March to April 1985 . . Art & Archival... Report on Conservation need of wallpaper at Calthorpe House 165 March to April 1985 . . Access Archaeology... Archaeological survey of Lanyon Estate 1,350 May-June `85 . . Tav Design... Exhibition in Lanyon Homestead 2,700 Sept. 1984 to Feb. 1985 . . JRC Planning... Review of Previous work undertaken on ACT Heritage Plan; preparation of brief for remainder of project 3,000 . . . . JRC Planning... ACT Heritage Study Study incomplete (48,700 est.) July 1984 until complete . . Strine Design... Architectural assessment of Old Ginninderra Police Station 500 Feb. 1985 . . ISLAND TERRITORIES Dr. W. Blake... Examine effects of unusual algae in Cocos Lagoon 3,200 4 Weeks 82/83 . . Electoral Office... Prepare for election of Norfolk Island Assembly 9,556 4 Weeks . . Dr F. Collins... Advise on administration and legislation for a system of guaranteed land titles (Torrens Title) for Norfolk Island 1,000 8 Days 82/83 . . Electoral Officer... Preparation of election of Norfolk Island Assembly 9,556 4 Weeks . . Corporate Catering Services Pty Ltd Transfer of the Retail Store Accommodation and staff from Commonwealth of Australia Catering Services to Cocos (Keeling) Islands Co-operation 7,147 2 Weeks . . Dr F. Collins... Advise on administration and legislation for a system of guaranteed land titles (Torrens Title) for Norfolk Island 750 6 Days 83/84 . . Dr W. Blake... Survey of Algae in Cocos Lagoon 3,200 4 Weeks 83/84 . . Cameron McNamara... Self sufficiency study for the Cocos Islands 17,304 24.8.84 to Complete . . ACT FIRE BRIGADE-STATUTORY AUTHORITY R. Cox... Involved in the selection of a person to fill the Fire Commissioner position 500 2.5 days . . ACT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Dr C. Adrian... Preparation of discussion paper for House of Assembly on NCDC development plan 1,200 May 1985 6 Days . . BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY-LONG SERVICE LEAVE BOARD (ACT) D. J. Sheedy... Advice on the purchase of computer hardware and on computer programming 1,505 As required . . D. J. Sheedy... Advice on the purchase of computer hardware and on computer programming 9,816 As required . . CANBERRA COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Cameron Chisholm and Nicol Architectural Services for Erindale-Tuggeranong and Belconnen Mall 480,000 April '84 to May 1985 . . Peter Howarth and Associates Merchandising plans, centre layout and leasing consultant for Erindale and Tuggeranong 60,000 March '84 to May 1985 $30,000 McLachlan Group... Market survey re-sizing and feasibility of Tuggeranong 19,150 9 Months $4,150 Ernst & Whinney... Proposed computerisation of office systems 7,500 June '84 to May '85 . . CANBERRA PUBLIC CEMETERY TRUST D. J. Sheedy... To advise the Public Cemetery Trust on the best possible computer equipment for storage of Trust records 420 21 hours . . D. J. Sheedy... To advise the Public Cemetery Trust on the best possible computer equipment for storage of Trust records 620 31 hours . . D. J. Sheedy... To advise the Public Cemetery Trust on the best possible computer equipment for storage of Trust records 5,990 299.5 hours . . CANBERRA RETAIL MARKET TRUST Towell Lott & Partners... Architectural work and building re-construction 1983/84 1984/85 1,940 36,857 various times . . Scott & Furphy... Traffic advice 1983/84 1984/85 500 490 various times . . Carney, Hocking & Day... Public Relations and market survey 5,732 various times . . D. Rudd... Quantity survey re Belconnen Market re-construction 283 various times . . Golder & Associates... Re-construction work at Belconnen Markets 256 various times . . Sellic & Associates... Structural engineering at Belconnen Markets 6,696 various times . . ACT ARTS DEVELOPMENT BOARD Dr T. Pascoe... To review Arts funding in the ACT 34,000 6.12.84 to 31.3.85 . . ACT SPORTS & FITNESS COMMITTEE Mr G. Conygham... Computer support research project (sportcom) 3,300 1 Year . . Mr D. Hogg... Review of the ACT Sports Development Program (Phase 1) 15,000 June to Dec 1985 . . ASBESTOS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dr. B. Salinger (Versal Scientific Consultants) Chairman of Working Party determining which Commonwealth buildings have asbestos in them, which type of asbestos is present, appropriate remedial action and priorities for remedial work 1983/84 2,260 24 hours . . Dr. B. Salinger (Versal Scientific Consultants) Chairman of Working Party determining which Commonwealth buildings have asbestos in them, which type of asbestos is present, appropriate remedial action and priorities for remedial work 1984/85 17,019 28.2.84 to final determination . . I. W. Furness... Investigate the problem of asbestos at the National Library and Watson High School 638 21 Hours . . CANBERRA DEVELOPMENT BOARD-NON STATUTORY W. S. Gregory & Associates Compensation case 657 Jan. 1984 . . W. S. Gregory & Associates Compensation case 750 Mar. 1985 . . Dunn & Bradstreet... Commercial advice on companies incentive scheme 265 1 Year . . International Public Relation Pty Ltd To prepare a new range of promotional literature for Canberra Development Board 15,000 June to Nov. 1984 . . W. E. Nichol... Advise the CDB on a publications strategy 1,500 22 Hours . . W. E. Nichol... Prepare an annual report for the CDB 4,000 120 Hours . . Mr W. Armstead... To develop and manage the CDB's marketing programs as Marketing Manager 24,000 6 Months . . Canberra High Technology Industry Associates To approach approximately 150 Canberra based computer software companies to establish a record of their capabilities 920 1 Month . . MILK AUTHORITY OF THE ACT Earnst & Whinney... Feasibility Study-Distribution Depot Tuggeranong ACT 19,117 . . . . NATIONAL EXHIBITION CENTRE W. D. Scott & Company Pty Ltd Report on the marketing, planning and funding of the National Exhibition Centre 82/83 19,900 83/84 3,000 Sept. 1982 to Sept. 1093 . . Collie Planning Development Services Pty Ltd Survey potential users of an indoor equestrian arena 1,500 June to July 1983 . . Jackson Teece Chesterman & Partners Pty Ltd Concept plan for development of Exhibition Centre 6,692 Nov. '84 to July 1983 . . J. G. Service Pty Ltd... Report on Commercial Development at National Exhibition Centre 1,000 March to June 1985 . . SURVEYORS BOARD OF THE ACT Mr J. Gilerent... Conduct examination held by the Board 1982-83 140 1 Day . . Mr J. Gilerent... Conduct examination held by the Board 1983-84 210 1.5 Days . . Mr J. Gilerent... Conduct examination held by the Board 1984-85 152 1 Day . . ACT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY Leith Barlett & Partners Pty Ltd Construction of Building and Civil works at Causeway Zone Substation 62,809.91 1983 to 1986 . . Leith Barlett & Partners Pty Ltd Construction of Building and Civil works at Telopea Park Zone Substation 104,055.99 1983 to 1986 . . Leith Barlett & Partners Pty Ltd Design work carried out on Mitchell and Kambah depot projects 8,665.25 1983-84 . . Maunsell & Partners P/L... Soil conditions ``Fyshwick Wetlands'' 19,321.65 1983 to 1986 . . Maunsell & Partners P/L... Testing of concrete columns Ainslie-Causeway 1,000 1983-/84 . . Coffey & Partners P/L Investigation of surface conditions for City East-Causeway 1,900 1984-85 . . Coffey & Partners P/L Soil investigation Southside District Depot Site Nil to date . . . . Sowden, Lilley & Associates Pty Ltd Check survey for Southside Depot 473 1985-86 . . Rider Hunt & Partners... Preparation of Bills of Quantities for Southside District Depot Nil to date . . . . W. J. Gordon & Associates Full engineering services for structural & civil work Southside District Depot 2,000 to date 1985-86 . . W. J. Gordon & Associates Preparation of site works and structural documentation for Protection Test Facility at Woden Zone Substation 4,000 . . . . Cameron McNamara P/L... Access tracks for City East to Causeway 132kV Subtransmission Line 21,925 1983 to 1985 . . W. E. Bassett & Partners... Investigate Airconditioning system Electricity House 3,744 1982-83 . . W. E. Bassett & Partners... Airconditioning and thermal fire detector facilities in Caretakers flat 1,500 1984-85 . . W. E. Bassett & Partners... Upgrading of airconditioning of Electricity House 33,500 1983 to 1985 . . W. E. Bassett & Partners... Supervision of airconditioning installation in PABX room 3rd floor Electricity House 500 1984-85 . . W. E. Bassett & Partners... Provision of airconditioning consulting services for upgrade of Operations and Computer Room Airconditioning 1,800 1983-84 . . D. Rudd & Partners... Cost of feasibility study on converting part of ACTEA power house into a control room facility 1,501.60 1983-84 . . D. Rudd & Partners... Provision for a schematic diagram of the Police Station HQ emergency diesel 300 . . . . D. Rudd & Partners... Design, documentation and supervision of mechanical and electrical services of Southside District Depot 1,500 to date 1985-86 . . D. Rudd & Partners... Provide consulting engineering services for documentation of mechanical services for airconditioning, effluent pump and electrical services for the Protection Test Facility at Woden Zone Substation 1,500 1984-85 . . D. Rudd & Partners... Investigation and report of airconditioning service for new Belconnen office 400 1984-85 . . D. Rudd & Partners... Design and documentation of electrical alterations, new Belconnen office 1,180 . . . . D. Rudd & Partners... Professional advice on new Belconnen office 996 . . . . P. A. Consulting Services... Review management practices, procedures and report/recommend and advise on same 104,000 1983 to 1985 . . P. A. Consulting Services... Fees for Phase 1 & 2 of consultancy for planning, scheduling and control of Authority works programs 104,650 1984-85 . . P. A. Consulting Services... Fees for Phase 3 of consultancy for planning, scheduling and control of Authority works programs 17,971.80 to date 1985-86 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Feasibility study for computer facility 3,487 1983-84 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Design and plan the design of ceiling restoration 3rd floor Electricity House 10,000 1983 to 1985 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Consulting fees for the construction of control building and switchyard of Gilmore Zone Substation 74,217.32 to date 1983 to 1986 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Examining ergonomic aspects of cashiers stations at City, Woden and Belconnen Branches 3,425 1984-85 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Preliminary investigation of dealing with asbestos removal 3rd Floor, Electricity House 960 1984-85 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Building damage inspection report at 10 Potts Place, Farrer 284 to date 1984-85 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Professional services for ACTEA depots 495 1984-85 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Design, preparation of documentation, analysis of tenders and supervision of construction of Protection Test Facility at Woden Zone Substation 10,170 to date 1984-85 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Minor alterations at Civic Zone Substation 686 1984-85 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Architectural service Southside District Depot 22,630 to date 1984 to 1986 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Sketch planning and investigation for new Substations office in Belconnen 2,600 1984-85 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Documentation and tenders for new Substations Office in Belconnen 1,950 1984-85 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Additional services re ergonomic aspects of cashiers stations 600 1984-85 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Alterations to Substations Offices at Kingston Nil to date . . . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Architectural services to schematic design stage only-Northside District Depot 2,208 to date 1985-86 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Assessment of accommodation, Ground Floor, Electricity House 1,064.50 1985-86 . . Peddle, Thorp Walker... Sketch plan development 6th Floor Computer Room, Electricity House Nil to date . . . . Preece Carde International... Witness testing of 132kV Underground Cable at Dulmison factory in Japan Nil to date . . . . Margules & Associates P/L Design, documentation and supervision of landscaping and irrigation of Southside District Depot Nil to date . . . . David Hogg Pty Ltd... Prepare Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed 132kV Subtransmission development in the Tuggeranong Valley 13,920 1983-84 . . David Hogg Pty Ltd... Supplementary report on Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed 132kV Subtransmission development in the Tuggeranong Valley 1,410 1984-85 . . Department of Housing and Construction Asbestos survey of Electricity House 1,253.50 1983-84 . . Department of Housing and Construction Commencement fees for documentation of contracts and supervision of removal of asbestos from 3rd Floor Electricity House 20,000 1984-85 . . Department of Housing and Construction Investigation of repairs to facades to Electricity House 5,500 1984-85 . . Department of Housing and Construction Supervision of repairs to facades to Electricity House Nil to date . . . . ACT SCHOOLS AUTHORITY Housley Communications Pty Ltd Advise on current computer network design and recommendations for future expansion Nil to date March 1985- Feb. 1986 . . NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Name of consultant Purpose of engagement Fees authorised Period of engagement $ Department of Housing and Construction Design and supervision of land development, water supply, sewerage, stormwater works; upgrading government houses, Canberra TAFE building works etc. Nil March 1983- June 1985 Note: No fees are paid to the Department of Construction except for the engagement of various sub-consultants and contract drafting to assist with the documentation stage. These engagements are listed separately in the following pages. Access Archaeology Pty Ltd... Archaeological survey... 1,200 January 1985 Rex Addison... Kambah Section 278-Design and supervision 28 flats and 14 houses 208,567 August 1984- April 1986 Adgraphics... Design and graphic assistance... 13,848 September 1984- May 1985 Ad Libitum Colour Master... Colour prints and transparencies... 2,122 January 1985- February 1985 Airesearch Mapping... Aerial photography... 12,133 March 1985- June 1985 Alexander, G.... General transport planning assistance... 4,100 November 1984- July 1985 Allenjack & Cottier... Design and supervision of National Sports Centre-Administration and residential building 1,063,763 June 1983- July 1985 Walter Alteri Printing... NCDC projects 1984-Production and enveloping 80,000 copies 83,708 October 1984- May 1985 Ancher Mortlock & Woolley... Design and supervision of National Archives and Exposition Building; Design and documentation of Australian Federal Police Headquarters 5,595,950 March 1983- October 1988 John Andrews International... National Sports Centre-Field house feasibility study 36,680 January 1985- March 1985 ANU Archaeological... Archaeological information... 600 March 1985- April 1985 ANU Centre for Resource... ACT future strategies for water quality 15,500 April 1985- December 1985 ANU Student Employment... Traffic surveys and transport planning 65,000 September 1983- August 1985 Anutech Pty Ltd... Tuggeranong station boundary marker-Archaeology study 4,300 January 1985- May 1985 Architectural Models... Construction of model for Canberra TAFE-Metal fabrication 9,131 November 1983- September 1984 Arriens Peter... Photography assistance-Parliamentary zone 870 July 1984- July 1985 Artgraphics Pty Ltd... Photolitho services-Parliamentary zone, Museum of Australia, Tuggeranong Town Centre 116,423 July 1983- June 1985 Ove Arup & Partners... Design of structured parking city Section 56, transportation study Museum of Australia 336,942 November 1983- March 1985 Arup Geotechnics... City Section 56 structured parking-Soil investigation 12,055 January 1984- January 1985 Austral Heritage... Museum of Australia-Development of Themes 1,320 January 1985- May 1985 Australian Building Industry... Building Specification... 3,750 January 1985- March 1985 Australian Government Solicitor Legal advice... 4,396 October 1984- January 1985 Australian Institute of Urban Studies Melba Flats-Social planning investigation 49,944 February 1984- January 1985 Australian Road Research Board Computer based models on traffic noise... 13,646 November 1984- June 1985 W. E. Bassett & Partners... Design and supervision of mechanical and electrical work for various projects including Wanniassa High School ventilation improvements, Administration Building refurbishment St 3; Woden TAFE air conditioning modifications, natural gas Commonwealth buildings; upgrading chilling capacity district thermal station, Belconnen 352,233 March 1983- October 1986 Bates Smart & McCutcheon... Australian War Memorial-entrance foyer-refurbishment. Design and supervision 14,224 April 1984- May 1985 Dr J. Bavor... Evaluation of wet lands-Study review... 3,000 September 1984- July 1985 Bayside Drafting Pty Ltd... Canberra TAFE-Metal fabrication and Calwell East-Drafting assistance 14,606 November 1983- January 1985 B & N Technical Services... Canberra & Fyshwick TAFE-Drafting assistance 12,050 November 1983- February 1985 Mrs E. Bell... Gungahlin Planning Assistance... 3,500 May 1984- February 1985 Bibby Rusden Thomson Pty Ltd Evatt & Macgregor Primary Schools-Ventilation improvements-Design and Documentation 13,115 January 1985- May 1985 Bica Photographics... Photographic Services in Canberra... 23,517 April 1983- September 1985 Billy Blue Group... NCDC Projects 1984-Design and Production 42,450 October 1984- February 1985 I. T. Bird & Associates... Design and documentation of hydraulics for Chisholm Fire Station, Parliament House, and other projects in the Commission's approved program 7,300 April 1983- June 1985 Birtles Urban Planning... Planning Assistance-Belconnen... 9,500 July 1984- February 1985 John Bondfield Drafting ... Wanniassa Section 130-Flats and Town Houses-Contract Drafting 13,640 December 1984- July 1986 Bond James Laron & Murtagh Pty Ltd City Section 56 Community Facilities Chisholm Fire Station-Structural Engineering-Design and documentation 14,400 December 1983- October 1985 Brokans Landscape Design... National Capital Openspace System-Technical Assistance 40,400 September 1983- June 1985 W. P. Brown & Partners Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision of Civil Engineering works including Erindale Group Centre, Phillip Section 135 & 150, Stirling Section 46, Deakin Section 37, Phillip Section 103 & 130, City Section 37, Oaks Estate 1,113,502 April 1983- July 1986 Browne & Mau... Drafting Assistance... 40,000 July 1983- January 1985 BSP Technical Services Group Drafting Assistance... 18,750 June 1983- February 1985 Bunning and Madden... National Library-Asbestos Removal, Fire Restoration, Compactus Layout 517,271 December 1983- May 1986 Burchill & Partners... Woden-Weston Creek-Planning Assistance 30,000 August 1984- February 1985 Neil Burley Design... National Sports Centre-External Signs... 21,080 March 1984- September 1985 David Butcher... Museum of Australia-Animal Display... 3,400 May 1984- February 1985 P. F. Butler... RAN Memorial-Management Services... 10,000 October 1984- March 1986 Cameron Chisholm & Nicol Design documentation and supervision of houses and aged persons units in various areas of Canberra including 100 houses Florey/Oxley, 25 houses Wanniassa, 33 houses Kambah, 15 houses Holt, 12 houses and 11 APU's in Page 1,313,544 March 1983- December 1986 Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision of Civil Engineering works including Isabella Drive, Kaleen Section 27, Kambah Section 499, Erindale Drive also physical planning assistance in Tuggeranong 2,782,939 March 1983- April 1987 Canberra Archaeological Services Murrumbidgee River corridor and Museum of Australia archaeological survey 750 December 1984- May 1985 Canberra Colour Laboratories Parliamentary Zone Development Plan-Photographic work 3,834 May 1984- January 1985 Canberra Ornithologists Group Museum of Australia-Ornithological survey and Murrumbidgee River corridor bird survey 18,000 November 1983- June 1985 Canberra Publishing & Printing Pty Ltd Civic Centre-reprint policy/development plan 6,384 June 1984- September 1984 Cangraphics Pty Ltd... Drafting Assistance on various technical projects 244,611 May 1983- June 1985 D. J. Cant & Associates... Quantity surveyors services on sports science/medicine building and external works and landscape at National Sports Centre 147,862 May 1983- May 1985 Canterbury Design... Contract documentation for computer accommodation at Albermarle Building Phillip 14,500 January 1984- January 1985 Capital Drafting Consultants Drafting assistance on various technical projects including Tuggeranong Town Centre Metropolitan Policy Plan 222,165 July 1983- June 1985 Capital Territory Health Commission Metropolitan Air Quality Baseline Monitoring 28,000 July 1984- May 1985 Dr Owen Cartledge... Advice on soil conservation measures... 950 March 1985- July 1985 ABEL Chan... Technical computer service facilities-assistance 9,600 July 1984- June 1985 Civil & Civic Pty Ltd... Design documentation and supervision of Chisholm High School 559,081 October 1983- November 1985 Marc Clark... Rats of Tobruk Memorial-supervision of flame element 1,334 July 1984- September 1984 Cocks & Carmichael... Design documentation and supervision of 22 houses for Australian Defence Force Academy, 68 houses Florey, and 13 houses Waramanga 524,149 October 1983- October 1986 Coffey & Partners Pty Ltd... Geotechnical investigation in various areas including those for Museum of Australia, Australian War Memorial, Florey North East. 71,097 September 1983- September 1985 Collard Clarke & Jackson... Design documentation and supervision of architectural projects including Chisholm Fire Station, Telopea Park School, Scullin Bachelor Flats, Kambah High School modifications. 259,430 August 1983- April 1986 Collie Planning and Development Planning advice on joint venture for more affordable housing in the ACT 74,818 July 1984- June 1985 Coulston & Budd... Woden Parking and distributor road study and Natex/racecourse area transport subject plan study 27,000 June 1985- October 1985 Commercial Kitchen Consultants Design and documentation of Kitchen, Canberra TAFE 10,000 November 1983- April 1984 Construction Contract Services Contracts Dispute advice... 20,000 April 1985- May 1986 Contract Drafting & Design Associates Drafting assistance Belconnen Remand Centre and Campbell Park re-roofing 26,740 July 1984- June 1985 Coomairco... Contract documentation-refurbishing Treasury Building 4,920 June 1984- February 1985 Anthony Cooper & Associates... Design documentation and supervision of a number of projects, the more significant being- Museum of Australia-Exhibition Building, Cameron Offices security doors Parliament House temporary extensions 335,108 September 1983- March 1986 Coopers & Lybrand... Regatta Point kiosk-advice on tendering process 1,000 September 1984- January 1986 Corporate Graphics... Regatta Point-internal refurbishment... 10,160 May 1984- May 1985 Crain, S.A.... Computer advice on Management Information Systems 2,320 March 1985- April 1985 Peter Crone Pty Ltd... Design documentation and supervision of 35 houses Torrens Section 21, 48 houses Macquarie Section 55-57 and National Botanic Gardens Visitor Information Centre 502,907 September 1983- April 1987 CSIRO... Computing services on various projects eg. traffic engineering, land information system, rise/fall calculations, accident recording system 176,879 April 1983- August 1986 C. G. Cumming & Associates... Design documentation and supervision of Gorman House refurbishment and National Botanic Gardens Potting facility 128,000 August 1983- February 1986 Custodian Books Pty Ltd... Consultant advice on housing... 4,500 March 1985- June 1985 Dabro, A.... RAN Memorial-design development study... 3,000 July 1984- January 1985 Peter Dale & Julie Toms... Drafting advice-Fyshwick TAFE and Canberra TAFE 24,200 October 1983- September 1984 Datec Pty Ltd... Land information management system computing implementation 61,255 March 1983- October 1984 Davis, Barbara... Canberra Central Planning Assistance... 9,900 July 1984- February 1985 Davis, Heather & Dysart... Design, documentation and supervision of Weston Section 58, 40 government flats 227,280 January 1985- April 1986 Department of Health... Traffic modelling system-computing services... 13,774 August 1983- June 1985 Deputy Crown Solicitor... National Library-claim by consultants- legal fees 27,560 June 1984- September 1984 Designex... Drafting assistance to the Commission... 32,960 February 1984- June 1985 Devine Erby Mazlin... Design documentation and supervision of Calwell High School 1,087,800 February 1985- October 1987 Digital Equipment Corporation Technical Assistance-base mapping... 3,475 April 1985- June 1985 Dowling Freeman Pty Ltd... Conservation Management Plan Braddon Section 38, 42, and 43 8,000 September 1984- March 1985 Drafting & Support Services Drafting Assistance to the Commission... 190,996 July 1983- June 1985 Drake, Madeline... Enquiry into homelessness and inadequate housing in the ACT 27,000 October 1983- January 1985 DSB Industries Pty Ltd... Design documentation and supervision of landscaping projects including Kingsford Smith/Coulter Drive, Kaleen High School, Glebe Park, City, Woden Town Centre planting and landscape improvements, Woden Town Park, Fadden erosion control. 475,285 March 1983- December 1986 Duffy, Christopher... Documentation Assistance... 3,200 May 1985- January 1986 Max Dupain & Associates... Photographic Assistance... 3,920 June 1983- December 1984 Eckerman Investments Pty Ltd Traffic Accident System-Detailed Analysis... 2,850 September 1984- January 1985 Edgeley, Peter... Bicentennial Science Centre-Illustrations... 2,245 December 1984- March 1985 Edmond & Corrigan... Design documentation and supervision of National Sports Centre Services Building and 18 Aged Persons Units. Griffith Section 78. 265,600 July 1984- November 1986 Edwards Madigan Torzillo Briggs International Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision of National Sports Centre-Sports Medicine/Science Building, Various Minor Projects, High Court and Australian National Gallery and Design Proposals for Parliamentary Zone Development Plan. 1,027,033 April 1983- December 1985 Effects Design Modelmaking... Model making services including Parliamentary Zone lighting 5,750 July 4 1983- September 1984 Eggleston MacDonald & Secomb... Design documentation and supervision Fyshwick Fire Station-Motor Bay Ventilation System. 3,458 November 1983- September 1984 Richard Ellis Pty Ltd... City Section 38-Preparation of valuation.... 20,500 June 1985- July 1985 Engineering Computer Services... Computer aided drafting assistance, graphics software etc. 95,000 September 1983- June 1985 Engineering Exploration... Soil Teating Section 56 City-Structured Car parking 4,456 July 1984- January 1985 Enticott Polygraph... Photolitho Services... 3,760 March 1985- June 1985 ERU Research Services Pty Ltd Museum of Australia-Visitor Projections... 5,000 February 1985- May 1985 Evans Ink... Model Making Services... 15,546 November 1983- June 1985 Fahy, Noel... Computer Advice-Fees PAYE Tax System... 3,920 August 1984- October 1984 Finepress Offset Printing... Printing including that of the Metropolitan Report 18,375 September 1984- May 1985 Fitton, Annetee... Drafting Assistance... 1,891 June 1984- June 1985 Fitton, Nigel... Drafting Assistance... 202 July 1984- September 1984 Fitzgerald, R. W.... Computer Training Courses... 15,020 March 1983- May 1985 FMJM Partnership Pty Ltd... Design documentation and supervision-Treasury Building Taxation Computer Site Security 8,000 July 1983- June 1987 Forsite Consultants... Design documentation and supervision-landscaping Black Mountain Peninsula and Lake Burley Griffin 40,000 November 1984- June 1987 Gaunt & Kabaila... Russel Building C-Documentation assistance 14,000 February 1985- April 1985 General Counsel Pty Ltd.... Planning and development advice... 18,500 May 1983- June 1985 Gersan Pty Ltd... Design documentation and supervision Hindmarsh Drive landscaping improvements and landscape development plan Lanyon River Plain. 30,000 December 1984- July 1986 Gibb Australia... Design documentation and supervision of Royal Australian Mint-refitment. 793,620 June 1983- August 1986 Gillespie, Lyle... Gungahlin-Analysis of history... 1,200 May 1985- July 1985 Gnosys Software... Transfer of Air Quality Model to HP3000 computer 2,100 February 1985- June 1985 Godfrey & Spowers... Design documentation and supervision of a number of approved projects including Scarborough House computer accommodation, and Narrabundah Health and Day Care Centre extension. 126,336 October 1983- September 1986 Andrew Goldstone & Assoc. Russell Building `C'-Structural Feasibility Study 300 March 1985- April 1985 Gollings, John... Regatta Point Kiosk-photographic work... 13,550 October 1984- May 1985 W. J. Gordon... Design documentation and supervision Lake Burley Griffin foreshore development and other landscaping projects. 50,900 August 1983- April 1986 R. D. Gossip Pty Ltd... Design documentation and supervision civil engineering projects including Phillip Section 108, Carparking, Kingston shopping centre, Deakin traffic measures. 264,658 May 1983- September 1987 Rob Gourgaud & Associates Design documentation and supervision landscaping projects including Commonwealth Park, Aikman Drive and Kurringa Drive. 53,000 June 1984- August 1986 Government Printing Office... Microfilm services... 4,000 July 1984- June 1985 Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Design documentation and supervision of civil engineering projects including Florey, Stirling North, Chisholm, Gilmore and planning assistance in Woden/Weston Creek. 1,919,541 March 1983- December 1985 Billy Guy & Partners... Design documentation and supervision of civil engineering projects including site investigation on government housing, Ginninderra Creek bridge-Copland Drive cycleway, Torrens street improvements. 132,135 November 1984- September 1986 James Hanratty & John Dixon Aged Persons Housing-post occupancy evaluation 4,900 July 1984- June 1985 Harlock & Galli (ACT) Pty Ltd Insurance advice... 6,000 July 1984- March 1985 Harrison, B. A. ... Construction of models-various projects... 1,910 May 1984- September 1984 Heins, Diana... Metropolitan Planning Assistance... 10,000 August 1984- June 1985 Heweston, Peter... Computer Analysis-including graphics... 15,400 November 1984- June 1985 Hewlett Packard Australia Pty Ltd Computer training courses and software... 42,294 January 1984- June 1985 Hill Thompson & Sullivan... Legal advice to the Commission... 6,000 May 1983- June 1985 John K. Hindmarsh... Design documentation and supervision fees for Architects and Sub-Consultants engaged on project management projects-Australian War Memorial and Belconnen Health and Day Care Centre. 421,500 December 1983- June 1986 Diane Hinds Planning Services Preparation of Functional Briefs.... 12,129 May 1985- November 1985 David Hogg Pty Ltd... Environmental Planning-National Capital trail system; lakes/rivers survey. 29,500 January 1984- June 1985 Holzherr Trust... Computing services assistance.... 51,075 November 1983- June 1985 Hughes Trueman Ludlow Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision of civil engineering projects including including City Section 11, 41, 59 & 60, land development-Emu Ridge, Phillip, Lyneham North, Erindale Drive/Taverner Street, cycleway Aikman Drive to Kaleen, planning studies Metropolitan and inner Canberra. 2,332,735 March 1983- November 1987 Hutchinson, Brunhuber, Rosario Regatta Point Exhibition-Planning advice. 1,000 March 1984- September 1984 Ivanovic, Branko... National Capital Open Space System-Photography 2,991 February 1985- May 1985 Daryl Jackson Architects Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision, Bruce Section and external works and landscape, preliminary sketch plans Belconnen College 422,703 August 1983- June 1985 Jackson Teece Chesterman Willis Design documentation and supervision of projects including AFP computer and motor cycle facility Weston, Robert Garran Offices computer centre fitout 390,709 March 1983- December 1985 W. C. Jewell and Partners Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision of projects including Wanniassa Hills Primary School-ventilation improvements and modifications 78,046 March 1983- July 1985 Denis Johnston and Associates Computing advice on existing transport models, Tuggeranong Bus System Review 38,500 April 1984- June 1985 Keirnan Landscape Design... Documentation on landscaping projects including Isabella Plains West, Chisholm Section 575, Calwell East 11,500 September 1984- June 1985 Kevron Aerial Surveys... Aerial photography... 6,700 May 1984- June 1985 Keydata Pty Ltd... Data preparation and coding on various projects 18,188 May 1983- June 1985 Kinhill Stearns... Tuggeranong planning assistance... 24,200 August 1984- February 1985 Kiraly, Atilla... Photographic work-Museum of Australia... 800 June 1984- June 1985 K M Personnel... Drafting assistance on various projects... 83,500 July 1983- June 1985 Peter Knowland & Associates High Court-sound reinforcement system alterations 6,642 October 1983- May 1985 Leif Kristensen Pty Ltd... Design documentation and supervision aged persons units-Torrens and Pearce, Duffy Section 27, Macquarie and Duffy 217,000 March 1984- July 1986 Land Systems Pty Ltd... Final sketch plans-Landscaping Kings Park... 29,000 November 1984 Lansley Hayes & Storer... International Youth Year Project Survey... 15,000 April 1985- September 1985 Laser Graphics (NSW) Pty Ltd Photographic scanning... 670 August 1984- October 1984 G. C. & J. E. Lau & Associates Bruce Ridge geological assessment... 700 March 1985 D. R. Lawson Associates Pty Ltd Quamby Childrens Centre-cost estimate... 2,000 November 1984 Leith Bartlett & Partners Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision of houses in Richardson/Chisholm, Holt, Gilmore/Oxley, upgrading houses in Narrabundah, Child Care Centres-Wanniassa, Kambah and Belconnen 1,069,204 March 1983- May 1986 Lester Firth & Associates... Design documentation and supervision of projects including Belconnen Town Centre Town Park, AFP Majura Complex buildings, houses in Emu Ridge 499,009 November 1983- December 1986 Lincolne Scott Australia Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision of mechanical services for projects including Australian National Gallery additional chillers, natural gas packages, dust and fume control ACT schools 123,445 June 1983- February 1986 Lobley Treidel Davies... Tender assessment-audio/visual Russell Drive Offices 4,000 June 1983- May 1984 J. K. Lorimer & Associates... Quantity surveyors services Provisional Parliament House temporary extensions 27,500 August 1984- July 1985 MacDonald, C. ... Drafting assistance-Parliamentary Zone Development Plan 5,563 April 1984- May 1985 MacIntosh A. W.... Consulting advice on land development and hydraulic projects 4,000 February 1985- July 1985 Bruce Mackenzie & Associates Landscaping Development Plan-Hall Village and functional brief-Tuggeranong Town Centre 24,457 December 1983- June 1985 Margules & Partners Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision of landscaping projects including North Curtin, horse holding paddocks, Canberra Station to ACT/NSW Border railway line. Kaleen remedial landscaping, Haig Park plantings, Molonglo Reach development, Emu Ridge, Grevillea Park 306,930 March 1983- October 1986 Matrix management... Architects and sub-consultants fees on project management works Robert Garran Offices and Civic Offices. 23,327 May 1984- June 1985 Maunsell & Partners Pty Ltd... Design documentation and supervision on civil engineering projects including Parliament House access roads, Tuggeranong Town Centre roads and bridges, Kings Avenue Bridge widening, pedestrian/cycleway, Weston Park development, Brindabella Road, Tuggeranong Village Creek Weir, Belconnen planning studies 4,041,433 March 1983- September 1987 McAlastar Crombie... Advice on town planning.... 1,500 June 1985- August 1985 MCB Investments Pty Ltd... Drafting assistance and computing services... 61,370 April 1984- June 1985 John McCarthy & Associates... Computer graphics... 12,000 February 1985- June 1985 Don McColl Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision of civil engineering projects including Kambah pedestrian overpass across Drakeford Drive, Belconnen Police Station roof modifications 51,673 July 1984- June 1986 McConnel Smith & Johnson... Design documentation and supervision of various minor projects at Benjamin Offices, Belconnen 31,063 June 1984- June 1985 Lawson McCowan... Planning advice on Lanyon, Tuggeranong... 25,000 April 1985- August 1985 McLachlan Group Pty Ltd... Parliamentary Zone-program planning... 25,000 March 1984- June 1985 John McLean & Associates... Computing services advice... 1,938 November 1984- February 1985 Phil McMaster Pty Ltd... Design documentation and supervision of landscaping and architectural projects including Gibraltar Falls/Woods Reserve, Namadgi National Park signs, Tuggeranong Ambulance Station 87,104 August 1983- March 1986 McNeill, Barry... Design documentation and supervision of Calwell East Primary School 421,500 December 1984- November 1986 Mercury Walch... Preparation of base mapping contour sheets-Gungahlin 5,000 October 1983- January 1985 Metha, N. M.... Drafting assistance... 43,000 August 1983- June 1985 Mitchell Walker Wright... Australian War Memorial visualisation study 3,000 June 1984- October 1984 Monahan, Margaret... Technical assistance-Tuggeranong Town Centre... 7,100 May 1984- February 1985 Muir, Tim... Planning assistance-Gungahlin... 17,700 September 1984- August 1985 Mulcahy & Associates... Project management-claims examination... 54,000 April 1984- June 1985 Munns Sly & Associates Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision of houses and aged persons units including Narrabundah, Stirling, Watson, Higgins, Farrer, Latham, Scullin, Kaleen, Downer, Hackett (aged persons units); upgrading houses O'Connor, Yarralumla 765,554 March 1983- March 1987 Nada Drafting Services... Drafting assistance... 5,400 September 1984- June 1985 R. J. Nairn & Partners Pty Ltd Traffic consultant advice on a range of issues including intersection locations, Parkes Way/Kings Avenue intersection improvements, city parking and distributor road study, traffic improvements, Phillip 58,659 April 1984- November 1985 National Library of Australia Photograph of 18th Century Plan of Rome... 350 November 1984- May 1985 Neilson Associates Pty Ltd... Metropolitan planning assistance... 62,300 September 1984- August 1985 Nelson English Loxton and Andrews City parking-pay parking implementation 18,000 September 1984- April 1985 Neoplex Pty Ltd... Australian Institute of Sport-Information Centre sign 283 January 1985- May 1985 Newman, Fay... Programming analysis... 27,300 April 1985- November 1985 Lawrence Nield & Partners... Bicentennial Science Centre-feasibility study and design documentation and supervision of minor works at Royal Canberra Hospital 16,862 July 1984- June 1985 Murray Northrop Pty Ltd... Structural engineering advice on slab and footing design for housing and bachelor flats, Phillip Section 95 12,800 February 1984- October 1986 NSW State Pollution Control Commission Air and water quality monitoring and evaluation. 9,700 June 1985- October 1985 Nupeld Pty Ltd ... Computing advice-management information system. 32,432 February 1985- August 1985 Nymphs Nominees Pty Ltd Documentation on land servicing, Theodore and McKellar. 16,700 September 1984- April 1985 OCE-Reprographics Ltd ... Cartography/publication. 5,000 October 1983- September 1984 Pak Poy & Kneebone Pty Ltd Russell parking study and transport planning. 8,000 September 1984- July 1985 Paragon Printers ... Photo-litho services. 2,748 May 1984- January 1985 Partech ... Documentation on Reid TAFE and refurbishing Treasury Building. 4,000 February 1984- February 1985 PDCM Pty Ltd ... Design documentation and supervision of projects including Barton Cafeteria, final sketch plans McKellar Primary School, redevelopment Garema Place, Landscaping Commonwealth Park Stage 7, Kambah Park, John Knight Park. 628,500 March 1983- June 1986 Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. Advice on tendering process-Regatta Point Kiosk. 1,000 September 1984- January 1985 Dimitry Pedashenko Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision fees for architect and sub-consultants-Kaleen Community Hall. 17,000 June 1983- October 1984 Pelmount Pty Ltd ... Drafting assistance. 32,000 May 1984- June 1985 Phillip Cox & Partners Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision of projects including Benjamin Offices-SMOS computer; Phillip 95-102 and 130-38 flats and 17 houses; 1985 World Cup inspection of track surfaces. 602,157 April 1983- February 1987 Photo-Pol Pty Ltd ... Photography for report on Tuggeranong Town Centre and photolitho assistance. 8,318 September 1984- June 1985 Plant Location International Local centre size and function study. 9,350 April 1985- May 1985 Precision Drafting Services ... Drafting civil/hydraulic services, Chisholm. 5,100 January 1985- March 1985 Project Coordination (Australia) Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision fees for architect and sub-consultants on Belconnen College. 1,646,888 May 1985- July 1987 Professor Pryor ... Study on future introduction of exotic plants. 5,000 September 1983- October 1984 QCOM Pty Ltd ... Professional computing advice. 640 January 1985- June 1985 QUAY Partnership Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision, Chisholm Primary School. 392,789 December 1983- December 1985 Raffen Maron Architects Pty Ltd Final sketch plans National Exhibition Centre-New Exhibition Centre, Research brief, National Botanic Gardens. 307,289 February 1984- February 1987 Rank Xerox ... Audio/visual design and documentation Russell Drive Offices; colour photocopying Museum of Australia. 18,085 June 1983- June 1985 Rankin Construction Services Documentation Fyshwick TAFE. 8,000 March 1984- January 1985 Rankin and Hill Pty Ltd ... Documentation Fyshwick TAFE and air conditioning to coaches offices, National Sports Centre. 19,943 March 1984- August 1985 Read, Bert ... Design documentation and supervision MacArthur Pre-School and Health Clinic. 42,194 September 1984- December 1985 Bert, Read, Neil Renfree and Associates ... Design documentation and supervision Weston School of Horticulture extensions Stage 3. 55,000 May 1984- June 1986 Reece, Keith ... Museum of Australia-drafting assistance. 96 June 1984- September 1984 Regency Offset Studio Pty Ltd Printing of National Capital Open Space System brochure. 1,750 June 1985 Neil Renfree & Associates Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision-29 houses Scullin Section 2, upgrading 35 houses Narrabundah, Regatta Point redevelopment and kiosk, modification to Palaeontology Store, Fyshwick. 283,597 August 1983- September 1985 Rider Hunt & Partners Pty Ltd Quantity surveying services-National Sports Centre administration and residential accommodation, cost advice on other projects 181,251 June 1983- July 1985 Dr N. Rosengren... National Capital Open Space System-sites of significance 9,788 December 1984- June 1985 W.O. Ross & Associates Pty Ltd Design and documentation and supervision natural gas packages and documentation of mechanical services in buildings including Russell Drive Offices. 60,000 April 1983- January 1986 Rudd & Partners Pty Ltd... Design documentation and supervision of natural gas package and advice on mechanical/electrical works 30,700 September 1983- June 1985 Scott and Furphy Pty Ltd... Design documentation and supervision of land development and civil engineering works including: Oxley site servicing O'Malley site servicing Kaleen site servicing Isaacs site servicing and roadworks in Tuggeranong and Belconnen. 3,259,341 April 1983- June 1985 Harry Seidler & Associates... Documentation of fire protection works at the National Library 17,140 September 1984- January 1985 Seligson & Clare Aust.... Compilation of user program for exception dictionary MCS20 660 October 1983- January 1985 K.S. Sellick & Associates... Civil Engineering works at Birrigai Recreation Camp 2,500 August 1984- December 1984 Paul Siddell... Regatta Point Kiosk-evaluation of expressions of interest 600 September 1984- January 1985 Sinclair Knight & Partners... Design documentation and supervision of the North Lanyon Trunk Sewer 239,000 February 1985- June 1987 Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Administrative Building Refurbishment Stage 3-Engineering Sub-Consultancy - July 1983- January 1985 Software System Builders... Computer Trial of System HP3000 500 January 1985- March 1985 T.J. Southwell... To provide Computer Programming Assistance on LIMS 7,548 March 1985- June 1985 Span... Regatta Point-Internal Refurbishment, Model and Color Processing for Display Panels 46,483 July 1984- June 1985 J.M. Still & Associates... To provide QS Services on various projects including Chisholm Fire Station 53,100 August 1983- September 1984 Strine Design... Design documentation and supervision of Weston Creek Neighbourhood Landscaping 10,000 November 1983- May 1985 Systematics Information... Creation of Library System and provide training course 47,000 September 1984- June 1985 Enrico Taglietti and Maddox... Design documentation and supervision of additional works and landscaping at Gowrie Primary School 7,171 March 1983- May 1985 Howard Tanner & Associates Pty Ltd Design documentation and supervision works at Lanyon Homestead and a conservation study for the provisional Parliament House 122,682 March 1983- June 1985 Russell Taylor and William Burrell Planning Study for Development of Gungahlin New Town. 406,800 May 1984- June 1985 Technician International (NSW) To provide drafting assistance as DH&C sub-Consultants and contract employment to NCDC on various projects which include Russell Drive Offices, Fyshwick TAFE, Chisholm West Land Development, ACT Water Quality Baseline Monitoring, Campbell Park Offices and Isabella Plains East Land Development. 111,874 August 1983- December 1984 Tekdata... Drafting Assistance.... 2,500 September 1984- June 1985 Tract Consultants... Design to Final Sketches on Parliamentary Zone North. 15,000 February 1984- September 1984 Traffic Counting Supplies... Hire of paper tape reader for Fisher and Porter tapes. 1,000 December 1983- March 1985 Traffic Engineering Services Design and supervision, Drafting Assistance and advice on traffic signposting and guidesigns at various intersections throughout the ACT. 30,625 April 1983- September 1984 Traffic Planning Pty Ltd... Provision of Transport Planning advice.... 1,000 November 1984- February 1985 A. Tzannes... Design, documentation and supervision of Government Houses and Flats at Hawker and Waramanga. 150,774 April 1984- December 1985 Union Offset Co. Pty Ltd... To provide printing services including that for the Metropolitan Policy Plan. 5,302 August 1984- May 1985 University of New England... Visit by Professor Jacobs to NCDC... 1,000 April 1985- May 1985 Vamtell Pty Ltd... Replacement of CSIRO Node... 2,500 December 1984- June 1985 Vee-H Aviation Pty Ltd... To provide aerial photography for NCDC... 2,890 March 1983- January 1985 Robin Wade Design Associates... Provision of internal display and exhibition of Museum of Australia. 17,000 May 1985- June 1985 Derek Walker & Associates... Visit by Derek Walker to Museum of Australia site. 670 July 1984- January 1985 Walker Drafting Services... To provide drafting service for land development packages at Giralang, Theodore and Calwell. 24,500 December 1983- September 1984 Wargon, Chapman and Associates Location and structural checking for Compactus at Bruce TAFE. 60 February 1985- March 1985 Barry Webb & Associates... Design and supervision of Parliamentary Zone lighting and manufacture of prototype fitting for Parliamentary Zone. 181,000 October 1983- February 1985 Weir and O'Neill Pty Ltd... Design documentation and supervision of engineering projects associated with development in BTC, TTC, Fadden, WTC, Narrabundah and ANBG carpark. 292,838 October 1983- October 1984 G. Willemsen... Development plan of O'Malley, Section 32... 10,000 July 1984- January 1985 Willing and Partners... Design documentation and supervision of various stormwater projects and other engineering projects, including Black Mountain, Sullivans Creek, Page, Lyneham, Deakin, Latham and Tuggeranong stormwater and engineering projects (land servicing) such as Macquarie, Kambah, Gowrie, Evatt, Florey and Gungahlin. 1,343,563 August 1983- June 1985 Wilson Enterprises Pty Ltd... Geotechnical investigations at Canberra TAFE-Calwell, Civic and Stranger. 11,180 December 1983- January 1985 Wise and Horton... Quantity surveying services for Fadden Primary School, Wanniassa, Section 130 and Birrigai General Purpose Hall. 64,000 May 1983- April 1985 B. A. Wittmark... Translation of technical paper for Museum of Australia. 200 March 1985- March 1985 Mr H. Wommellsdorff... Provision of technical services on land services projects. 34,820 July 1983- October 1984 Woollard, Mitchell and Young... Quantity surveying services for Administrative Building, Fyshwick TAFE, Treasury Building, Woden TAFE Child Care Facility and Reid Housing Advice. 93,505 July 1983- April 1985 W.T. Partnership... Area and cost analysis for ACT primary schools... 31,000 April 1985- June 1985 R. A. Young & Associates... Design documentation and supervision for engineering projects, including Bruce NSC external works, stages 6A and 6B, Bruce to Kaleen cycleway, intersection improvements at Southern Cross Drive and Ratcliffe Crescent, design investigation for Gungahlin arterial roads, carpark for National Associations Centre, Tennis Centre at Chisholm and roads and hydraulics services at Theodore. 300,211 August 1983- May 1985 Yuncken Freeman Pty Ltd... Design documentation and supervision of remedial works at Canberra Theatre Centre and hoist modifications. 18,808 March 1983- November 1983 ATTACHMENT B Architects, Mitchell/Giurgola & Thorp Architects. Construction Manager, Concrete Holland Joint Venture. Cost Planner, Rawlinson Roberts & Associates. Project Planner, McLachlan Group Pty Ltd. Sound and Vision Consultant, Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Communications Consultant, Telecom Australia. Security Consultant, Department of Housing and Construction. Insurance Consultant, Sedgwick Pty Ltd. Stonework Consultant, Australian Mineral Development Laboratories (AMDEL). Structural Engineer, Irwin Johnston & Partners. Services Engineer, Joseph R. Loring & Associates. Landscape Architect, Peter G. Rolland & Associates. Quantity Surveyor, Donald Cant, Watts, Hawes & Lee Pty Ltd. Earthworks Consultant, Scott & Furphy Engineers Pty Ltd. Refreshment Services Consultant, Commercial Kitchen Consultants Pty Ltd. Consulting Acoustical and Vibration Engineers, Louis A. Challis & Associates. Pty Ltd. Lighting Consultants, George Sexton Associates. GEC/Phillips Opera Housing Lighting Co. Pty Ltd. Architectural Hardware Consultant, Keeler Hardware Pty Ltd. Life Safety Consultant, Rolf Jensen & Associates Inc. Water Features Consultant, ARMM Consultants Inc. Flag Hoisting Consultant, Alan Payne & Partners Pty Ltd. Flagmast Access Consultant, Johns Perry Lifts. Geotechnical Consultant, Coffey & Partners Pty Ltd. Concrete Technology Consultant, Bemac Laboratories Pty Ltd. Wind Consultant, Professor W. Melbourne. Steel Pre-order Consultant, Johns Perry Ltd. Welding Inspection, Metlab Mapel Pty Ltd. Flagmast Elastic Stability Consultant, Professor P. Grundy. Professor L. C. Schmidt. Services Consultants, Norman Disney & Young, W. E. Bassett & Partners Pty Ltd, Ledingham Hensby Oxley & Partners Pty Ltd. Civil Engineering Consultant, Maunsell & Partners Pty Ltd. Irrigation Consultant, Irrigation Design Consultants. The cost to the Authority of services provided by consultants during the period April 1983 to April 1985 was $25.8 million. (Question No. 3429) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 19 March 1986: What was the (a) property and (b) capital expenditure on Australian diplomatic missions opened during 1984-85 in (i) Addis Ababa, (ii) Brunei, (iii) Budapest, (iv) Geneva, (v) Kathmandu, (vi) Port Louis, (vii) Riyadh and (viii) Shanghai. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Property Expenditure 1984-85 (i) Addis Ababa...98,281 (ii) Brunei...409,079 (iii) Budapest...135,664 (iv) Geneva...190,453 (v) Kathmandu...197,134 (vi) Port Louis...548,325 (vii) Riyadh...2,469,192 (viii) Shanghai...1,241,705 This `Property Expenditure' is the cost incurred against funds provided in Appropriation Bill No. 1. Amounts mentioned contain rent costs, utility costs, furniture costs, car running costs, etc. (b) Capital Expenditure 1984-85: (i) Addis Ababa...24,104 (ii) Brunei...Nil (iii) Budapest...28,054 (iv) Geneva...Nil (v) Kathmandu...Nil (vi) Port Louis...48,139 (vii) Riyadh...997,800 (viii) Shanghai...Nil This `Capital Expenditure' is the cost incurred against funds provided in Appropriation Bill No. 2. (Question No. 3646) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) Has New Zealand's stance on the visits of United States ships to its ports resulted in 22 military exercises programmed for 1986 being cancelled or restructured and approximately 6000 man days of training being lost. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The disagreement between the United States and New Zealand has not resulted in the cancellation of any Australian sponsored combined exercises, nor have any training opportunities been lost by Australia. Twelve exercises were previously listed as ANZUS exercises. These exercises are now conducted as separate bilateral exercises between Australia and the United States, or Australia and New Zealand. (Question No. 3647) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) What has been the additional cost to the Defence budget as a result of specific exercises carried out with New Zealand following the break down of tripartite co-operation under the ANZUS alliance. (2) How are these costs broken up. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I refer the honourable member to my answer to question on notice No. 3155 (Hansard, 13 March 1986, page 1389). (Question No. 3664) Mr White asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 8 April 1986: (1) Has he stated that Australia does not have the tourist infrastructure to cope with a large number of Japanese tourists. (2) Is it a fact that the 1984-85 annual report of his Department indicates that (a) average room occupancy in Australia falls as low as 53 per cent and (b) firm commitments in the construction of tourism accommodation at June 1985 were $3,500 million. (3) Has he referred the matter of tourist infrastructure to the Kennedy Committee for investigation; if not, will he do so. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I refer the honourable member to my answer in the House of Representatives on 29 November 1985 to a substantially similar question without notice from Mr Jull and to my subsequent press release of 6 December 1985. (2)- (a) My Department's 1984-85 annual report indicated that in the four quarters to March 1985 hotel and motel room occupancy rates did not fall below 53.8 per cent. (b) Yes. (3) No. I would not wish to delay the work of the inquiry by adding substantially to its terms of reference at this late stage. (Question No. 3722) Mr Carlton asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 10 April 1986: (1) What was the cost of the (a) site and (b) construction of the carpark in Cowper Wharf Roadway, Woolloomooloo, New South Wales. (2) How many car spaces were provided. (3) What is the average level of occupancy of the carpark. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- (a) The Commonwealth obtained the site for the Department of defence in an exchange with the local council for Commonwealth land which was transferred to the council for the re-alignment of a roadway. I am advised by the Department of Defence in respect of the remaining issues that; (b) The carpark was completed at a cost of $19.83 million which included $2.26m for demolitions, relocation of services, roadways, etc. (2) 1,200 car spaces were provided. (3) Average occupancy is currently 1,050. (Question No. 3772) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 14 April 1986: What (a) were the amounts paid to and (b) projects undertaken by Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their associated companies, or principals of those companies, for work on behalf of the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The amounts paid to Mr Phillip Adams are (i) 1983-84-Nil (ii) 1984-85-$1,293.00 and (iii) 1985-86-$601.00. Payments made to his associated company Monahan Dayman and Adams Pty Ltd are (i) 1983-84-Nil (ii) 1984-85-Nil and (iii) 1985-86-$6,666.23. The payments to Mr Phillip Adams relate to his statutory office of Chairman of the Commission for the Future and were paid for sitting fees, in accordance with the rates set by the Remuneration Tribunal. The payments to Monahan Dayman and Adams Pty Ltd relate to reimbursement of moneys paid by the company for Mr Adams airfares, accommodation, taxi fares and telephone calls for attendance at Commission meetings and for the transaction of other Commission business. No payments have been made to Mr Rod Cameron or his company. (b) There have been no projects undertaken by either Mr Phillip Adams or Mr Rod Cameron or their associated companies in (i) 1983-84, (ii) 1984-85 and (iii) 1985-86 to the date of answering this question.